FedaykinSea Gripen should be much easier to modify for carrier operations, & SAAB has publicly discussed the modifications needed for both carrier landings & catapult launches.
Sea Gripen wouldn’t be an interim solution, SAAB are hardly going to lease them so it would have to be a straight purchase.
That would be a purchase of an aircraft that is still only a paper concept with all the added risk that entails. Also it no way meets the RAF requirements for penetration strike as a Tornado replacement and I have a hunch if you dug out the FAAs requirements it would be the same story.
Super Hornet (and Rafale M) is a real aircraft available at short notice, it has shown to be capable of penetration strike and its modern. Even better if it is an interim solution the USN will be happy to take them back at the end of lease.
Go with Sea Gripen and you end up supporting an aircraft that might encounter significant problems in development and doesn’t meet core FAA or RAF requirements.
FedaykinI think something needs to be laid to rest as I a significant amount of confusion here!
Any interim lease or purchase by the UK WILL NOT INVOLVE THE LEGACY HORNET!!! That is F/A18A/B/C or D!
Firstly there are none available from the US secondly there are none available from international operators. Even if there were they would be either too worn out or in limited numbers for UK operations.
Any interim purchase or lease will involve the F/A18E/F Super Hornet (or Rafale – maybe those mothballed Rafale M – F1). In respect of the Super Hornet it could be made available for lease fairly easily from US stocks, as it is Boeing have capacity to ramp up production if needed.
FedaykinIndeed, ASRAAM was selected in 1998 for the Hornet fleet. As the Super Hornet is technically an interim solution for the RAAF they decided to stick to the standard USN fit and adopt AIM-9X for them.
FedaykinBut what is there to stop the Iranians from buying a few dozen Su-30MKs today, money, politics?
You would think that the Iranians would have done so by now, considering the age of the Tomcats, and of course, Iran’s dire immediate need for an air defence fighter.
The reasons are numerous and quite complex actually, firstly recent sanctions put in by Russians against Iran counts out a purchase now anyway.
In the past the reasons were down to:
Lack of satisfaction with Russian types already in the fleet.
Lack of technology transfer in comparison to the days of being a US client state.
What people don’t realise is during the days of the Shah the technology transfer offered to Iran by America was significant. As part of the defence contracts set up around the F14 and other types like helicopters included massive technology transfer. The US had to set up in effect manufacturer level overhaul facilities in Iran, that is one of the main reasons they have been able to keep their large but elderly US fleet going. Russia is not prepared to offer anywhere near that kind of ToT.
Another issue is a general distrust of the Air Force by the high ups in the regieme which has led to a lack of funding for new procurement.
Finally is bangs for bucks against strategic goals…to put together an airforce with equipment that is credible against its neighbours would be an expensive exercise and probably futile. On the other hand investing in IRBM, anti ship missiles and asymetric technologies like cyber warfare are far more effective in meeting their strategic goals and maintaining a deterrence against attacks.
FedaykinTrue but then the F18 has economies of scale in its favour and has had ASRAAM integrated. AMRAAM could continue in service on the F18 with meteor only integrated on the Typhoon.
Both would need to integrate brimsone. how different are Scalp & Stormshadow.Tough Call but Id go with F18 if only to avoid “TYPHOON so good its main operator had to buy Rafale” sales pitches not to mention trolling
Super Hornet doesn’t have ASRAAM integrated, Hornet does.
I think Super Hornet would be the more likely and popular choice within the FAA and RAF for that matter. Its a proven mature platform and they can be made available on short notice. As for integrating ASRAAM on Super Hornet it comes down to a cost based equation of integration vs adoption of AIM-9X. Then again an austere ASRAAM integration wouldn’t cost much, it can use the same pylons and wiring as Sidewinder. It has a Sidewinder emulation mode for aircraft lacking the code and hardware for a full integration of the missile.
FedaykinThe F-35 won’t be dominating anything except more negative news. The Super Hornet? Well, it will need the F-22 to clear the skies.
Well I’m sure you will tell us of any further problems with the F-35.
As for the F-22 clearing the skies for the Super Hornet – doubt it! F-22 will be grounded (as usual) somewhere on the continental united states. Considering the Super Hornet operates off the big stick that is the US Super carrier fleet and has global reach.
Super Hornet operating with HMD, AIM9X, AIM120D supported by tankers and AEW&C is a potent force to be reckoned with. It also has link 16 meaning it can actually TALK to the rest of the battle space unlike the F-22 which has its own datalink.
FedaykinWe should feel lucky that you are the one to determine who is welcome on this forum and signify that it is a critical environment.
I know I’m awesome like that…:cool:
As I said all are welcome but don’t feel upset when there are differing viewpoints.
FedaykinDo you have an effect on the content of APA ? Unless you do, I would not even bother, as I have stated before, throw away comments cheap jibes and not answering direct questions seems to be fine on here if you are bagging the F35 program.
As far as I can make out Horde is Carlo Kopp…he is a recent arrival on this forum. Up till now the forum has been fairly balanced on the matter of the F-35 with both pro and anti being cordial on the matter. Now show any hint of support and the APA chorus will shout you down as a LM stooge.
The thing is in respect of Carlo and APA there are things I agree on, I think the APA site is an excellent resource for the lay person on matters like radar and surface to air missiles and I agree with Carlo on the subject if UAV/UCAV/AUCAV in respect of their limitations. Its other things that grate:
Fantasy Australian air force building aroung the F22/F111/KC747
Suggesting every other allied nation should select F22 (an aircraft not for sale) for all roles included carrier operations
Suggesting that every new Chinese or Russian fighter will thrash all western fighters except the F22
The article on the Typhoon comparing it to a legacy Hornet
Article suggesting UK should replace already inducted Typhoon for F16 (almost had me choking it was so bonkers)
Article suggesting Fleet air arm should induct the F22
Carlo getting a flight in Super Hornet then writing glowing report about it – then flipping to how awful the aircraft is when the RAAF does the sensible thing and buys it over the F22 (again not for sale) and retiring his beloved F111 (he doesn’t like being called out in this one – expecting a rant)
So Carlo and the contributers of APA you are more then welcome on this forum but please do understand this is a critical environment.
FedaykinAnd in the case of Australia and the F-35, the timeframe for that development (late 2030s onwards) coincides with an era of unprecedented strategic vulnerability for the nation.
This isn’t the first time I have read something so paranoid coming from Australia. Really?! Why this constant feeling that the invasion barges are ready to roll tanks onto the beaches of Australia!
Even when the Japanese were rampaging across the Pacific and Australias defences were minimal the risk of invasion was minor. Anybody who picked a fight with Australia now would be in a world of hurt and that includes China.
FedaykinOH NO! The thread is doomed!!!:diablo:
Now it will be a debate on wether Scotland should procure Chinese or Russian defence equipment!
Expect tit for tat posts with a hundred short quotes!:cool:
FedaykinI believe the only official statement the SNP have made on aircraft procurement is a desire to induct some refurbished P3C Orion to patrol the oil fields etc.
After that well the would be entitled to a share of UK defence equipment albeit I have a hunch that they would ask to swap the monetry value of the equipment for a write off a proportion of the national debt they would have to take on.
I would think a few Grob Tutors would be desirable but if they intend to only operate a few MPA it would probably be easier and cheaper to farm out advanced training to another airforce. A number of air forces including the RAF will happily take on students for a fee.
SAR would be another issue but they could just farm it out to civilian contractors as planned anyway.
I think they have been interested in taking some of the Type 23 so they would need helicopters for that but again they could take a share of the UK Lynx.
Frankly defence is the weakest aspect of SNP policy so they try and avoid it in discussions…they keep on saying how they want to maintain Scottish regiments and other capabilities but are completely isolationist. I get a further hunch that on independence a great many Scottish personel would rather head south and stay in an armed force that might just see some combat.
I actually feel that Westminister should start calling the SNP’s bluff more on defence, for example start proper planning to move ALL Nuclear submarines not just Trident south of the border. Lets see how voters in those Scottish constituancies like it when their jobs are threatened because of those CND hugging pacifists of the SNP!!! Ignoring those whazocks of Trident to Ploughshares I would think the people of Devonport would very much welcome the prospect of a full move!
FedaykinBut it is a darn sight cheaper putting Lynx/Wildcat on the Frigate/Destroyer fleet. Also Sea King/Merlin were too big for the Type 42, it is an adequate solution for the role it is intended for which is jack of all trades! Lynx can provide over the horizon targeting and can drop Stingray on a target designated by the Frigate…
Fedaykinuh huh…
if unit price really 150mn US$ it would be cheaper if US keep producing F-22 and make a downgraded export variant that lack everything for its alies :confused:
Because a downgraded F-22 is not what many allies or USN/Marine Corp would want. As it stands its an over rated, over priced, fragile, out of date, maintenance hog that can’t operate well with other types.
Most allied nations want a single engine replacement for the F-16 or something that can operate off their small STOVL carriers…no amount of downgrading or fiddling with the design will shoehorn the F-22 into those needs. In the case of the UK they want something that:
a)Can operate off a carrier.
b)A credible replacement for GR4 in the penetration strike role.
c)Has significant involvement for UK PLC.
Is the F-35 a troubled program…yes. But we are far to far down the line now to start all over again. Frankly this forum is starting to turn into an APA echo chamber on the matter of the F-35…I can’t help it if Boo-Hoo the Australian Air Force didn’t buy a jet that wasn’t even for sale in the first place but please realise that not everybody here is entirely against this program.
FedaykinI would say contracted.
As for this issue, lets see what happens after the design changes are made. I have a hunch that once it is worked on it will be a non issue in the same way as the melted deck non issue!
FedaykinWell the MBDA Meteor issue was due to the fins being to large for internal carriage. Apparenty MBDA plan to remedy that with a clipped fin variant, external carriage presented no issue.
As for ASRAAM that is a bit more bemusing, it’s designed to be compatible with any aircraft wired for Sidewinder. I wonder if it’s more to do with UK gov not wanting to pick up integration costs.
Sign In
