FedaykinI will just add my dismay to this thread. As already stated the entire program has become a joke. It is a demonstration of the indecisiveness of the UK government towards major defense programs that has existed for nearly a decade now, The same constant delaying can be seen with what used to be the FSC program. Its pathetic, expensive and highly damaging to the UK armed forces. I would not at all surprised to see the CVF project die a death, it was realy a product of Blairs interventionist foreign policy, Browns on the other hand seems to be ‘RUN AWAY!!!’.
What really frustrates me is every time somebody asks a government official about British defence purchasing they proudly say they are going to buy the aircraft carriers. They have been saying this as a stock answer for the last ten years now and frankly its wearing thin!
FedaykinThere was something on one of the French news agencies this week that suggested that the new French government are not looking to sign off on it until next year anyway regardless of what Brown does 🙁
Yeah I saw that as well, considering the only way the carrier’s are going to be built is with French money and input it is worrying development. At best it means yet more delays.
The only good news I have seen recently is the MOD is considering the purchase of a couple of F35 from the initial LRIP batch allowing testing to start in 2008.
FedaykinProbably wasting your time European, sadly the UK government is being very quiet about the CVF program and the French are wavering over going ahead with PA2 themselves.
The whole program has turned into a farce with the main outcome being the destruction of the RN as a capable blue water navy.
FedaykinHey Fed: yeah mate I remember the chat, and yes you guys did try to offer us some Batch one Dukes, Back then the RAN said that they didn’t want the Vickers 4.5″ gun nor the Sea Dart system and as for the Olympus engines, they didn’t match our LM2500’s and cost of changing the entire system was going ton prove too much even with the bargin price that was offered for each hull.
The Meko modular system has proven itself to be the way to go. Addition of the CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT systems is a clear case of how easy it is to change the systems fitted with the systems being developed. It will be interesting to see how the CEAFAR system intergrates with the SPY-1F on our new Hobarts. And what is more interesting will be what the RAN will get to replace the “Sydney class” vessels in service. I agree with the 4 new Hobarts since we now only have four FFG’s in service depleating our current fleet units. With this the question becomes will the RAN buy Six hulls to replace the FFG’s on a one for one basis, or will they only buy four settling for a lessor fleet which is being shown now?
Duke class uses the Marine Spey and Seawolf rather than Sea Dart and Olympus, your probably getting mixed up with the Type 42 we tried to sell you earlier.
I did some digging into my books and I found that the UK did do some tests with the Sea Zenith which showed issues with the system. Apparently it suffered from severe vibration and the guns interefered with each other leading to an overly wide spread of fire.
FedaykinHi Ja,
I remember chatting with you before about Sea Zenith, the closest you will get to a British CIWS system yet it’s not used by any RN ship.
I think Australia got a good deal out of the ANZACS, frankly other navies should take note. In most cases for policing duties you don’t need all the blue chip weapon systems. At least in the future the RAN has the option of adding in more weapon systems and making drastic changes to the equipment fit with relative ease. In comparison my own RN might have a good frigate in the Type 23 (didn’t we try and sell them to you sometime?)but its very much built arround the systems and weapons it was built with making major upgrades difficult.
FedaykinOr go through frustrating byzantine legislative bargaining to get them. Lockmart nearly had enough of US Congress restrictions in exporting AMRAAM to have seriously considered once talking to Vympel in getting R-77s on export F-16s.
Slightly odd, if that was the case I would of thought Lockmart would look to the MBDA MICA. In any case most F16 sales are FMS packages including weapons and training.
FedaykinIf Im being honest, I have a sneaky feeling that theres more chance of one of the surviving Victors getting airbourne again than COncorde. Yes Id love to see Concorde airbourne again, I used to live in South Croydon and at 6pm Id be in my garden gazing skywards to see her fly overhead, but alas, no more 😡 🙁 Bex
Yep.
To get Concord in the air again like the Vulcan you need support of the company that holds the design authority. At present Airbus hold the design authority and they very clearly say no.
As for the Lightning same story combined with the fact the CAA say NO as well. Personally I think the CAA is wrong in the case of the Lightning but I doubt they will budge on the issue at the moment…on the other hand they have progresively started to approve more potent types starting with the Sea Vixen and now the Bucc so you never know…
FedaykinBlue Vixen. 😀
Whoops…done that before:p
Blue Vixen
FedaykinI agree, the GR-5/7 airframe would have made much more sense, and probably eased the logistical burden of joint carrier ops. It might have been possible to use squadrons of either eight GR-7 or eight F/A-7 (i.e. a radar equipped GR-7), and a pair of trainers. The RN would get three of each type of squadron, to allow each carrier a complete airwing, and the RAF could get three of each type of squadron as well. Even these numbers would have only required an operational fleet of 48 radar equipped versions, and 48 non radar versions, plus 24 trainers. This should have been a reasonable proposal, and would have allowed the RAF to deploy complete mini airgroups for operations, with air defence and ground attack Harriers. These would then be supplemented by Tornado and Jaguar units as needed.
I like the sound of a F/A-7:D has a ring to it!
Considering it would of predated the Radar equipped AV8B we might of even got some export sales (Italy/Spain etc…). I also have a hunch it would of been easier to integrate the radar and AMRAAM with the more modern avionics of the GR5 rather then go through the exercise of rewiring the older, smaller FRS1 to take them.
All in all a sad wasted opportunity…
Maybe its a chance for the artists among us to produce a picture of what a Sea Vixen equipped GR5/7 would of looked like with a weapons load of Sidewinder and AMRAAM in RN colours. I bet it wouldn’t of needed the strange stretched nose required to fit the Sea Vixen into the FRS1 airframe with its avionics.
FedaykinFurther to my earlier point we would also have had the benefit of common logitics between services then as well.
FedaykinLooking aside from the Harriers glide characteristics in my opinion it was a mistake using the FRS1 as the basis for the upgrade to FA2.
In effect they took an airframe with little space for any further growth and crammed in extra avionics and a bigger radar whilst at the same time we were developing with the American’s the larger GR5/AV8B. Considering the Americans actually fitted a Radar to the AV8B in the end anyway the logic of upgrading the FRS1 is dubious.
If the FA2 had been based on the GR5 it might still be in service now! Some of the FA2 were new build anyway, why not all new build GR5 based FA2 with its better growth potential and larger airframe?
I know some people will say the SHAR was already navalised but considering the AV8B was also navalised for the US Marine corp it doesn’t take much of a leap of logic to see that the same could of been done for a GR5 derived FA2.
FedaykinOne of the problems would be a lack of suitable launch vehicles. The Tu-160M that was intended to carry 2 Koalas in its bomb bay was never built. The Tu-95s could be adapted to carry them but they must be getting long in the tooth by name and either way the types slow speed and massive signature make it less than perfect. As far as I am aware the Tu-22s would be too small to carry them although it may be possible to heavily modify them to carry one. That only realy leaves the 15 Tu-160’s which could potentially maybe carry one in the bomb bay.
A while back there was a report that the RuAF was pursuing a new strategic bomber (although such comments come out of Russia fairly reguarly the current modernisation of the Russian armed forces makes the idea not inconcievable), It may be that any new bomber has such weapons in mind.:confused:
I think there is more life yet for the Bear in Russian service;)
Considering that they are newer then the B52H in American service (a type which could well see another 40 years of service before retirement). I don’t know about the naval Tu142 but the Russian bomber force only operates the Tu95MS which were built in the 80’s and 90’s.
I doubt the Russians use their Bear H’s for low level tactical work which would absorb fatigue life quicker and the airframe is fairly over engineered which should allow for many more years of service.
In the end its a jack of all trades, cheaper to operate and capeable of carrying anything the Russians want a long way.
Long life to the big Bear of the skies:D
FedaykinWow thats a very good shot of a Chinese boomer, I’m surprised that he got that close to take the picture.
FedaykinJust to refuel our C-17s? We don’t have any other receptacle-equipped aircraft & aren’t planning to buy any.
BTW. fighters can’t accept fuel at maximum boom rates (most hoses fill ’em up as fast as they can take it), so the greater expense, weight & crew member of a boom is pure waste unless you need to refuel big aircraft. Single-point refuelling of fighters via a boom is slower than two-point via hoses.
Except for the E3D Sentry;)
FedaykinAs for the PFI a330 deal I’m am of the opinion now that the government are using the negtiations as an excuse to spend no money and keep it all in Limbo.
I have been waiting for Marshalls to recieve an order to convert some more Tristar as a stop gap.
Sign In
