LordJimThis Lift Fan Arguement is absolutely bonkers! Where do people get the idea that it produces heat, what is the source? If you stand in front of a fan do you get hot? NO! Yes it produces a lot of downforce but as has been clearly stated it produces less that the Pegasus which has been in service for decades and I have not heard any complanints of Deck Warping from its users. It has also been pointed out the the F-35 will only LAND vertically and most potential users are looking at a rolling stop to improve its weapon load bring back capacity.
The writers of the article obviously got their wires crossed and were referring to the engine exhaust as has already been pointed out but disregarded by some.
As for the V-22 causing problems when sitting with its engines running, well in this case there are two jet exhausts pointing directly dowm at the deck for a considerable period of time. This would however not be the usual practice I am sure so can be placed in the “Extraordinary Events ” catagory
I am a serious doubter of the value, capabilities and cost effectiveness of the F-35, believing it has a place in a force together with the F-22, but like the Tornado it seems that LM is developing a Mud Mover that will try to be a fighter, whereas the platform it is replacing in many airforces the F-16 was a fighter that became a mud mover. Yes I know the F-16 has always been multi-role but early on its AtoG was strictly limited.
As for cancelling the C Variant, this is very unlikely to happen as it is core to the USN’s re-equipment plans, and it is really the only game in town.
LordJimTutpriuri
Regarding sources of my info, one of them is the Warfare.ru site.
http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=257&linkid=1618&linkname=TU-22M-Backfire
It listed the Russian Navy as having one regiment of 2 squadrons (30 ac) based Kamenny Ruchei and attached to the Pacific Fleet. They share the base with the Navy’s remaining Bear ASW and MR Regiment, again of 2 Squadrons
It lists the Russian Airforce as having the following 1 Regiment of 2 Squadrons at Engels and another similar sized unit at Shaikova. The latter took part in the war against Georgia. Both units appear to now concentrate on land attack with little training in naval tactics though they could carry out these missions in theory
Of course the enemy would know an attack was coming, they are at war. But when and where is the question!
What I was trying to say (Badly) in the third paragraph is that some people still think that Russia has the same strike power as it had in the cold war and is able to send wave of Backfires against an enemy. They also forget that a current USN CBG is smaller than those of the Cold War in terms of number of platforms but they would be rienforced depending on mission and target.
Yes air and ground defenses would be a factor but sticking to Russia their airforce is spread pretty thin so it is concievable that only 1 or 2 regiments would be available to intercept a strike assuming their airfield hadn’t been heavy damaged by Cruise Missiles etc with the same going for SAM defences.
The USN isn’t invulnerable, but its CBGs are damn hard targets which few nations have any real chance of seriously hurting.
LordJimWhy do people keep going on about Backfire Regiments? Russia only has 3 on paper and these are not at full strength and there ia also a lack of tanker support and Recce assets. Those they do have a stationed in the Far East.
IF the USN is going to take on a nation with a sufficiently large fleet of long range strike aircraft, tankers. Maritime Recce platforms and modern submarines it is not going to send a single CBG, it will operate a combined CBG containing 3 to 4 carriers plus a reinforced escort force. IF the enemy can find it it will be facing between 30 and 40 aircraft and 16 and 20 Aegis equipped escorts plus 3 to 6 SSNs
It seems that people are comparing the strength of the USSR’s navy equipped with missiles from the present day against todays USN with its reduced size CBGs.
Given the USN wrote the current book on carrier warfare I can see no nation being able to take it on and it is not going to sit off someones coast saying come and get me. Enemy ports and airbases would be severely mauled by cruise missile strikes and airstrikes overwelming their air defence assets. The USN may lose a carrier but the enemy would lose its navy and a large part of its airforce.
Why dosen’t someone sart a thread about how a other nations navies would survive against the USN besides hiding in port.
LordJimI meant Chinooks!
LordJimWhen are the original Chinnoks due to reach the end of the airframe hours/life?
LordJimActually the Jaguar started as a anglo-french supersonic trainer then became a attack/Recce platform.
LordJimAs I said my Uncle was part of the trials team before the jaguar entered full service and the a/c they were using werer fitted with the Adour 101. The Jaguar entered service with the 102 which the FAF used throughout its life.
Regarding the IAF are they upgrading all their a/c or just those not fitted with the Adour 811 which is the engine the RAF should have gone for as it is in service with India and Oman, though I am not sure about the other “International” users.
By the way did you know the GR3A had a “Turbo” button in the cockpit to allow the ECU to bring the engine up to full power!
LordJimThe Adour 104 used by the GR1 was kn ow for its poor hot/high performance. Its predecessor the Mk101 used in the early aircraft was even worse. My Uncle was one of the RAFs test pilots at Boscombe Down during the Jaguars trials and said he was glad the airfield was on a hill as you took off by the ground falling away rather than gaining altitude.
In GW1 the Jaguars had their engines overclocked to cope but their life was severely reduced. The Mk106 programme was started in the mid 1990’s to improve the engine but it was brought in as a cost saving measure rather than an upgrade, with the increase in performance a welcome bonus. Many parts of the exisitinf engines were reused and the programme was run as cheaply as possible leading to production whilst testing was still underway. There were problem and these were never really solved meaning the engine could not be run at full power and so it was never fully cleared for operations. There were studies made as to whether the Jaguar could be deployed to Afghanistan but this never happened. Instead the Jaguar became an easy target for cutting costs and it was retired threee years early. How ever the Harrier greatly benefitted from the tech developed for the Jaguar such as the HMS and Recce pods and as Jaguar pilots were the best single seat crews in the RAF many are now flying the Typhoon with many of the ground crew moving over as well.
LordJimIn the past when the MoD bought a Piece of kit it also insured that it had at least full user rights. This meant that it had access to drawings and other technical data and could go to another manufacturer. ok on large items ie aircraft and engines it was not viable or cost effective but on smaller items they would tender contacts.
I am sure the US marines had to send their Pegasus engine modules to the UK for major overhaul, but then again BAe did the major maintenance on european based F-111s.
In an ideal world yes we would have the codes but we are talking sofware here. In order to try to maintain commonality it makes sense for LM to do the work. The platform is plug and play so theroretically all one would have to do is send the black box to LM and they send it back updated. There are economies of scale here so what we really should be asking is will the UK get a discount on upgrade work as a compromise? Airframe mod could still be done in the UK by BAe and the Engines are surely going to be looked after by RR under licence.
In my view the F-35 programme has much bigger issues to sort out but until we see its actual capabilities and see if it lives up to the hype I will still wear my cynical hat.
LordJimIsrael and Turkey have a military co-operation pact so would most likely allow Israel to use its airspace to attack Iran. They already train together.
Regarding the source code, you do not get the code for the Engine Management System when you buy a BMW, you usually have to take it to a licenced dealer!
What annoys me is we are supposed to be close allies. Are we going to say that all 4th line maintenance on UK manufactured parts must be done in the UK! It is a slap in the face considering the support we have given the US over the past decade.
I wish the UK would pull out of the programme and its not too late. We have done it before on programmes like cancelling the Nimrod AEW. I am also in the camp that thinks the F-35 is overpriced and design that is compromised because it is stealthy. I can see NO case where we will not be operating with the US and up against a high tech opponent. Do we need the F-35s unique capabilities in Afghanistan? No!
LordJimHaving been pointed towards the CDI website to look at its article on the F-35 I was surprised to see that the DOD has estimated that the total cost for the 2,458 aircraft planned for the US military is $299 billion. This includes developement costs but it still works out at $122 million per copy.
The artiicle also reinforces the veiw that the F-35 will be vulnerable to 4th and 4.5 Generation fighters in WVR combat. The US can counter this by having F-22s in the package but what about the rest of the planned operators? Are they going to be limited to using their stealthy new planes only at night?
I admit I am not a total fan of the F-35 but given the spin being put out by both sides of the arguement, and that the powers that be seem to think the F-35 is the only game in town is the west putting all it’s eggs in an unproven basket without seriously investigating as to wheter it might be a better solution to purchase greater numbers of 4th and 4.5 gen platforms?
Stealth surely has a place for day one operations but wouldn’t UCAVs and cruise missiles be a better target for the technology? I do not know the exact cost comparisons but if I had to choose between 2 squadrons of F-35s and 3 squadrons of T3 Typhoons I would go for the latter but that is a personal opinion. In the 70s the USAF realised that it need a low end platforn to make up the numbers as the F-15 though excellent was too costly. As a result the got the F-16. Current plans seem to be to suppliment the extremely costly F-22 with the also costly F-35. Given the tight budgets surely the West should seriosly look at cheeper platforms as well to maintain numbers?
LordJimI could/can never see the RN having 2 CVFs at see at the same time. Along the same lines though there might be 2 air wings only one would ever be embarked with the other on shore for rest/refit/retraining. Saying that, if an Air Wing comprises 35 – 40 F-35 I can see the RN only getting a Maximum of 80 and possibly as few as 60 meaning only one wing available and aircraft and pilots being rotated.
Using the 2nd CVF as an Ocean replacement would be pushing things, but then again if a CVF is in port you can designated it whatever you like. I think to replace Ocean we need a new platform, but one that is as simple as possible. Basically a clone of Ocean incorporating the lessons learned. We do not want another carrier by the back door! IF the platform is built oversees then yes a foreign design would be a possibility but the chances of thst happening are very small.
LordJimHow does the KC-30 compare to the KC-10?
LordJimI thought this topic was to compare the UK’s and India’s Defence Budgets and Capabilities!
LordJimThe Jaguar would have been the ideal choice for Afghanistan if the a/c had been cleared for operations after the engine upgrade, but it never was due to problems and this was one of the main reasons it was withdrawn early.
Sign In
