I’m afraid Red that’s a typical light blue mistake and it clearly indicates the problem we face. Operating aircraft from ships is a very different discipline than doing so off a shore base. Just the routine shipboard operations of stores stowage, access and resupply or the length of the working day changes the nature of the duty. I know as many crabs who really couldn’t take to life at sea as those who thoroughly loved it. Dedicated naval aircraft, tended by dedicated naval support personnel and practised in the art of operations from a carrier deck is the optimal solution there is no debating that. To do the wider job of naval aviation employment there is no way the RAF could keep hold of ‘everything that flies’ because they dont know enough about the job.

CVF and Carrier Strike offered the best alternate solution – seeing that we were never even close to getting that optimal solution. A core of naval aircraft looked after by naval personnel, but, able to be rapidly augmented by RAF squadrons in times of need had a lot going for it and STOVL enabled that seamlessly. CATOBAR places the Deck Quals limitation in the way of that. Follow it up with RAF stupidity in axeing Harrier, a rapid deployable precision strike aircraft perfectly tailored to the kind of threats we will be looking at over the next decade (witness Libya) undermining STOVL, and a Treasury looking to rid itself of a billions worth of Deep Persistant Strike programme have conspired to make CVF Carrier Strike more unworkable than it ever has been though.

Yes i agree with almost all of that! But unfortunately we cannot currently afford the luxury of a dedicated fleet air arm. My personal opinion is that when the F-35c Squadrons come to full strength they will be rotated to the fleet air arm 1 (or 2 depending on how many we get) squadrons at a time for say a year period. Which should allow for a decent naval airpower base? But they should also be forced to do their share of other commitments, as i said we cannot afford to have squadrons just practising cats and traps all year round waiting for deployments. In my opinion in an ideal world we would have got a split buy of f-35A and B for the RAF and navy respectively but that is never going to happen.

With regards to the harrier tornado, the tornado is a premier strike aircraft. Losing this aircraft would have been devastating, unfortunately the harrier was the aircraft that had to make way to ensure the continued service of the tornado. Not that i am playing down the harrier it is a fantastic capability but for me the tornado is more important.

You can know who will have the tools and skillset to present a threat in blue water though. Russia has an entire escort fleet to recapitalise and then get up to speed using. It needs to rebuild its SSN fleet with the latest quality gear they have needing to filter through. China is too low on the learning curve and simple chucking of money doesnt buy experience they have to learn the lessons of how to employ the systems they are now building. In 20 years’ time I’m sure they could both be there or thereabouts….but not much before that.

Yep and i believe the CVF have a projected lifespan of 50 years. Tbh ii dont see the difference between a fleet and a strike carrier. Our carriers will have aircraft capable of fleet defence.

F-35B would never need to be catapult launched so it would never be fitted out for such. The extra weight of structural stiffening would be completely at odds with the need to lighten the airframe for STOVL. Interesting that you see the versatility of STOVL, but, dont see that the Harrier was a more relevant capability set to keep than Tornado?.

Well i was just considering the ability to launch it with higher weight loads…

And yes again the tornado is the more important aircraft for the UK at the moment until heavy strike capability is implemented into the typhoon at least.

All this talk of the evil RAF makes me laugh. The decision with regards to the harrier was that it was either it or a large part of the tornado that would go. Here there was only one real option; the tornado is a far more capable strike aircraft than the tornado. Yes in an ideal world we would still have the harrier capability it is a fantastic aircraft and worked well in combination with the tornado as a lighter strike capability. But as I said unfortunately something had to be cut and the right choice was made.

The air force itself did not make this decision though it would have been made by a defence comity so when people say that the air force did this and that they are wrong it was a decision made by a group of people deciding what would be best for the British defence force as a whole. And to be honest with you I would argue that the RAF has been hit just as hard as the RN. It has lost or is planned to lose quite a lot without planned replacement. There is even talk of a fast jet fleet of just 140 aircraft by 2020 which is stupidly low!! And the air force should have everything that fly’s as that is its role. We cannot afford enough aircraft to have a dedicated FAA because as I said there are few enough aircraft in the first place! Saying that the royal navy should have its own aircraft to me is as nonsensical as saying the RAF should own its own CVF.

Now with regards to blue water threats, you cannot know who’s going to be your friend in 20 years’ time within that time new aircraft carriers will be coming online around the world. China and Russia are both committed to new programs. And of course France already has one!! :diablo:

With regards to the B versus C argument I agree with jonesy the versatility of the STOVL outweighs a few extra miles and pounds! Just a quick question does anybody know if the F-35b is capable of catapult launch?

Many things have changed since the original commitment to the F-35 project was made. The financial crisis, for example, which means that affordability has become a much higher priority; the STOVL requirement is gone now; the F-35 has become a troubled development programme, with many unresolved technical issues and costs that are seemingly out of control. And last, but not least, a few months they signed the UK-France Defence Co-operation Treaty, which specifically mentioned “building primarily on maritime task group co-operation around the French carrier Charles de Gaulle – the UK and France will aim to have, by the early 2020s, the ability to deploy a UK-French integrated carrier strike group incorporating assets owned by both countries…”

If you look at it in light of those factors, the idea of Rafales for the Royal Navy makes a lot more sense now than it might have a few years back.

Apart from the fact that we have already spent a good few billion in research and development of the F-35 program granted as the only tier 1 partner we do have a decent work share. But the public would not view it that way so jumping ship now wouldn’t do any government a favour. Whatever you think of the respective ability’s and price and ability of the two aircraft the uk are in too deep and have spent too much on the F-35 to get out.

With regards to the Libya air defences, The French might have been confident SPECTRA could do the job with only a small treat to the aircraft. But that doesn’t mean that the RAF wouldn’t have been just as confidant with regards to DASS being able to protect the aircraft, but the fact of the matter is it is not a mature A2G platform so there was no advantage to sending it in that early.

Besides whenever you send in an aircraft in a SEAD role there is a risk to the aircraft no matter how advanced the systems, tomahawks and storm shadow remove the risk entirely. after all if i gave you a M16/body armour and said there’s a guy over there in that house with a hand gun and he wants to shoot you but don’t worry your guns bigger and better than his! So you can walk over there and shoot him with the m16 or you can use this cannon and blow up his house from here…….. I know which option id choose, but not because i couldn’t use the M16. Maybe the French are truly brave i could believe that after watching some of the crazy low level flying films on you tube.

How can somebody compare the typhoon to the m2k? In the same way that you seem to aghast at my comparison people who hold the Eurofighter in higher esteem that you do may also be just as appalled by your statement.

The tornado is a spectacular aircraft btw as is the Rafale. I’d just like you to see how your ridiculous supped up Mirage 2000 claim feels when it is put on the other foot……… go on admit it u didn’t like it did you.

you could say i am trolling a troll 😉 in all honest i don’t think you chat rubbish i actually read what you post as you seem to know your stuff with regards to the Rafale (much more that will ever understand or wish to) and I would say I have learnt things from your post. What i don’t understand is your apparent vendetta against the typhoon on numerous threads; it’s as if you go out of your way to discredit it??

You cannot seriously think that that French engineering is that far ahead of the other European nations to make your claims warranted. If it is it means either the French are the smartest nation on earth or the English and Germans are idiots. I would suggest that all three nations having a rich history in aviation and produced many fine aircraft (Germany no so much in the post war years) would be roughly equal in engineering quality.

My scenario is that both aircraft were built around the same time on around the same budgets by very clever people on both sides, the logical conclusion from this reasoning is that the aircraft will be very closely matched. Both having strengths and weaknesses. This is view is reflected in the MMRCA, both aircraft having passed the technical evaluations.

insted dassault wanted to make a supped up tornado. but only just managed to make it better than the original…

By the way , I said :

Just to say … 😎
Then , the good old USA are trying to make us believe than the APG-77 has a 220km+ detection range versus a fighter size target . Is the target a 15sm F-15 barndoor ?
If it ‘s the case , the F-22 would detect a AtoA loaded Rafale at around 70-80km , in range for an immediate response like a volley of MICAs provided by SPECTRA and OSF/Damoclès .
Funny , isn ‘t it ? Maybe it ‘s the reason why the USA refused BVR combats with the Rafale … :diablo:

I dont understand why a Rafale pilot would comit suicide as u just stated. talk about shooting there load to early… if the aircraft is 70-80k away and the mica’s range is 50-60k depending where you read, MBDA website says 60k so we will go with that. the F-22 would have 10-20k to turn 60 degrees to either side to reduceclosing distance while keeping the rafale in sight, target the rafale that just made its position known, fire its AIM-120D (72k range) and turn away usings its far superior speed to stay out of range of the rafale. all this results in is a dead Rafale pilot

but then again the rafale’s a supped up tornado with a magic stealth cloak. maybe it should stick to dropping bombs while the big boys play……. the diffence is im joking here while i dissregard the rafale your are not when you disregard others.

While you’re at the IMF site, pls also do look up the PPP numbers of the said countries. I say throw in the projections for the next decade as well 😉

im not saying that everything is rosey but saying the F-35 customers are broke is nothing but fantasy im affraid. the us is still easily the largest economy in the world.