F35bHow can you possibly say No need to buy second best just to throw Europeans a bone.
1st thing the bid was from Northrop Grumman and the last i checked that is a US company.
2nd thing if the KC767 tanker is such a wonderful aircraft why are more countries buying the A330 tanker?
3rd thing Nobody is buying the civilian version of the 767 because it is old technology while the A330 has 100’s of order’s getting place because it is newer and better aircraft more economic and suitable to airline’s needs.
4th thing Why did the USAF remember that not the DOD or congress decide that they wanted the KC-45. Could it be that this is the aircraft they thought met there needs better. look at where USAF will required to fight war’s now and in the future it’s mostly middle east Africa and in the stan’s. This requires a big tanker to get aircraft from continental USA to area of operation and Also to get aircraft from Diego Garcia and Guam.
5th thing the made in America advert for the 767 hardly holds any water and the US would benefit more from having an A330 line open than keeping a 767 open.
6th thing Once the tanker is finished compare the 2 production lines. What will happen? The Boeing line will close because nobody wants the 767 anymore. The A330 line will stay open because airlines are still buying it and will continue to do this in the future.
7th thing The Cargo carrying capacity for the A330 is HUGE compared with the 767. This is becoming a bigger issue as the USAF gets less transport planes.
Example: You have a tanker that fly from the US across the ocean with 6 fighter’s following and with the ground crew and all the equipment and spares required in 1 aircraft. It can then land on a short runway say 7000 feet refuel and take off with full fuel load and go home again. Or you have a tanker that can fly across the ocean with 6 fighters but without all the ground crew and equipment required. You then have to have another aircraft following with the ground crew and equipment. They then arrive at the required destination only to find they can’t land on the 7000 foot runway because there brakes aren’t good enough. Then even if both planes could land they can’t take off with a full fuel load to get home again as they don’t have enough runway because there brakes aren’t good enough to stop in an emergency. you then have to send another 2 tankers to refuel the first 2 so they can get home again. So you have 1 tanker on a mission or 4. What is best i would think 1!
8th thing The KC-45 will be delivered much quicker and in greater numbers than the 767 and the conversion of the KC-45 is much easier than the 767.
9th thing If you want to talk about bones look at how much equipment Europe buys of the US and how much the other way round. i think you will find Europe is throwing you a whole butchers shop for America’s little bone.
10th thing The 767 doesn’t match the performance for takeoff or landing compared to the KC-45 at high weights. The KC-45 can operate from more airfields than the 767. It can get closer to the action and offload more fuel at any distance. It can carry much more cargo and requires no modification inside to be able to carry full fuel. Any foot print size you think you have saved on the ground is soon gone because you need 2 tankers to do 1 job.
11th thing Put simply the KC-45 can carry more fuel with more people and more cargo over a greater distance.
And before you say bring on the 777 that is the most unsuitable tanker ever. It requires a HUGE runway and doesn’t have hardly any benefits over the KC-45 OR 767. It cost an fortune. The USAF wanted 1 aircraft to replace both tanker in service just now. The 777 can’t do that.
12th thing Planes that require tankers have bigger engines and require more fuel so this needs bigger or more tankers. Less aircraft available to the US compared with 20-30 years ago so less available to forward deploy which means more ferry flights from the US. Aircraft needing to go back to large airbases to get stealth coating’s and other depot maintenance down more frequently and this needs more AAR.
THERE ARE 12 TRUE REASONS WHY THE USAF PICKED THE KC-45 INSTEAD OF THE 767
Lets just listen to the USAF and what they want. I doubt they have changed their minds on the KC-45 in a few years. Remember they didn’t want the 767 lease deal that was a DOD deal.
Do you remember why the USAF bought the KC-10? it was because it could take off from the US ferry planes across the Atlantic and then spend a while on station in Europe doing air to air refueling and fly back to the US all without landing.
Take cover incoming ******** and lots of SHI*E coming my way from 767 lovers. I don’t dislike the 767 anymore the A330 it’s just the A330 is the correct aircraft this time for the US tanker competition as agreed by the USAF.
F35bWow i never knew the RAF was going to use the Phantoms until 2008! i take it we scrapped them in 1992 or did we sell them? anyone know what the Phantom upgrade would have involved? Maybe make them like the terminator or ICE upgrade. Does the UK ever send planes to AMARC or our own storage or convert them to drones?
An upgraded Tornado F3 with an AESA radar and the latest AMRAAM or Meteor along with other upgrades would have been an exciting prospect and could have made it a really good interceptor. Give it a top class data link with AWACS and other F3’s and fighters and it would provide a pretty comprehensive defence for the UK quite far off shore. (let’s not forget what the F3 is, it is an interceptor 1st and fighter 2nd and i think made a good job of it considering it’s a low level bomber design to start with) Give them ability to shoot down cruise missiles and i think they would have made an excellent partner to Typhoon. Are the Tornado’s really that much of a maintenance nightmare as some people are making out? I can’t find any info on hours needed on the ground compared to flying hours.
Oh how the world has changed. What the UK needs now are aircraft that can protect UK and countries we have defence agreements with airspace and aircraft that are useful for our war’s on Foreign shores. 232 eurofighters would have been better spent on say 100 to protect the UK etc and maybe another 2 or 3 carrier’s and some F35b’s for fighting countries where we can’t get landing rights. Or make the carriers with catapults and we could have a range of different aircraft and UCAV’s to fly off them. Also the F35 can be deployed from captured bases even if the runway is knackered. Harriers are good for the less threat area’s where you don’t need expensive F35b’s and could be used off smaller vessels than CVF. Maybe invest in some kind of long range bomber or the medium range aircraft and good Air to Air refueling assets as well
The UK will probably never be fighting a war on British soil so we need to adapt to a expeditionary force as that’s what we need to fight abroad. Also they can be used to help back home if needed.With Eurofighter If the UK was to look from today what air assets it needs i don’t think we would buy 232. As much as i like the typhoon development is so slow that by the time we get ground attack weapons integrated the plane will be out of date.
This is a real issue with the current defence projects is the time the relaxed manner in which they are bought and updated to what is required. We end up with aircraft equipped for a role that we needed 15 years ago. Eurofighter was meant to replace the Jaguar but now a theatre where the jaguar would have been used i.e Afghanistan we don’t have the eurofighter there. The Jag may not of been the best but could of done really well in afghanistan and the Typhoon should of been out there with the weapons the Jaguar had and more up to date weapons as well. Would also help with selling the Typhoon if it was out there fighting and had decent weapons integration.I really hope FOAS gets going again soon and that the UK really puts effort into thinking about what we really need. It should be a tornado GR4 replacement but maybe a large and small version. Version One should be tactical and maneuverable aircraft
version 2 should be a longer range and loiter aircraft with a bigger payload.
If Chile hadn’t of purchased the cheap F16’s from europe i could of seen BAE and Chile coming to some deal with the F3’s being added onto the order for the Type 22 and 23 frigates but thats a done deal now. I wonder if there was any discussion on this matter?
F35bThe F35 will be a good aircraft and we won’t find out the purchase cost until it’s time to buy. The maintenance cost is another unknown figure. Once these aircraft are getting mass produced BAE and LM will most likely come up with ways to make production cheaper it’s just a matter of time and thinking about how to do it. same with the maintenance it will become cheaper once new techniques are developed. If they have problems with the stealth coating i don’t see that as a problem as full stealth is not required for all flights. training and intercepting airliners don’t need full stealth coating. When it comes to going to going to war then the coating will be made 100% but doesn’t need that all the time if it ends up costing alot.
The F35 is a good replacement for the Harrier and the F16 and the F18. The only one i’m yet to be convinced of is the A10 replacement. If you go and ask soldiers in Afghanistan what they like protecting them they love the A10 and so should the Airforce. It’s a wonderful aircraft for it’s role and i don’t think it will be fully replaced by the F35. I see UAV’s and A10’s filling that role for quite a while and then if it’s needed a new replacement for the A10. I wish more countries had bought the A10 when they had the chance and if it was available now i could see quite a few airforces buying some. (especially the UK if they had the budget) It would be perfect addition to the Harrier and GR4.
F35bThey will be scrapped pure and simple.
Airforces who are in the second hand fighter market have more attractive options from several sources. The F3 is too specialised and expensive to operate and would be in effect an orphan type. Also whilst the type might appear young in term of years the aircraft has always had expensive structural issues, many had to have their airframe beefed up after only a few fatigue index points were used.
If the cold war had continued then it probably was the RAF’s intention to operate the F3 along side the Typhoon. This makes sense considering the FGR2 Phantoms intended OSD was 2008, they were going through a SLEP when they were retired in 1992 (uprated engines and airframe mods). Also Typhoon was intended to enter service many years before it eventually did. In effect we would of had FGR2 Phantom, F3 Tornado and F2 Typhoon in service along side each other for a few years with personel moving from the older types and Jaguar to the Typhoon (and FOAS as well…don’t forget that!). Well the collapse of the USSR and peace dividend put paid to that. It was criminal how the Phantom was drawn down so quickly before the F3 force was even properly worked up and with the money being spent on its SLEP.:mad:
Wow i never knew the RAF was going to use the Phantoms until 2008! i take it we scrapped them in 1992 or did we sell them? anyone know what the Phantom upgrade would have involved? Maybe make them like the terminator or ICE upgrade. Does the UK ever send planes to AMARC or our own storage or convert them to drones?
An upgraded Tornado F3 with an AESA radar and the latest AMRAAM or Meteor along with other upgrades would have been an exciting prospect and could have made it a really good interceptor. Give it a top class data link with AWACS and other F3’s and fighters and it would provide a pretty comprehensive defence for the UK quite far off shore. (let’s not forget what the F3 is, it is an interceptor 1st and fighter 2nd and i think made a good job of it considering it’s a low level bomber design to start with) Give them ability to shoot down cruise missiles and i think they would have made an excellent partner to Typhoon. Are the Tornado’s really that much of a maintenance nightmare as some people are making out? I can’t find any info on hours needed on the ground compared to flying hours.
Oh how the world has changed. What the UK needs now are aircraft that can protect UK and countries we have defence agreements with airspace and aircraft that are useful for our war’s on Foreign shores. 232 eurofighters would have been better spent on say 100 to protect the UK etc and maybe another 2 or 3 carrier’s and some F35b’s for fighting countries where we can’t get landing rights. Or make the carriers with catapults and we could have a range of different aircraft and UCAV’s to fly off them. Also the F35 can be deployed from captured bases even if the runway is knackered. Harriers are good for the less threat area’s where you don’t need expensive F35b’s and could be used off smaller vessels than CVF. Maybe invest in some kind of long range bomber or the medium range aircraft and good Air to Air refueling assets as well
The UK will probably never be fighting a war on British soil so we need to adapt to a expeditionary force as that’s what we need to fight abroad. Also they can be used to help back home if needed.
With Eurofighter If the UK was to look from today what air assets it needs i don’t think we would buy 232. As much as i like the typhoon development is so slow that by the time we get ground attack weapons integrated the plane will be out of date.
This is a real issue with the current defence projects is the time the relaxed manner in which they are bought and updated to what is required. We end up with aircraft equipped for a role that we needed 15 years ago. Eurofighter was meant to replace the Jaguar but now a theatre where the jaguar would have been used i.e Afghanistan we don’t have the eurofighter there. The Jag may not of been the best but could of done really well in afghanistan and the Typhoon should of been out there with the weapons the Jaguar had and more up to date weapons as well. Would also help with selling the Typhoon if it was out there fighting and had decent weapons integration.
I really hope FOAS gets going again soon and that the UK really puts effort into thinking about what we really need. It should be a tornado GR4 replacement but maybe a large and small version. Version One should be tactical and maneuverable aircraft
version 2 should be a longer range and loiter aircraft with a bigger payload.
F35bSo is that the Aircraft Carrier Clemenceau that is being taken apart on the tees by Able UK? I wonder if it would cost more to take out all the dangerous materials and then use it as target practice rather than scrap it completely? There must be some advantage to practice sinking a ship rather than just scrap it.
For Clemenceau i did think would it be worth Brazil taking it and using it as spares for there aircraft carrier (ex Foch). Maybe they can get all the parts they need when it is scrapped. Perhaps the french have already taken all the useful parts out of it and sold them to Brazil, If not this could be a nice little earner for Able UK selling spares. How long is Brazil going to keep using ex Foch for i would have thought it wouldn’t have that much life left in it when they bought it. Maybe they are taking lessons from the Indians on how to run an old carrier for 50-60 years after its built. The USA uses their carriers for nearly 50 years but their carriers aren’t worked to hard and have long refits that probably takes in service time down to 35 years or so.
What type of propulsion system do they use. If it’s steam turbines do they not have a limited life before they need replaced and that can involve cutting the Hull open to get them out?
It makes you think how long could the invincible class be run before they need scrapped. Would maybe be a good buy for say India if they could get 2 or 3 of the class and relating harriers and helicopters if they could get another 20 years out them. Having GR7’s and 9’s and upgrading them with radar and other equipment like they have done to there current harriers would give a nice little fighter/bomber and complement the Mig 29K’s quite well. Also they will need other ships apart from the current carrier they are buying from the Russians as this will not be available all the time. (could become a bit of harbour queen i think) I know they are making there own carrier but we don’t have in service dates yet or even how build process is going. Also could have problems with being a new design and class of ship.
The Invincible class should be easier to maintain than other old carriers as well as they have mostly plug and play equipment like engines. I’m not sure who else would take them, apart from India as even if they were to be used as LPH instead as they have a big crew compared to modern landing platform Helicopters. Maybe India could buy the equipment necessary to start there own harrier production line. i would think it would still be stored somewhere and when the USA and UK retire there harriers we would have no need for the equipment. Thy could use F-35’s but can’t see India getting them in the next 10 years.
F35b[/QUOTE]VC10 I believe, as they arrived at Cottesmore with one of them.:)[/QUOTE]
A ferry flight, it’s quite along way from Afgan to Uk wonder if they had a stop over. Would the VC-10 have enough fuel for all 9 harriers (i think that was how many there were there). maybe it was a split flight. Those harriers are some mean looking machines with all the upgrades they have had. The pictures i’ve seen they look loaded up with all kinds of stuff. Anyone know what’s on the pylons in the picture? There is a couple of Paveway’s (not sure what model) and a targeting Pod but other than that i’m not to sure.
F35bI’m kind of struggling to grasp why the UK needs modern defensive aids on helicopters to go to afganistan. last i heard they don’t work against RPG’s. Is there actually a threat out there?
It is written in the Telegraph as well about helicopter numbers. I quote
At any given time, the 5,000 British troops have no more than 10 Chinook transport helicopters in Afghanistan and five, smaller Lynxes. The 4,000 US Marines who recently deployed to Helmand has access to 120 Chinooks. i’m not to sure where the number 5000 troops comes from maybe it’s front line troops.
Also
MoD figures show that while Mr Brown was Chancellor, spending on helicopters fell dramatically.
In 2001/02, the MoD budget for “helicopter procurement” was £842 million. It then fell sharply, hitting a low point of £209 million in 2006/07.
For the latest complete year, 2008/09, it was £448 million.
The MoD said that the budget figures exclude “urgent operational requirement” spending on frontline operations funded by the Treasury. Since 2004/04, another £183 million has been spent converting helicopters for use in Afghanistan.
Some of that money is being spent converting six Merlin helicopters for use in Afghanistan later this year. Up to eight Chinooks used in Iraq could also be sent to Afghanistan. Why do we have to convert merlins for use in Afgan when they manage fine in Iraq?
It also says that up to 20% of these helicopters are used for political purposes transporting Afghan leaders and visiting dignitories around the country.
Also the defence minister said this
Mr Ainsworth told MPs said there had been an 84 per cent increase in helicopter flying hours in Afghanistan, and promised that ministers will spend £6 billion on helicopters “over the coming years.” What £6 billion in the coming years. very vauge answer what time scale is this for the coming years could be the next 20 years. Also what are we buying with this i thought WildCat only cost £1 billion where is the other £5 billion going? Is this new puchases only or does this include maintence and upgrade of current fleet.
If the US can deploy 120 Chinooks with no problems why do we struggle so much with spares and all the other excuses we here as to why we can’t deploy more.
F35buh-oh…
I’m sorry but i find this really hard to belive. I can’t see russia getting ships built in other countries yards. AMybe they need the designs so they can build them there selves but i just can’t see this happening. Russia has cheaper Labour, Empty Ship yards and lots of unemployed. I don’t see the point in building anywhere else.
F35bDo we have a breakdown of costs to explain where the extra £1 billion pounds is needed? I have a feeling a lot of it will be down to government changing the design and putting the inservice and construction date back. I just can’t see they could under estimate building 2 carriers by as much as £1 billion. We haven’t even starting building yet and i had thought that going by recent projects cost over runs that there would be a bit of CVF but not £1 billion. I have a horrible feeling we could see the cost going up by another £500 million before the ships are in service. But that would be easier to live with if there was actually 2 ships nearly complete. Also putting the construction off for a few years will raise costs no matter what. Its simple, in 3 years things will not be as cheap as they were cause of inflation. Also wages go up. All this may not be much but it does add up.
F35bHere is a picture of a Harrier GR9 in Afganistan. It seems to have a lot of pods/weapons on it. Anyone got any ideas of what we are looking at here. It looks to me as if there is a pod stuck onto the Gun pods in the centre. (or rather i should say Empty Gun Pods because of another screw up at the MOD). I wonder how many times the troops and harrier crews wished they could fire that cannon on deployment i imagine quite a lot. even if they used it 10 times that would still be worth it. I never understood why they didn’t just use the old guns (30mm ADEN i think) that were there originally?
How did they get the harriers back from Afganistan? I know HMS Illustrious was out that way recently.
F35bThis is a table taken fromhttp://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0052.html I know it’s not the most upto date information but does give an opinion of what they thought was needed. In Afghanistan i think we are still a Medium but maybe we are heading upto a large especially if the army get the extra 2000 troops they asked for that got turned down. ( i remember the government saying “what ever the commanders ask for we will provide” i’ve not heard anyone mention that for a while)
A recent MoD report identified the future helicopter fleet requirements for Army mission tasks under three contingency levels, as shown in the following table:
Future Helicopter Force Structure – Army Component .
Small-scale contingency
Attack Helicopters 34, Support Helicopters 44
Medium-scale contingency
Attack Helicopters 36, Support Helicopters 65
Large-scale contingency
Attack Helicopters 48, Support Helicopters 110
F35bHere is a quote from The Sun about what the locals said about the Aircraft. i know the Sun is not the most reliable source but i’ve not had time to look at any other reports of what happened.
Shocked locals said they’d been TERRIFIED by the deafening noise made by the jets as they roared overhead. Linda Graham, 59, of Arrochar, said: “They fly over here about once or twice a month. You get used to it after a while.
“But today they were lower than I’d ever seen them. The noise was horrendous and our whole house shook.”
She added: “You normally get one jet going over, then a second a short while afterwards.
“But this time there was no time gap between them. It looked as though they were RACING each other.”
Will Smith, a barman at Arrochar’s Village Inn, said: “They were flying round the village and over the loch — they were chasing each other.
“And they DID seem a bit lower than normal.”
Squadron leader Paul Lipscombe from RAF Leuchars, said the planes had been on a training mission and the other jet returned safely. He added: “There is no indication they collided.”
I think i did read somewhere that the jets had been buzzing around and had already made a pass up the valley and the crash happened the second time they came round.
Becuase we don’t know the facts about what type of mission they were on it’s hard to guess why they would be low. i’m sure they will practice other missions than going out over the North Sea and waiting to see a bomber coming towards them and firing missiles.
Maybe they were on an ALARM practice mission but probably very unlikely as not many of the F3’s are EF3’s. I’m not even sure if the aircraft converted still practice this. Also would you fly Low if you were on a SAM Intercept mission.
All guess work really but i do think they tornado F3’s will practice all different kinds of intercepts. Looks like the locals say this is a regular thing to have jets low overhead.
F35bYou do have a good question about the F3 flying a low level training mission but i am not familiar with the RAF training so i don’t know if that is stadard practice to do low level in the F3.
Maybe the F3 was chasing a GR4 through the hills and valleys trying to get a lock. I really don’t know. The reports say this jet was following another plane from RAF Leuchers but i can’t find what type. Leuchers normally only operates the F3 but you could have a GR4 from Lossiemouth.
There is a report in The Sun about the crash with statements from locals describing what happened. 1 said it looked as though they were racing each other and were lower than normal.
There is also a hilarious photo the Sun must of made up. Maybe someone should tell the cops there is an F3 5 feet above there head!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/2514291/Two-die-in-Tornado-crash.html
F35bWhat a good point swerve i completely forgot about them. I wonder how they find there Jag’s in that role.
F35bI’ve always put the difference between 4 generation and 5th generation and 4+++ = nearly 5th down to one thing. American’s developed F-22 and called it 5th generation but then everyone else who was still developing or just launched their fighter’s didn’t want to classed as 4th generation with Block 1 F-16 and F-15A mig 29A’s and a like. So for Su-35 and eurofighter etc they had to come up with something in between 4th and 5th generation and what do you get 4.5 and 4++ generation.
Sign In
