sealordlawrenceSealord, thought you’d like this:
I certainly do!, Check out the 545 section, the second grainy photo with nose cone attached is very rare!
Cheers Ed.
sealordlawrencePerhaps he wanted to point the fact that several European AF with much less differents missions than the FAF/MN will need two planes and one of them is american ?
Perhaps you are trying to circumvent the point of this thread by that the Typhoon has been ordered by 6 countries and the Rafale by only 1, by trying to turn it into a Rafale versus Typhoon flame fest?:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceOWR: it’s all very well disliking all politicians of whatever party, but unless you or I are acceptable to spend taxpayers’ hard-earned, that’s our system. Defence cannot take more than (3,6,9%? -your choice) of total wealth without destroying a nation. So: priorities.
Early-1946. USSR our plucky friend. Shipyards to attend to renewal of our mercantile fleet so that we can eat. Last Malta, Windsor Heavies, many other 1945 programmes abandoned: no enemy. We ration bread and spuds, which we did not do when Adolf tried to starve us. Cold. Hungry. Maj.Attlee, PM elected to deliver, this time, a land fit for heroes to live in, WIA, last officer/second last man taken, by RN, off Gallipolli, asks of RN’s Estimates bid, sensibly: “who is there to fight at sea?” (P.Weiler, E.Bevin, MUP, 1993, P.161).Sole RN roles: Trade Protection (?from pirates), succour to Empire garrisons. But we’re leaving S.Asia. RN invents the wheeze of mercenary crewing of 9 Colossii, retains Fleet Implacable and 4 Light Fleets (mostly in port), somehow funds a large Reserve Fleet, and slowly works on the keels of 2 Strike (to be Eagle/Ark) and 4 Light Fleets (Albion/Bulwark/Centaur/Hermes). Stop chomping on about what could/should have been: be awestruck at what their Lordships did achieve. Unlike Ministers, you have hindsight of Stalin’s follies.
Factually correct, well sourced and well put as usual.:)
sealordlawrenceWhat about the proposals for a supersonic Sea Vixen? Already got the two seats & radar.
Actual aircraft seriously proposed for the RN were,
SR.177, cancelled in 1957, originally this was intended as a mixed power plant fighter but there is some speculation that had it have progressed it would have ended up with just a single jet engine (Avon or Thames).
P.1154, for some reason somebody felt that it would be a good idea to combine an RN requirement for a heavy high speed fighter with an RAF requirement for a light tactical strike aircraft, the RN did their best to turn their version into a phantom, they were so succesfull that the RN version was cancelled in 1964 in favour of Phantoms.
Vickers Type 583, I have a personal like for this aircraft as it seems to me to be one of the two great losses of the period to the British military aviation complex (the other being the P.1121). Basically a twin engined swing wing Mach 2+ fighter. The P.1154 took precedence so it never got to see the light of day.
sealordlawrenceThree years ago the US$700 million cap garanteed that only the Su-35 and the MiG-29 would be affordable for a 12 aircraft order, Mirage 2000Br, Gripen and F-16 would be far more expensive then that. Since then the US$ has fallen almost 30% to the dóllar making the 2.2Billion figure seem too short for anything but Russian fighters once again. This time the new Su-35 seems very able to face off against the Rafale in technological and operational terms. Some people say the impending purchase of 12 Mil Mi-171 and 12 Mil Mi-35 helicopters by the Air Force is the test environment need to give the Brazilian Air Force the confidence they need to be able to purchase cutting edge Russian fighters…
It’s an error to consider atry to bundle up Air Force and Navy aircraft procurement decisions since they are ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENT…
Best Regards,
Hammer
IIRC the requirement last time round was for a single seater which was why the Su-35 was tendered instead of an Su-30MK variant. From what you are saying it sounds like the new Su-35 could be a shoe in if that requirement still stands.
sealordlawrencestrange the way some people have a fascinaion with the stone age….ie
” bomb them into the stone age….” or words to that effect :rolleyes:
No one said anything about bombing anybody, either you have not read back through this thread in order to understand the reference or you are trolling.
sealordlawrencestrange the way some people have a fascinaion with the stone age….ie
” bomb them into the stone age….” or words to that effect :rolleyes:
No one said anything about bombing anybody, either you have not read back through this thread in order to understand the reference or you are trolling.
sealordlawrenceIf its true this could be very interesting, last time it looked like a straight fight between the Mirage 2000 and the old Su-35, the Mirage sort of won by default, if one can call leasing a small number of second hand aircraft winning.
This time the Russians can offer both the Mig-35 and the new Su-35 and the french can throw in the Rafale, could be an interesting fight.
sealordlawrenceAlso, consider the possibilities of a developed Scimitar, with two seats, radar, and area ruled fuselage for Supersonic flight. A british built Phantom equivalent?
Vickers Type 583.;)
sealordlawrenceScrapping Lion, Tiger & Blake at the earliest opportunity would have been pure gain. Their combined service lives were ridiculously short, their usefulness while in commission doubtful, to say the least, & their cost very high.
That may be the perception now, bot do not underestimate the effect of the Sverdlovs on the RN, and NATO in general, psyche. There does seem to have been very real doubts about the capacity of carriers to deal with them.
sealordlawrenceVictorious was removed from service because the Labour government WOULD not afford her. The fire that was the excuse for her premature demise was nowhere near as bad as the government stated, and her captain said that it would not delay her recommissioning by even one day. The descision was purely political. As to the longevity of the refitted carriers, again this is clouded by their premature withdrawal for political reasons. Both Victorious’ and Eagle’s reconstructions were said at the time of their completion to extend the ship’s lives by twenty years, which would more than justify their costs. Victorious when recommissioned in 1958 was effectively a new ship, new engines new boilers, rewired throughout and everything above hangar deck level was new. Eagle retained more of her hull structure and her engines and boilers, but these had not seen strenuous war service and were in good condition. Ark Royal never recieved as extensive a refit as Eagle yet still soldiered on until 1978, and she was always described as being in the poorest mechanical condition. Even after the 66 Healy axe the RN was planning on keeping two carriers operational through the seventies and ordered enough Phantoms for three squadrons (two frontline and one HQ/training+spares). They were hoping two carriers would maintain the minimum capability long enough for a change of government to reverse the 66 axing, so even while Healy was telling parliament that the carrier force would be all gone by 1972 (including Ark Royal, her three year refit was only to produce two years service!), the Navy was making other plans. The government got wind of this and cancelled Eagle’s proposed ‘Phantomisation’, and the FG1s intended for her air group were diverted to the RAF. The first the RN knew of this was when they were delivered in RAF camouflage for 43sqn. Eagle could otherwise have remained in frontline service until around 1984 (Victorious could have lasted to at least 1978).
There was no need to refit Hermes as a commando carrier (£25million, compared to £5million to phantomise Eagle) as there were already two LPHs in service (Albion and Bulwark) which had plenty of hull life left and were only five years older than Hermes. Albion was paid off for further commercial service though that deal fell through and she was quietly scrapped whilst Bulwark remained until 1981(and could have served longer if not for the 81 defence review, as she was the same age as Albion it only illustrates how long the latter could have served) so if Hermes had been retained as an ASW carrier unmodified and still operating an airgroup of Sea Vixens (plenty of fatigue life left, plenty of airframes available and support infrastructure already in place) for air defence and Buccs for anti shipping strike alongside Sea Kings and Gannets, albeit with the numbers adjusted in favour of the helos, then the money wasted on her LPH conversion could have been better spent (on Eagle for a start).
As always the could versus would issue is debatable,;) otherwise perfectly put.
sealordlawrenceWhat about the Typhoon from 07 onwards?
James
And you just know that is going to be followed by the Rafale fan club.;) 😀
sealordlawrenceI would rank the mirage 2000-5 + mica above the F-15C after 1997
Theres a surprise.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceI agree that the new carrier costs more in initial capital expenditure, but when you consider the whole life costs, the more expensive solution can be much cheaper. It may be counterintuitive, but it is just the way the world works. As it is, the short term cost savings ended up being for little, since the carriers were still knackered after just ten or so years in service, and were basically retired within twenty years. The new carrier may cost 50% or more over and above the costs of the rebuilds, but with lower maintenance costs (the war-built carriers were pretty lousy in terms of quality control, out of necessity), and longer lives, they cost less for more. Clemenceau type carriers built in the late ’50s or early ’60s could still be in service through until very recently, just look at the Kitty Hawk etc… This means no need for Invincibles in the ’70s, and replacement carriers bought sometime over the last twenty years.
My only major concern is your very valid point about the availability of materials for the actual construction. One possibility, that would never have been settled upon, would be to just have the French build the basic ships, then have British shipyards only doing the ‘value added’ work, i.e. systems integration etc… Okay, you can shoot me now! :diablo:
The quality control on the fleet carriers was actually very good and the Hermes, Eagle and Ark Royal can only just be considered war builds. Any new build design prior to the CVA-01 was unlikely to offer any reasonable life cycle cost advantage compared to a properly reconstructured Victorious. Even systems integration would have been difficult, everything was short in British yards, including skilled personel. If the 1952 carrier had been built it would not have lasted any longer than Eagle or Ark Royal did, the path of the RN would not have been changed, Victorious was not removed from service becouse she was worn out she was removed becouse she could not be afforded.
sealordlawrenceexactly a place for everything, and everything in its place 😎
Human beings in caves for instance.:rolleyes:
Sign In
