nocutstoRAFSigh – you make it sound like that it is inevitable that the Army, as the “victorious” face of the British Armed services will get the lion’s share of funding even if the SDSR make’s it clear that there is requirement to fund RAF or the RN to greater extent than the Army.
Still the interminable wait to see what the future Armed Forces will look like will soon be over if the various departments are expected to draw up their plans for cuts by the end of July, as by then Liam Fox should have some concrete plans on what he is going to cut.
nocutstoRAFwell it looks like you can scratch the phoon off the list
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1286635/Defence-budget-cuts-Major-projects-axed-troops-kit-need-says-Liam-Fox.html
Defence Secretary, Dr Fox made clear that major projects like the Typhoon Eurofighter jet – already seen as obsolete – will bear the brunt of cuts.
While the Typhoon may well get cut, it is an interpretation of the Daily Mail that Liam Fox singled out the Eurofighter for cuts.
If you read his full text speech (from the link below) he never once singles out a particular project for cuts the closest he gets is in the sentence:
“But after 12 years without a defence review, over a period where our Armed Forces have been at times overstretched, with some current equipment overused and out of date, with legacy programmes from the Cold War that are of less relevance today, and in a terrible economic and financial circumstances, we cannot afford to delay.”
You could argue that the Typhoon is a legacy programme but so are number of other equipment programmes.
nocutstoRAFI have interpreted the Army onslaught against everything naval and the fast jets of the RAF as a knee jerk reaction to the fact that they a) do not believe for one minute they will be leaving Afghanistan any time soon, b) they feel that they are being short changed of the equipment to protect their troops on the ground.
Of course this does not stop the public backing the Army, and it being politically difficult to justify the purchase of the F-35 or new build for frigates all the time the Army claim they are not getting the equipment they need.
nocutstoRAFUgh. I just came over from another forum I use where this was posted up. Long story short:
1) British main stream media = idiots
2) Story therefore = rubbish based on one of many possible scenarios the MOD creates, no matter how likely they are to happen.
I noted that the Sunday Express did not state what their defence expert thought of the idea of operating QE as a STOL carrier and PoW as a CATOBAR carrier, I assume this was one of the ideas their expert from Jane’s thought would not result in any savings.
nocutstoRAF80 aircraft will not get you 6 sqns, maybe 4, you need attrition stock, aircraft in the engineering cycle etc. The Kangeroo shaggers bought 71 Hornets, that gave them 3 sqns and an OCU and thats been tight and used a lot of airframe hours very quickly.
6 FAA sqns is never going to hapen, we don’t need 6 squadrons of FAA F35s. A combined RAF/FAA force may be in the realms of 6 sqns including OCUs and OEUs, but 6 sqns dedicated to the RN carriers is pure fantasy and probably uneccesary. We don’t need a squadron permanently availible for carrier ops, we need an aircraft that can deploy to sea and should do regularly, but not all the time. We need the option and the capability.
There is no evidence of a token purchase, it might come in batches over time and that is perfectly sensible, look at how we have built up the C17 capability when its been affordable. Chances are that F35 is going to be seen as the Harrier/Tornado replacement combined with future UCAVs such as developed Taranis. So the F35B force will be bigger than the current Harrier force but perhaps smaller than the GR4 force.
Thanks for the clarification on the planes versus squadron issue its one of those things that I have not much luck googling since I started paying attention again (and the last time I was interested in military aviation was back in the early 90’s when I was a geeky teen) – it is difficult to work out how many air frames you would normal expect to be in storage.
I thought the F-35 was going to be set up like the Joint Harrier Force, and that they will expect to fly them both of bases and the carriers, is this not right? In addition I have been basing my post SDSR assumptions on the Defence Green Paper published last year and it assumes that we will have the capability to deploy an air wing for protracted period and 2 air wings for surge operations all of which lead me to believe that they will need to be able to field 6 squadrons of F-35’s + OCU’s if they intend to really be able to field an air wing via a carrier.
I agree they will use the F-35B to replace Harrier and GR4’s, a sound plan if they can get the cash to do it.
Still it could be worse, we could be in the position of Belgium whose F-16’s, its basic trainer and its transport fleet are all reaching the end of their service lives, and who just slashed their defence budget by 20% and will find it difficult to find the funds to replace the equipment they need.
nocutstoRAF.
@the last post: a short runway doesn’t have to be a proper paved job does it? And nocuts, maybe try using the multi-quote button to answer posts, that way we don’t get 3 of yours in a row.
Multi-posting to keep Grim901 happy!
A short runway, I think – but that should be shorter than is needed by the USAF. The Israelis have talked about getting some F-35B in order to be able to operate even if runways are cratered by missiles.
A little exaggerated (mainly by those who want to cancel it) but you do need a very short runway generally, granted i’m not sure they will want it at Henlow, but that said an afternoon of work by the RE and an airfield the size of Henlow could be made F35 worthy, so the point still stands. VSTOL is a very useful system to have and means your force is very flexible, if the nearest base is a tiny airfield the RAF/FAA can still get in there, if we need more aircraft at sea then the RAF can deploy there to reinforce.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2076790/f_35_vertical_takeoff/
Uk test plot on this, shows you vertical take off and short take off. Watch and then tell me you still think we should buy F18E?
Looks like the F-35 took off in a 200 meters or so from a standard paved air strip.
In a low air threat (or non existent air threat) what would be the point of deploying F35s on ship at great expense? If the deployment is one of a humanitarian nature, or low threat peacekeeping, then a hanger full of Merlins (HM2 and HC3), wildcats and Apaches will be a lot more useful than F35s. Even on a normal peacetime deployment when you decided you want F35s, a single squadron of 9-12 would be adequate for training and immediate crisis deployments.
That would be intelligent use of resources. Constantly deploying 2 squadrons at sea would be a massive waste of money and also tie up valuable aircraft that could be doing other things. And by having VSTOL its easy to reinforce, as RAF pilots who had never flown from carriers proved in the Falklands when they performed their first deck landings in the south atlantic.
Not sure I agree, it would be an advantage to have at least 1 squadron of F35Bs on board at all times, even if only to maintain carrier qualifications etc, of course we shouldn’t run full warload every day at sea, it’s always nice to have some free space to invite allies to crosstrain with their Helo’s and a few of our NATO friends with their Bs, I’m sure even the USMC is going to turn up sooner rather than later, even if only so they can make the case for Ski Jumps on LHA 6 and 7
Go back to my original point 80 F/A-18E’s versus 40 F-35B’s then unless I am completely wrong wouldn’t the mean a difference between 6 squadrons of F/A-18E’s and 3 squadrons of F-35B’s?
With 3 squadron’s of F-35B you would have one for operational conversion, and 2 front line squadrons, you are going to be hard pressed to be keeping a short squadron on the QE for training purposes, and be able to provide proper training for the pilots flying in Afghanistan or where ever, plus provide a squadron in the field (that is why I quite deliberately used 80 and 40). I am think that even 4 squadrons is tight and that 5 or 6 squadrons are likely the minimum needed to be able to have confidence that you can always have one squadron available for carrier operations.
If you can guarantee me that the UK can have at least 6 squadrons of F-35B I will dance a little jig (and I will not even bother with a couple of beers first to loosing me up), but if we are heading for a token purchase of F-35B some sort of “lets buy 24 with an option for another 36” kinda of deal, then I would question a) if anyone in the MoD can find their bottoms with their elbows, and b) the value of F-35B if it is not brought in sufficient numbers to be able to do all the things we will need from it.
True enough, but the day the US decides it no longer needs NATO is the day the EU is forced to transform into a full superpower rather than just an economic one. If the US needed another nail in it’s world power coffin, outside of China, that’d be it. It’d also demonstrate how much US allies are worth to the US, I can’t quite predict the results of that.
I doubt it’ll happen any time soon though, the US needs all the allies it can get, especially economically powerful ones, if they are going to slow China’s rise
I’m not so sure. Unless the Russians are stupid enough to try to bully Europe so much that the EU members feel compelled to tighten their military alliance & build up their forces, Europe lacks a direct military threat to concentrate minds. I reckon that somewhat closer co-operation & a modest build up of expeditionary forces is a good bet, but anything more is very uncertain.
I agree with Swerve, unless Europe has an external threat, most of Europe, Germany included will quite happily carry on reducing their spending on the military and let someone else pick up the burden of their defence. I think the only thing that would bring the slumbering giant awake would be if the region around Europe destabilised and there were large numbers of refugees steaming into Europe, and then Europe’s interests would be roused to stabilise the region and get all the refugees back home! Even a more belligerent Russia would only result in Germany and France trying to re-double efforts to tie Russia into Europe
nocutstoRAFSTOVL doesn’t require “runways”, thats the point! When you’ve seen a Harrier operate out of RAF Henlow (tiny grass strip used by the ATC for gliding), you realise what a bl**dy useful trick it is.
I thought that the F-35B does need a short runway or a CRCP hardstanding to take off – or is one of those negative rumours that have been floating around?
nocutstoRAFI hope that was just an example and not a serious prediction…
But on the subject, there are examples of UK and US interests being separate. In fact it was only post 2000 that the interests have converged to such a point that the UK will simply follow the US wherever it leads. However that doesn’t mean it will happen in the future, as we know, the “special relationship” depends a lot on the personal relationship between President and PM.
It was a purposely extreme example to make the point. I think that the UK was and still is worried that US does not need NATO as much as NATO need the US, and if the UK does not contribute to US operations it weakens the web of obligations with the US which make the UK and the rest of Europe safer – i.e when politicians say that our presence in Afghanistan makes the UK safer I do not think they are talking about stopping terrorism but rather reminding US that they have reliable allies.
nocutstoRAFThe point about carrier aviation is that if you line up all the current carrier capable arcraft you could buy with UK tax money the F35 will come out way ahead of the rest and that is really the key to its purchase.
Well I have never made my any bones about my agenda – I want the CVF’s and I want them to have a full complement of fighters and be as effective as possible, I worry that a penny pinching approach post the SDSR by the MoD (i.e they have a fixed budget and they will only buy as many F-35 as their fixed budget will buy) will result in too few carrier fighters and the one draw back about the F-35 B is that the costs have all be going in the wrong direction. Plus the carriers are something the general public have little sympathy for.
While I appreciate that you almost certainly disagree but I rather that they buy say 80 Gen 4.5 fighters than 40 F-35B’s as I am still not convinced that they will spend all that much time on the carriers and will spend far too much time operating from austere airfields and I think the UK needs to be able to do both (fight on land and operate 1 -2 squadrons as a bare minimum from the carriers).
I really really hope I am proved wrong and we are not short changed on the carrier fighter front and left with two new carriers at sea for months or years on end with just helicopters embarked.
nocutstoRAFIt is axiomatic that the UK will not go to war excepting where it supports the US.
I think it should always be remember that all of the West’s economic and military co-operation is based on mutual self-interest, and ultimately if the UK’s interests do not match the US interests the US (quite rightly) will do what’s best for its own self-interests.
Obviously due to the economic and military mismatch between UK and US there are times where the UK decides its interests are best served by going along with US policy even if it is at odds with the UK’s interests.
One day in the future it might be possible that UK and US interests diverge so much that we no longer co-operate military – for example imagine in fifty years time Russia is more military and economically dominant than the combined might of Europe and allies itself with the US to compete against China’s dominance in Asia and the Pacific and Russia and the US compete with China to access scarce resources, and the US abandons its European allies due to the fact they have become more worried about Russia and the US needs Russia more than Europe
nocutstoRAFI thought we were talking carrier aircraft? In which case the F35 is the best there is. Land based flying things tend to be better than carrier equivilants because there doesn’t have to be the same design compromises and constraints.
I think I still prefer a Raptor over a F-35A but it is not really a fair comparison until the F-35A comes into service and we see what it can do!
PS we were talking about carrier aircraft but since no-one else is even thinking of a Fifth Gen carrier aircraft yet there is nothing to compare to and even if you ignore the reduction in RCS due to internal bays for the F-35 as being irrelevant the sensor fusion seems to be ahead of the nearest 4.5 gen fighter IMO (which is often proven wrong)
nocutstoRAFI wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that when the Defence Review is concluded that the F-35 and the CVF go by the board.
Quite a common opinion in some corners, but the problem I have with it is that as far as I can tell the money for the carriers is already committed and you only make a saving if you can find someone else to buy them (and with the price overruns they are simply too expensive for most other nations to buy).
F-35 might be sacrificed but then you need to convert the carriers to use catapults and buy a gen 4.5 fighter and it can be argued that the carrier based strike wing is much more likely to be involved in SEAD/DEAD operations that the Typhoons will be and more likely at risk of being shot down, so stealth would be an advantage for the carrier based fighters. Still I am not completely opposed to the Rafale, Super Hornet or even the Sea Gripen
nocutstoRAF:rolleyes: best we can get our hands on? So what else and if you say SU33 i’m going to come down there and…..
Given the choice I would go Raptor all the way (well at least up to the point I had try to fly it of the carrier, which I imagine go whoosh splat splutter 😀 ).
I would not be surprised if in some mission profiles the PAK-FA will give the F-35 a run for its money, but I would say that the F-35 will still edge the PAK-FA overall, but that is based on an outdated idea that while Russian fighters tend be excellent kinematically there radars and missiles tend to lag behind. Any case we will not be buying PAK-FA’s so the UK has a choice of F-35 or nothing if it wants to buy a fifth gen fighter.
nocutstoRAFExtra fuel can always hang off the wings for the initial approach and then the drop tanks jettisoned before entering the contested airspace to extend range without compromising stealth.
And the point is that 2 bombs delivered and the aircraft safely returning is better than sending one with 8 bombs and losing it. They’d only really be concerned with stealth during the inital SEAD during the first strikes, then after that stealth isn’t that useful anyway.
I assume that as the bay is capable of carrying 2 x 1,000 lb bombs that in RAF/FAA service we can get the F-35 B carrying 4 x 500 lb bombs.
Of course the F-35A and C have larger internal payloads, I am sure PJHYRDO will correct me if wrong, but I thought they carried 2 A2A missiles and 4 x 1,000 lbs bombs which is a pretty good stealthed strike package.
nocutstoRAFThe conclusion I draw is that nobody has told them the F-35B has external hardpoints, cause while I doubt the B is going to be coming off carriers loaded down to the stops, I’m sure it will make it off quite easily will a full loadout of UK standard 500lb paveways and a missiles for defence. A “dirty” self defending strike package would come to roughly 5000lbs.
Also how exactly does a strike eagle work on a carrier?
The author of the article in Combat Aircraft Monthly is aware of the specs of the F-35 (I am ignoring the report I previously referenced that was also referenced by article in Combat Aircraft Monthly as if I was honest about it I think the Mod’s would throw me off the board all I can say is that I think a hell of lot less for the author of the article in Combat Aircraft Monthly for mentioning it).
The point the author of the article was trying to make was that the F-35B is only stealthy with a small payload in its internal bays, but strangely he demolishes his own argument by saying “experts” think that stealth is irrelevant without saying why. I assume it is a reference to improvements in networked SAM systems operating outside the X band which can detect stealth aircraft but as the article was summarising the issues facing a senior USN officer in his role where he is caught between Congress and Gates, it does not provide much more information than I quoted on the issue.
I caught the point you made about the F-15E as well (why do you think I quoted it) comparing the F-35B to the F-15E was a tad weird
Sign In
