gate“You seem to be very keen on closing down the UKs aircraft industry. Do you have shares in Boeing & Lockheed Martin? “
I actually work in the UK aircraft industry as a CNC machinist. I just think the UK will always be better developing and manufacturing aircraft with the USA or on it’s own – not with Europe. For example BAe could be like Sukhoi.
I can’t see any reason why the UK could not design and build a replacemnt for the Tornado on it’s own. The skill and and expertise already exists in the UK, a lack of political will stops this. I think the UK could develop aircraft superior to anything that comes out of Sweden or France. Let’s face it, the Typhoon or Tornado would not exist without the expertise of BAe Systems and Rolls Royce. I don’t think Italy or Spain could create an aircraft like that on thier own. Imagine if the USA/UK deisgned and developed a 5th gen replacemnt for the Tornado – it would be amazing.
gateI think jamming is the least problem, the problem is the net-centric idea. Every aspect of the battlespace will be on some sort of world wide computer network that will operate in cyberspace. This will contain the positions of everything, positions of aircraft, what they carrying, images, etc. The problem is how do you stop the otherside getting into and seeing this ‘battlenet’.
gateWhy couldn’t the the USN use CVF type carriers, like the RN? Aircraft technology is able to operate without catapults now (Osprey/JSF).
I am sure the JSF could be developed into an A2A tanker and a SEAD platform. As for Antiship, if the SeaHarrier can use SeaEagle…
And if the Seaking can be used for AEW, then so can Osprey.
What I meant by ‘joint’ was the combining of land/sea/air forces and then splitting them into modular elements, only tradition prevents this.
Then the you could use a F-35 squadron, manned by a pilot, who can operate from any platform, and perform any mission.
What is the point of having Harrier pilots for the FAA, when the FAA has no Harriers! Why join the Navy to fly Raf jets?
gateMaybe the PAK-FA, F-22 and F-35 will be the last manned fighter aircraft ever to be put into service.
UCAVs are the future, the problems are being able to encode and decode encryptd data in (next to) real time – then you could perform aerial refueling, or even display flying! You could pull 12gs and not feel it.
Pilots will become Operators in control rooms – 1000s of miles away from the battlespace.
gateThe USAF and USMC air wings could be merged, for instance, scrap all the Carriers and build new carriers with a ski-jump and no catapults – similar to the CVFs, and then replace the smaller carriers with similar types to ‘Lusty/Ocean and Wasp’ type class. An air wing would be something like:-
F-35B – Strike/Anti-Shipping/Recon/CAS/CAP and SEAD
Osprey (Multi Variants) – AWACS, VERTREP, CSAR, Minesweeping etc
Seahawk – Subhunting, Anti-ship, SAR, CSAR, etc
UH-1N – for FAC etc
AH-1Z – for Anti-Amour etc
The RAF and RN could do a similar thing, why have an Air Force and Navy ‘sharing’ equipment – scrap the lot a create a new ‘force’, the ‘Royal Air and Naval Force’, or the USANF – budgets would stretch further, and equipment procuremnt would be simplier.
I think ‘forces’ need merging and then splitting into elements. For instance 1 element could involve sea and air operations combined and all operated under 1 ‘force’.
What capability would be lost by creating such a joint force – is there any advantage to using catapults on carriers with aircraft like the Osprey and F-35?
The point I am getting at..The F-35, Osprey and various helicopters could perform all roles needed by the USN, USMC and RN – from ships that do not need catapults. The only catapult aircraft I think that is needed is the Greyhound! (If they Osprey does not have it’s legs?)
Just a thought.
gateThe RAF does not need the A400M. It could use the money to buy more C-130Js and/or C-17s. If the USAF can do without it, so can the RAF.
gateWould it make sense for a country like Canada/Austrailia or Finland to operate a mixed force of F/A-18EFs and F-35A/Cs?
gate“C- As soon as you started hanging all of the jamming pods on the F-35, it’d defeat the purpose of being VLO”
Why would you need to carry jamming pods on a stealth aircraft (the F-35), SAM radars would only see a “metal golf ball”, and they would be dead before they had time to react.
I know the RAF Typhoon will use ALARM in the SEAD role and take the over the role of the Tornado. Maybe the ALARM will be used on the F-35 also in the RAF, and also I presume the F-16CJ/DJ will be replaced by the F-35A.
Just thought the F-35 would replace all Navy combat jets, as the F/A-18 replaced A-7/A-4/F-14.
To use the F/A-18E/F alongside the F-35 seems like having two combat aircraft that perform the same roles, except one has more stealth. The range and payload of the 2 aircraft seems very similar – so the F-35 will effectively replace the F/A-18C/D and the F/A-18E/F/G the S-3/F-14/EA-6B.
Funny how the USN seems to be purchasing more 2 seat F/A-18F than F/A-18Es, when industry seems to pushing the idea of UCAVs.
gateAre BVR missiles ‘operated’ using the Radar display screen only? Obviously the WSO or pilot has to know, that whatever he has on the screen is a “Blackjack”, but my question is, how do they tell what is what, or do they have systems that can identify a target and automatically track it?
I understand that the Raptor only turns on its Radar for short bursts, and then changes its frequency, to avoid detection – Is this correct? And then only relevant information is displayed to the pilot, I take it the Typhoon has a similar system right?
So if a Raptor was say, 100 miles away from an intercepting Flanker, nothing at all would be on the Flanker’s screen, zilch, (surely the F-22 must have some radar signature?) And if the Raptor was intercepting a Flanker – during its radar pulse – the Flanker would be detected and killed by BVR missiles before it has time to react right?
And even if a Raptor is WVR you will probably die right, due to low heat signature, agility?
So then if the PAK-FA is a stealth aircraft, all of the EuroCanards will be obsolete, because they will lose any fight (with it).
Surely the only replacement for the ADV then is the Raptor – considering we still have to intercept Russian aircraft, and if things turned ‘hot’ – the bombers will be escorted by PAK-FAs (in 2025 for example)?
gateDoes the USAF have an equiv missile to the ASRAAM on the F-15? And is the full capabilty of that missile now exploited on the F3?
I understand the ADV has ‘carefree’ handling, does this mean that the pilot can try and do what he intends, and let the aircraft ‘try’ to match the control inputs?
The radar in the in service Su-27 can track 10 targets, and engage 1 – is that correct? The ADV has ‘multiple engagement’, what does this mean? Does it mean the Su-27 has to destroy it’s tragets 1 at time? And the ADV can launch 2 AMRAAMs for instance, and the radar will guide both missiles ‘at once’?
What does the pilot or WSO see on his screen when looking at a target – say if you were to intercept a blackjack 50 miles away, what would it look like? Does anybody have a screen shot?
Basic questions I know, thanks
gate” I’m still surprised that no one thought about using an Airbus airframe for the Nimrod MRA4, which is only a platform for the high-tech kit”
I think there is more to it than that. The airframe offers many advantages, the position of the engines (something to do with subs?), it’s slow speed for sub hunting and high speed for getting there, and the ability to run on two engines for many hours. Don’t forget the Nimrod is the worlds only jet maritime patrol aircraft for a reason.
But – it as an expensive, engineering nightmare – whos delays have cost lives.
gateThe Jaguar can get there faster.
It can strafe.
It can use offborsesight AAMS.
It is simpler.
The Harrier has STOVL
No cannon in case of RAF?
No offboresight AAMs
It has a larger payload though?
gateADV
You have got to agree, the Tornado ADV is an awesome looking aircraft, especially from underneath.
Why was the Tornado ADV developed? Israel and Japan both used F-15s to replace F-4s, why didn’t the RAF do the same? Was it because of tanker support? Also why does the F-15 only require 1 crew member, but the Tornado ADV needs two – don’t they both do the same job, and I would of thought the ADV avionics to be equal to the F-15MSIP.
How good a ‘dogfighter’ would a Tornado ADV be with ASRAAM – would it have any chance at all if it got close in with a Mig-29 for example?
Personally I prefer the Tornado ADV to the F-15 – it has always been the underdog in the interception role, but I think they are more capable than people seem to think.
Kind Regards,
gateGuys – I was being TIC.
And yes 72 jets is what us and America will fight WW3 with….
Raptors are not for sale even under the special relationship, oh well we will have to ‘make do’ with second rate F-35s and Typhoons.
Don’t forget those T1As to deal with any ‘leakers’….
It is OK to be in the middle.
Personally I think European military hardware is always behind the US. And in another 10 years Russia will be way ahead.
Is there anything, in any Europen airforce, that is as capable as the Su-34, or F-15E?
As for Israel and Japan – I am sure an F-15C is more capable than an a Tornado ADV.
gateI agree the UK must ensure it stays independant, but if you look at Japan and Israel, roughly similar to the RAF, with better equipment maybe, they ‘seem’ to be very independant.
I think the the RAF would be a better airforce if it went down the path of US equipment.
If you look at the MOD projects, when they fail, US equipment is always used – look at the Nimrod AEW which ended being E-3, the R1 will also be replaced by a RC-135 right?
Then you have WAH-64, GR5/7/9, C-17.
Sign In
