Al.Of course if ANG were to buy Gripen or Eurofighter (licence-built of course) they’d be saying that the Eurocanards are second string aircraft fit only for homeland defence but that real men need 5th Gen for taking the fight to the enemy.
Al.X2 certainly looks prettier and that’s worth something on a fan forum at least. If the old saying about ‘looking right …’ holds water then it could be a winner as well.
X2 and X3 both strike me as being inherently more safe than tilit-rotor. But X2 looks more elegant and robust.
I’d also dearly love Sikorsky of all helo manufacturers to bring something exciting to the market place. As a kid I was fascinated by the ABC rotors and I’d really like to see Sikorsky making good on all of that work.
It took a looong time for tilt rotors to move from cool idea to commercially-viable hardware and I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that other ways to make helos go faster are similarly long term. Even if X3 dies a commercial death at least EH are trying something new (or at least summat not tried for a while).
Al.The debate over CVF shows that the admirals in particular are living in the past: it’s nothing more than a warmed up CVA-01, which even in the ’60s was beyond Britain’s means.
I disagree with the thrust of that. FWIW I think you are typing cobblers but I will agree that the parallel with CVA-01 is striking and pertinent. Replcaing flat tops, airframes and escorts in one go is expensive and sadly a bit daft.
One of the bitter ironies over C1 and C2 is that our CVSs have got stacks of life left in them and could make brilliant C1 or C2 platforms. But that ain’t gonna happen.
Al.Also sort of off topic but i think the USN should take a break from building surface combatants for a few years and spend the time to figure out what sort of new battleship they want and in the mean time focus on subs, auxiliaries and amphibs. A lot of our support ships are nearing the end of there projected services lifes.
There is sense in that, my concern would be USN and US manufacturing duplicating the UKs problems with the delay in atomic boat design and production.
I am still amazed that the mighty US industrial machine has not managed to design, build and market an FFG to export. Maybe that could be a focus for shipyards whilst the US concentrates on defining whaat it actually wants.
Al.The paper ship point is a good one. And one which Brazil would be daft to ignore
Of course none of us know what the other considerations are. Just off the top of my head:
In general its not a good idea to wed oneself to a single supplier of kit so Brazil might like the idea of having (yet) another supplier (if nothing else to keep current suppliers honest)
The details of technological offset haven’t been made public and BAe systems might offer a better deal.
There are South American nations who have historically bought British rather than our continental chums so (despite possibly contradicting first point!) Brazil might like the prospect of being in a position to licence-build T26s and sell them to regional customers.
When are the new Frigates due? With significant spending on other programmes it may be that Brazil isn’t ready to buy its new Frigates just yet and a small time delay isn’t a concern.
Al.I am far from being a spam basher! (how you came to this conclusion has me f@%$*&)
Twasn’t meant as an accusation more general adjective than specific noun but I obviously phrased poorly since I allowed you to take offence. So apologies
[QUOTE=Pioneer;1634717]but ‘unfair and dangerously self-deluded‘?:( please
Indeed from (at least) two angles
Firstly non-US looking down t’nose at US and assuming that bigger budget always equals waste and pie-in-the-sky-thinking
Secondly US looking at US and thinking ‘why are we doing this when no one else is?’
I have operated with the American military operationally on more than one occasion, I have witnessed what I have stated!
I am absolutely certain that it exists and am more than prepared to take your word on it. M’point (if such there was) was that the US ain’t unique in failing to avoid this pitfall.
Al.but it appears to be an American trait to forget lessons learn as they acquire technology!
I enjoy spam bashing as much as the next man but to accuse them of this in isolation seems both unfair and dangerously self-deluded
Al.Or maybe it just shows that the two countries have different standards in safety (hint: Sukhoi have already lost a Su-35 in testing).
Clearly its an expensive shame when an airframe is lost and a tragedy if life or lives are lost. But ……………
Planes crash in testing. Off the top of my head F22 and Gripen have both crashed. The Swedes banned professional boxing and health and safety grounds and insist that their cars can a. avoid a moose and b. survive impact with a moose so I’d see them as unlikely candidates for low standards in safety.
Al.Making a few rapid counts:
4×2 = 8 Phalanx for the Bay class.
2×2 = 4 Phalanx for the Wave
2×4 = 8 Phalanx for the Fort class
6×2 = 12 Phalanx for the Type 45
(3×2= 6 Phalanx for CVF)
FFBNW may well be bean-counting, penny pinching of the worst kind or it may turn out to be genius. (Or inadvertent genius caused by bean-counting)
CIWS are heading in different directions at the moment. Even confining ourselves to what the spams are up to
Phalanx 20mm
RAM
SeaRAM Phalanx chassis
CREWS Phalanx chassis
57mm
Are all possible options (admittedly on T45 at least two of these may be difficult due to the need to get ammo and/or power feed to the amidships position.
Will CAAMM cannisters bolt-on to the midships of T45? Would RN prefer that to using RAM? ’til its trialled fully we don’t know. RAM may turn out to be the better system.
Do we even know if the hangar roof is capable of taking a weapon?
I’d much rather see CVF with 2 Phalanx and 2 SeaRAM than 4 Phalanx. But if CAAMM is the winner we all hope then maybe again RN would rather bolt on CAAMM and have 3 or 4 Phalanx. Until trials are complete neither we nor they know which way to jump.
The RN have been concerned over the relative effectiveness (or lack of) of small calibre CIWS so allowing these other flavours time to mature and then make a decision seems a better idea than just buying Phalanx coz that’s what we’ve got most of currently and its the visual archetype that laymen can most recognise.
Similarly at first glance tis nonsense to leave the central aisle of T45 VLS silo empty and the C position empty of Harpoon launchers but by doing so options are open:
Middle row BMD Aster or Scalp or Tomahawk
C postion CAAMM cannisters
Middle row quadpack CAAMM
C position Harpoon or Scalp cannisters
Al.Funny. I see more of a parallel to the Seawolf class and the B-2 bombers. :rolleyes:
Again, quite possibly.
Is this a bad thing? From your reply you seem to think so. I’d say not in isolation, but perhaps if this is now 3 such programmes (or 5 if F22 and LCS can be considered contemporary) one would worry at so many learning experiences. But then that would not be a (valid) criticism of Zumwalt but of procurement and oversight.
Al.More like the Long Beach, she was a very expensive one of a kind that more than paid for itself in showing what to do, what not to do and paved the way for even better ships.
Agreed
Al.Well, I hope the US Navy is happy with all those features. Because at two ships it isn’t really going to do them much good.:rolleyes: Hopefully their next destroyer design will be a little more down-to-earth.
USN were very ambitious with (whatever Zumwalt is called now) and it seems that they may have been TOO ambitious.
But …………… in the absence of any genuine peer threat they have the luxury of time and some ‘failed’ programmes. At the bare minimum they will have learned an awful lot about:
dual band radar
peripheral VLS
all electric ship
reduction in manpower (to my mind THE big one for USN)
intermediate sized CIWS
tumblehome hullforms
congressional attitude to groundbreaking surface units
I see Zumwalt as being similar to the (surface) Virginia class and (maybe) the Ticos. Possibly overambitious but laying the groundwork for a successor
Al
Al.As I understand it current Situation
JSF workshare is based on investment in programme not airframes purchased
The JSF programme has learned a huge amount about VLO, sensor fusion and maintenance of the same
JSF will not be as cheap as projected (but may or may not be as expensive as pessimists predict)
The issue of JSF source code has still to be resolved
F35B is the most expensive JSF variant (in part due to economies of scale for A and C)
By its very nature F35B will be the most maintenance intensive variant (possibly tied with F35C depending on difference between impulse encountered in arrested landing vs. a clutch operating at such high rpm)
It is unlikely that FAA/RAF will receive the initially planned number of JSF
CVA-01 died (in part) because escorts, flat tops and airframes were all due for replacement in the same time frame
HMG has already decided to skip capability by retiring FA2 before JCA enters service
FA 18 E/F/G may or may not be better than Typhoon
NGAD is due to replace FA 18 E/F/G in USN circa 2020
Marinising Typhoon is harder than painting a winged fist on the vertical stabiliser
EMALS is not ready yet, but may be ready sooner than we think
AEW/AWACS/ISTAR on a helo is less effective than on fixed-wing
Italy already has a proven (but lower spec) AW101 AEW
Fitting a lower spec AEW airframe to escorts or sea control vessels is unlikely to be a bad thing
HMG is in serious debt
If Nuclear deterrent and an ongoing conflict are are to be funded from defence budget then MoD is facing significantly more than a 40% cut
QEII is already paid for and most of PoW has already been paid for
Penalty clauses will negate most (all?) potential savings from cancelling QEII and/or PoW
So my suggestion:
Short term (2018)
Build and comission QEII and PoW
FFBNW EMALS
Buy and operate Italian AW101AEW
Fill decks with (existing)
Apache AH1
Chinooks
Harrier Gr9
(possibly) remobbed Harrier FA2
Medium term (dependent on EMALS entry date)
Fit with EMALS
Hawkeye
AW101 AEW then used on other platforms
Existing airframes used for strike role(s)
Longer Term (2025)
NGADs for strike
Hawkeye
Al
Al.ou probably will be shocked but there are countries where people prefer universal healthcare to stealth aircraft for few chosen uselessly flying over their heads.
Now be fair the spam government spends TWICE as much per persion on healthcare as the UK. And the healthcare insurers spent enough money lobying against Obama’s plans to pay for insurance for every uninsured US citizen. So spending money on healthcare isn’t an issue in the US. How much the US spends on VLO warplanes won’t affect the likelihood of socialised medicine.
Al.Yeah and what about Skyflash. Is the pilot going to stop in mid air and show off his nose radome?:diablo:
I used to think that Skyflash was a manly, heroic name but I am now forced to reconsider thanks to that observation 🙂
Sign In
