Finally a number put on UK F-35 purchase as doubt grow over in service date

reply to post by jensy


Surely half the airframes will go to the RN for the two aircraft carriers, 12 each, the RAF will stick with the Typhoon and Tornado airframes and will get half of the order to replace the Harrier force we lost, two wings of 12 aircraft each.

The Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers will carry 40 + aircraft each made up of a variety of airframes, my guess would be along these lines depending on deployment

F-35 Lightning II (poss 10-12 airframes each per carrier)
Chinook (poss 2 - 5 airframes per carrier)
Apache (poss 6 - 8 airframes per carrier)
Merlin (poss 2 - 4 airframes per carrier)
Lynx Wildcat ( poss 5 airframes per carrier)
Maritime Airborne Surveillance Capability

I wouldn't see them fielding any more ability than this at present, i believe the original spec was for 12 fast jets per aircraft.

any other ideas

Wee Mad

reply to post by weemadmental


all that money for 40 crummy aircraft of which 1/2 will out of service due to maintenance.

sounds retarded.


i would rather have 500 f-16's anyday.

Originally posted by weemadmental
reply to post by jensy

 

Surely half the airframes will go to the RN for the two aircraft carriers, 12 each, the RAF will stick with the Typhoon and Tornado airframes and will get half of the order to replace the Harrier force we lost, two wings of 12 aircraft each.

Wee Mad

It's worth noting that the retirement date of the Tornado has been released this week, with it due to exit in 2019. So no, the RAF won't stick with the Torndao

Expect follow on orders for either the Eurofighter or the F-35.

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by weemadmental
reply to post by jensy

 

Surely half the airframes will go to the RN for the two aircraft carriers, 12 each, the RAF will stick with the Typhoon and Tornado airframes and will get half of the order to replace the Harrier force we lost, two wings of 12 aircraft each.

Wee Mad

It's worth noting that the retirement date of the Tornado has been released this week, with it due to exit in 2019. So no, the RAF won't stick with the Torndao

Expect follow on orders for either the Eurofighter or the F-35.

Thats an interesting dilema.

Buying a non stealth strike aircraft to last the next 35 years sounds like a loser so that should rule out Typhoon.

The F-35 with the most range is the C, and it has the right refuelling equipment.

However, isnt buying C models for the RAF going to present a political problem for a government that scrapped purchase of the same aircraft for the navy?

It'll be interesting for sure.

Originally posted by justwokeup

Thats an interesting dilema.

Buying a non stealth strike aircraft to last the next 35 years sounds like a loser so that should rule out Typhoon.

The F-35 with the most range is the C, and it has the right refuelling equipment.

However, isnt buying C models for the RAF going to present a political problem for a government that scrapped purchase of the same aircraft for the navy?

It'll be interesting for sure.

As noted before, stealth isn't all it's cracked up to be and bear in mind that radar techniques will also improve over that time so stealth might be defeated anyway.

There wouldn't be any problem buying the F-35C as its for a different purpose, but there's already a probe modification to the A as that's a Canadian requirement for their A buy.

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by justwokeup

Thats an interesting dilema.

Buying a non stealth strike aircraft to last the next 35 years sounds like a loser so that should rule out Typhoon.

The F-35 with the most range is the C, and it has the right refuelling equipment.

However, isnt buying C models for the RAF going to present a political problem for a government that scrapped purchase of the same aircraft for the navy?

It'll be interesting for sure.

As noted before, stealth isn't all it's cracked up to be and bear in mind that radar techniques will also improve over that time so stealth might be defeated anyway.

There wouldn't be any problem buying the F-35C as its for a different purpose, but there's already a probe modification to the A as that's a Canadian requirement for their A buy.

Cheers. Wasn't aware of the canadian modification.

If they have option it'll be interesting to see which set of compromises they prefer. From looking on the web it looks like neither has the range of the Tornado, but C model is closest.

reply to post by RichardPrice


Stealth already has been defeated, with such things like CELLDAR (and equivalents). Even your bog standard radar, when using longer wavelengths, can detect stealth aircraft, although it cannot provide the resolution for targeting.

All it is today is an advantage, that's all. It helps you avoid interception and keep visibility to a minimum, rather than glowing like a huge green blob on some 3rd world radar screen in a country we're about to annihilate for spurious reasons...

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by RichardPrice

 

Stealth already has been defeated, with such things like CELLDAR (and equivalents). Even your bog standard radar, when using longer wavelengths, can detect stealth aircraft, although it cannot provide the resolution for targeting.

All it is today is an advantage, that's all. It helps you avoid interception and keep visibility to a minimum, rather than glowing like a huge green blob on some 3rd world radar screen in a country we're about to annihilate for spurious reasons...

"Stealth" as a general thing has not been defeated - there is no silver bullet to kill all stealth techniques, only specific attacks that can be carried out.

Stealth is like encryption in computers - various encryption schemes are created, used widely for a decade, weaknesses are discovered and the scheme is abandoned for another scheme. Its a continual cycle. As is stealth.

Even the advantage factor you highlight can be achieved in other ways - as I stated earlier, we attacked Libya without the use of stealth, as did Israel when they attacked Syria.

Originally posted by RAB

I cannot see the point in replacing the Typhoon with the F35C, unless the plan is to buy the F35C instead of the 3rd buy of the Typhoon.. But still I'm missing the point :-(

The Typhoon is GROSSLY overrated. Well, overrated by the folks in the UK due to their patriotism.

The fact is that the typhoon is no match for even an OBSOLETE American fighter.

OH WELL!! And thats WHY they are replacing it with... AN AMERICAN FIGHTER. Poor UK!! Fail!

Originally posted by HangTheTraitors

Originally posted by RAB

I cannot see the point in replacing the Typhoon with the F35C, unless the plan is to buy the F35C instead of the 3rd buy of the Typhoon.. But still I'm missing the point :-(

The Typhoon is GROSSLY overrated. Well, overrated by the folks in the UK due to their patriotism.

The fact is that the typhoon is no match for even an OBSOLETE American fighter.

OH WELL!! And thats WHY they are replacing it with... AN AMERICAN FIGHTER. Poor UK!! Fail!

USA should go for F-16XL which awesome specs and RANGE and load and supercruise too boot.

F-35 IS A TURKEY.

MONEY EATING MACHINE.

Originally posted by HangTheTraitors

OH WELL!! And thats WHY they are replacing it with... AN AMERICAN FIGHTER. Poor UK!! Fail!

Aside from the jingoistic, nationalistic rubbish you spout - the UK aren't replacing the Typhoon with the F-35, they are replacing the Tornado with it in some roles.

The Royal Navy F-35 purchase is too small to ideally support cost effectively, so the RAF are getting an F-35 buy to increase the support base so its more cost effective. This is alongside the tranche 3 buy of the Typhoon, not in place of it.

Both the Typhoon and the F-35 will work alongside each other in capabilities, with the Typhoon operating in an overwatch and swing/multi role capacity, while the F-35 replaces the Tornado in the ground attack role.

reply to post by HangTheTraitors


i think that you maybe wrong there, during the joint get togethers with the USAF and RAF the Typhoon has wiped the floor with the 15's, 16's & 18a-e, the match comes with the F18f (weapons and radar similarities) and the 22's.

The Typhoon will take over from the F3's and Gr4's in its multi-role capabilities, the F35c will be the equivalent to the retired harrier but with supersonic capabilities, stealth isn't to great an advantage in our business at present, we fly low and fast in a warzone, its not like the aggressors we have gone after recently have the ability to cause much alarm, we have other means at our disposal if required, its not like we will be taking on any nation with higher spec aircraft anytime soon either (there simply aren't countries with the latest generation of airframes that are a threat to the UK).

wee mad

Originally posted by HangTheTraitors
The fact is that the typhoon is no match for even an OBSOLETE American fighter.

That isn't a fact[.merely opinion. I've heard of many USAF pilots saying they are impressed with it and there are more than a few instances of friendly "skirmishes" where Typhoons have come out on top over F-15's.

Originally posted by HangTheTraitors
OH WELL!! And thats WHY they are replacing it with... AN AMERICAN FIGHTER. Poor UK!! Fail!

Ah, the F-35 which has a huge amount of input from BAe, just like the F-22 in fact... I suggest you dismount from your patriotic horse and check your "facts", matey.

reply to post by weemadmental


You do realise that the F-18E and F are the same basic airframe, right? The difference is that the E is single seat and the F is double seat - not much else different between the two.

The G is the electronic warfare version.

A-D is the original Hornet, with A and C being single seat and B and D being double seat, again with not much else between the two other than the block updates (C and D are the upgraded version, A and B the original version).

reply to post by RichardPrice


Yeah this is what i had in my head, been a while since i had a lookie or two, the E/F is the same aircraft barr on the E is single seat the F dual seat, the new radar (APG-73) and the increased radii brings it more in line with the Typhoon is what i meant, the maximum range is an issue with a number of the super hornet crews, a few more nm are always nice to have i suppose.

I know the sound of a supersonic harrier is appealing and would fit with a lot of the operational requirements that the Harrier had, but to have an airframe that will have a number of issues and will be updated constantly until it gets the bugs worked out.

They are a real nice aircraft to, i do not know they didn't just spec the Elizabeth class with bolters to start with, and purchased the F18 E/F/G instead of the JSF, would have saved a lot of wonga, made no sense to me then and still doesn't now, even if we couldn't afford to run the two carriers at the same time, we could part lease to the French and had the Rafles or even the mirage flying from it, that's what happens when you give the final decision to bloody city boy i suppose, but here i digress slightly.

Wee Mad Mental.

reply to post by weemadmental


The French and the Royal Navy sharing ships or worse, French made aircraft flying from an RN ship?

Nelson would spin in his grave

reply to post by jensy


I think that the main problem with the military contracters and their friends in Congress are purposely dragging out the F-35's developement so that they can get more dev. money. If the govt. would force the corporations to develope a complete test schedule, we could probably have combat ready production F-35's by 2014 or 2015 in the case of the B model. It also doesn't help that they won't centralize the production of the aircraft, but have to build different components of the F-35 in what seems like every state. If congress and the corporations could have remembered that the F-35 project is a defense program and not a jobs program, we would already have put the F-35 into produciton as early as 2008, which was originally planned.