Originally Posted by Toxicseagull

The RAF already has a multi-role aircraft (Typhoon) and a strike aircraft (Tornado) with another strike aircraft (Harrier) they seem to be willing to drop. Do they really need another multi-role aircraft at this time? And if so, is the J-35C the aircraft to fit that role?

both the tornado and the harrier are going out of service very soon. so in reality we have the typhoon in cut down numbers. and thats it for fast air. never mind the individual tranche problems etc.

the F35C would be ideal imo to fill that gap so it is a damn shame if the RAF pulls out or is told it cant afford them.
Also the RAF numbers would have been used to bring the carriers to full strength in wartime.

Yes, but the F-35C is a better strike aircraft and also a proper 5th Gen fighter. On paper it's a better bomber than the Tornado and a better fighter than the Typhoon, it's so much better than a Harrier it's like comparing a Model T with a Ferrari.

This is the basic problem. The original intention of the X-32/X-35 programme was to build a cheap and competent replacement for the F-16, F/A-18 and Harrier. It's now morphed into an extremely expensive but hugely capable 5th Gen figher bomber that's better and more expensive than the 1st Tier fighter planes it was intended to serve with.

It's rather daft to go buying the F-35 to replace the Harrier for CAS when an F-35 could eat a Typhoon for breakfast without any problem. But we are were we are because of the hellishly long and protracted development cycle the Typhoon went through for primarily political reasons.

Originally Posted by ottar

Originally Posted by whitecity

However, politics and money (lack of) rule not sensible military judgement.

I don't believe the MoD is short of money, it's short of a sensible procurement system. The problem isn't with what we buy, it's the way we buy it.
Is there any sensible reason we spent circa £500m on CVF before getting a fixed design? That's a lot of money spent on agreeing with what the Admiralty were saying 12 years ago. Could you see a civvy firm doing anything like that and expecting to stay in business?

If we expect to be stomping out international terrorism as part of our grand strategy, I would think an austere capable a/c would be pretty essential, whether in Afghanistan or the arsehole of Africa. If we can encourage enough international sales of F-35, the agreements we have with Uncle Sam could result in HMG getting that capability for free or near to it.

It's a no-brainer to me. Unfortunately, that also describes HMG.

Well, the big problem with the design phase of CVF was that every time people came up with an answer, the Government said, nope, too expensive, shave some cost off, and it was redesigned ad nausuem until they got the number the Government wanted, even including arbitrarily cutting 100ft off the OAL which promply dropped the top speed by a handful of knots.


As you rightly point out, 12 years up the road and a huge amount of money later, we are right back were we started with what the Navy originally said was the best and most cost effective option. For some reason Labours assorted 'expert' Ministers refused to accept that if you plug the same numbers into the spreadsheet, you will keep getting the same answer - 1000ft OAL, 4.5 acre flight deck, 75,000+ tons, cats and traps. The Americans have been coming up with that answer since 1950, we came up with it in the 60's, we came up with it again in the 90's.

Originally Posted by chocolate_frog

Originally Posted by Oil_Slick

Originally Posted by whitecity

I suspect what Oil_Slick was hinting at is that the FAA could embark a squadron upon a US flat top or the USN/USMC could deploy to a CVF for operations. Integration of ever decreasing resources for maximum effect, perhaps?

Indeed!


The Navy already regularly hosts other people air wings on our two small carriers as it is.

In a shooting war, it would be usefull to both sides to as you rightly say, maximise the ever decreasing resources. Whilst getting together another 20 a/c to boost the air wing on our CVF would be a maximum effort for us, the Yanks would find that a very easy thing with their very large establishment, and as I noted, when we do high tempo wars, it's usually as part of US/UK jointery.

Good idea...

What we should do is talk to other countries, and arrange a sort of "Treaty" so that we could have an "Organisation" of similarly equipped forces, we could have "STAardised AGreements" on equipped such as weapon sight rails and calibre of ammunition.

Perhaps we could centre this aggreement between US and UK? the USUKTO? We could include other countries too, from Europe so that the North Atlantic sea ways to America would alwasy be open.

Would it work?

No - because we also have to look after our national industrial interests. Lets look at International Trials Operating Procedues for testing ammo. The CRV 7 rocket is/was made by a Canadian Company - Bristol Aerospace. (No sh1t Tonto - is that why it's called the Canadian Rocket Vehicle ).

Anyhoo - the Septics decided to buy some bearing in mind this was Septic Standard calibre. However they insisted that the rockets would have to go through the entire gamut of US run Standard NATO ITOP Tests before they would accept them into Service - despite the fact that these tests had already been carried out by the competent Canadian Authorities and the results made available to the US.

It was a political game as the US does not like buying equipment from anyone else.

Only an example because there are exmples from each Country.

Is this the biggest non story since "Break In at Tetly Tea - pin holes left in bags"?

Originally Posted by Oil_Slick

an F-35 could eat a Typhoon for breakfast without any problem.

Oh really?!!!!

The F-35 has many impressive features, but it is also inferior to the Typhoon in some respects, notably payload and agility. It'll be a good LO bomb truck and an adequate fighter but it's no F-22!!

However, I reiterate: the official UK position is that STOVL is the preferred option. The concrete is not set until after the next SDR and I would suggest CVF and particularly F-35 is one of the 'low hanging fruit' that the next government may be looking for.

Therefore, perhaps we should be arguing about how best to convince HMT we need CVF/F-35 at all rather than which variant of the latter we buy!

Regards,
MM

Originally Posted by rickshaw-major

No - because we also have to look after our national industrial interests. Lets look at International Trials Operating Procedues for testing ammo. The CRV 7 rocket is/was made by a Canadian Company - Bristol Aerospace. (No sh1t Tonto - is that why it's called the Canadian Rocket Vehicle ).

Anyhoo - the Septics decided to buy some bearing in mind this was Septic Standard calibre. However they insisted that the rockets would have to go through the entire gamut of US run Standard NATO ITOP Tests before they would accept them into Service - despite the fact that these tests had already been carried out by the competent Canadian Authorities and the results made available to the US.

It was a political game as the US does not like buying equipment from anyone else.

Only an example because there are exmples from each Country.

Our pistols are Italian
120mm on M1 is German
M240 and SAW from FN (also manufacture M16A2/A4)
105mm and new 155mm towed arty, 81mm mortar from Britain
PRC 147 radio from Thales
120mm mortar is Israeli
Stryker vehicle basic design from Switzerland
AT-4, AT-8, Charlie-G from Sweden
Mk 23 pistol, Germany
RSOV is Land Rovers finest

And the list goes on, there are times it feels only my boots are American. But all the stuff works.

Mind, the vast majority of it is built under license here in the US, but we buy enough to make it worth building a plant here.

Rickshaw, I am sure I read somewhere that the US trials of CRV-7 were called into question because they simply didnt believe it could perform as it did and they were therefore suspicious about the trials samples being non representative.

I think this story has come about because the F35B is running late, the decision on type was supposed to have taken place after the B flight trials, the timing to coincide with the last date before CVF designs had to be frozen and steel cut on the super blocks.

Late F35B means uncertainty which means delays in starting wok on the CVF which means costs and bad press.

The CVF is meant to be able to do either but the work in changing from one to the other is far from trivial and will balloon the costs even further

Originally Posted by DDart

Originally Posted by rickshaw-major

No - because we also have to look after our national industrial interests. Lets look at International Trials Operating Procedues for testing ammo. The CRV 7 rocket is/was made by a Canadian Company - Bristol Aerospace. (No sh1t Tonto - is that why it's called the Canadian Rocket Vehicle ).

Anyhoo - the Septics decided to buy some bearing in mind this was Septic Standard calibre. However they insisted that the rockets would have to go through the entire gamut of US run Standard NATO ITOP Tests before they would accept them into Service - despite the fact that these tests had already been carried out by the competent Canadian Authorities and the results made available to the US.

It was a political game as the US does not like buying equipment from anyone else.

Only an example because there are exmples from each Country.

Our pistols are Italian
120mm on M1 is German
M240 and SAW from FN (also manufacture M16A2/A4)
105mm and new 155mm towed arty, 81mm mortar from Britain
PRC 147 radio from Thales
120mm mortar is Israeli
Stryker vehicle basic design from Switzerland
AT-4, AT-8, Charlie-G from Sweden
Mk 23 pistol, Germany
RSOV is Land Rovers finest

And the list goes on, there are times it feels only my boots are American. But all the stuff works.

Mind, the vast majority of it is built under license here in the US, but we buy enough to make it worth building a plant here.

Fair point, but they aren't major equipments are they

Remember also that F-35B can be embarked on HMS Ocean giving us a third strike platform if necessary. Can't do that with with the other F-35 variants.

Doesn't really say much this article; it's no secret that the RR engine has had a question mark over it for a while now.

Have to agree with an earlier poster, I reckon we'll be lucky to see one carrier getting built.

Originally Posted by meridian

Rickshaw, I am sure I read somewhere that the US trials of CRV-7 were called into question because they simply didnt believe it could perform as it did and they were therefore suspicious about the trials samples being non representative.

I think this story has come about because the F35B is running late, the decision on type was supposed to have taken place after the B flight trials, the timing to coincide with the last date before CVF designs had to be frozen and steel cut on the super blocks.

Late F35B means uncertainty which means delays in starting wok on the CVF which means costs and bad press.

The CVF is meant to be able to do either but the work in changing from one to the other is far from trivial and will balloon the costs even further

No Meridian - IIRC it was the French. This epsiode was circa 1994 and the ITOPs I was referring to were the safety testing ITOPs i.e. Drop Test, Fragment (Bullet at that time) Impact Test, Liquid Fuel Fire and Sympathetic Detonation coupled with the full gamut of Environmental Test and the associated firings - not cheap!

However it wasn't a particular slate at the Cousins - I have loads of different examples including the stupidity of the UK in losing the ability to earn the easiest Million Dollars ever from the Cousins. Beware of red tabs and Civil Servants thinking they are businessmen