Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

F35 - Money well spent.

And Tempest?
the Americans will be very keen to throw as many spoilers as possible in its non ITAR path.
 
Is Brimstone better than Hellfire? AGM114 L has Mmw radar like Brimstone, and R2 has fuzing/trajectory shaping options that make it much more attractive to AH. More lethality options for a variety of target sets as well.

Not disputing your point in general though, just stating that from a CAS perspective we need/want both.
Brimstone is different to MMW Hellfire.
Very little is the same apart from the shape.
Iirc, Brimstone was designed with supersonic carriage in mind. This would have changed things like stress design ( stuck on pylons pulling 4+ g ) rocket motors ( has to launch while aircraft flying greater than 500 knots from ground level upwards.
) - different stresses to the 150knots of an AH64. Curiously the USAF did express an interest , as did France. That might be because the Hellfire wasn't designed for a fast jet flying envelope. On an AH64 or a Reaper, Hellfire is a great bit of kit. It's just a different horse for a different course.
 
And yet if we do get it into squadron service, they will also have to interoperate with it.

Kind've important, that.

You do need a critical mass to be fair.
Which means partners are necessary to achieve that. Swedes might be a bet I reckon.
 
Its a real shame the Japanese opted out

Although perhaps naming after a storm was a bad idea in hind sight.

I cant see the US being keen operating alongside JASDF Kamikaze sdquadrons
 
Not sure I understand the question mate. They already have the Lima variant that aim point optimises/terminally guides with Mmw radar. And a load of other options in the 114 family like the November and 'ninja bomb' variants. It's an AGM 'for every occasion' family to a one use missile comparison.

Again, not an expert but SPEAR2 improvements won't address this, this may upset AH/Reaper types when/if it's cross-decked.

Not certain on this but think the AGM 114L may have been in service before Brimstone so they may have had that capability before we did.
Launch platforms are the important factor. US variant closest to Brimstone is AGM-179 JAGM, which still isn't launched from fast jets iirc.
 
And yet if we do get it into squadron service, they will also have to interoperate with it.

Kind've important, that.

They won’t sell their best toys to the Sheiks, the Israelis object, we will, and with things like Typhoon being ITAR exempt, they can’t stop us.
Sauds are still a bit miffed having found the F-15’s they bought weren’t actually the full sixpence.

There’s a big emerging 5th/6th gen fighter market emerging the Americans have self excluded themselves from - and bitter Memories of the Obey Ammendment persist.
Tempest will be well placed to gain big orders from the Shieks who want regional dominance with a fighter that isn’t second fiddle to anything Israel flies.
 
Try the HCDC evidence session from the other week.

Committees - UK Parliament

Julian Bronk from RUSI (whether you agree entirely or not) makes a decent case taht there's only enough funding for one programme. Its all in the timing.

More sense than the Chair, who came out with this utter gem:

To give an example, when the Storm Shadow was last used in aggression, in a kinetic way, against Syria, I think—correct me if I am wrong—those weapons systems were fired from the other side of Cyprus, across the Mediterranean. They could have been fired from a Tucano turboprop aircraft, rather than from an F-35.​

I was quite impressed that none of the witnesses managed to avoid blurting out 'no they ****ing couldn't', which probably explains why I've never been invited to give evidence to the committee...

(if you'll forgive the gentle correction, it's Justin, not Julian)
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
More sense than the Chair, who came out with this utter gem:

To give an example, when the Storm Shadow was last used in aggression, in a kinetic way, against Syria, I think—correct me if I am wrong—those weapons systems were fired from the other side of Cyprus, across the Mediterranean. They could have been fired from a Tucano turboprop aircraft, rather than from an F-35.​

I was quite impressed that none of the witnesses managed to avoid blurting out 'no they ****ing couldn't', which probably explains why I've never been invited to give evidence to the committee...

(if you'll forgive the gentle correction, it's Justin, not Julian)
The Chair does come across as... well. How the hell?
 
Comes across as being a expert in the same class as Lewis Page.

That's a bit unfair on Ellwood; I have a suspicion that he was fed a lot of information from the likes of Lord West, the Phoenix Think Tank and others of whom George Zambellas did not approve when he was writing his RUSI paper in support of operating both QE-class carriers.

While he's got his head round some of the actual facts rather than those presented to him, he's obviously not yet shaken the idea that Storm Shadow can't be operated by quite as wide a range of platforms as those attempting to claim that both Typhoon and Tornado were needless luxuries would've had him believe.

It was part of the 'You do not need the Tornado GR4 and the RAF's reasoning that only it can carry Storm Shadow is quite wrong' (which, of course, wasn't the RAF's suggestion about Storm Shadow at all) line, which some parties such as St Sharkey of the Vexatious Correspondence were peddling in the aftermath of the 2010 review in a hope of getting some consolation in seeing their efforts lead to savage cuts to the RAF in the 2015 Review. Unfortunately, Mr Ellwood needs a bit more deprogramming (and I'm slightly surprised that neither Justin nor Dan Stembridge didn't pick him up on this point).
 
That's a bit unfair on Ellwood; I have a suspicion that he was fed a lot of information from the likes of Lord West, the Phoenix Think Tank and others of whom George Zambellas did not approve when he was writing his RUSI paper in support of operating both QE-class carriers.

While he's got his head round some of the actual facts rather than those presented to him, he's obviously not yet shaken the idea that Storm Shadow can't be operated by quite as wide a range of platforms as those attempting to claim that both Typhoon and Tornado were needless luxuries would've had him believe.

It was part of the 'You do not need the Tornado GR4 and the RAF's reasoning that only it can carry Storm Shadow is quite wrong' (which, of course, wasn't the RAF's suggestion about Storm Shadow at all) line, which some parties such as St Sharkey of the Vexatious Correspondence were peddling in the aftermath of the 2010 review in a hope of getting some consolation in seeing their efforts lead to savage cuts to the RAF in the 2015 Review. Unfortunately, Mr Ellwood needs a bit more deprogramming (and I'm slightly surprised that neither Justin nor Dan Stembridge didn't pick him up on this point).
One hopes he considers the challenger, warrior upgrades in the same light.
 
Unfortunately, Mr Ellwood needs a bit more deprogramming (and I'm slightly surprised that neither Justin nor Dan Stembridge didn't pick him up on this point).

Perhaps they did so delicatly afterwards to avoid embarrasing the man - which may in turn of course lead to a more sympethetic ear than - the likes of myself who would have suggested the IQ of the chair I was sitting on was possibly greater than that of the one speaking.


Im minded of the Ozzie Admiral trying to explain that neither pump jet or propellor relate to the power plant and that pump jet doent = Nuke sub.

To which more comments asking why they didnt specify pump or prop if they didnt want nuke and was the Sub really any good if it could only stay submerged for 30 mins.

She was saved from further embarrasment when he refused to divulge certain details and she insisted she had a right to know - followed by a voice off camera rather emphatically closing that line of discussion with a (paraphrasing) No you dont.
 
That's a bit unfair on Ellwood; I have a suspicion that he was fed a lot of information from the likes of Lord West, the Phoenix Think Tank and others of whom George Zambellas did not approve when he was writing his RUSI paper in support of operating both QE-class carriers.

While he's got his head round some of the actual facts rather than those presented to him, he's obviously not yet shaken the idea that Storm Shadow can't be operated by quite as wide a range of platforms as those attempting to claim that both Typhoon and Tornado were needless luxuries would've had him believe.

It was part of the 'You do not need the Tornado GR4 and the RAF's reasoning that only it can carry Storm Shadow is quite wrong' (which, of course, wasn't the RAF's suggestion about Storm Shadow at all) line, which some parties such as St Sharkey of the Vexatious Correspondence were peddling in the aftermath of the 2010 review in a hope of getting some consolation in seeing their efforts lead to savage cuts to the RAF in the 2015 Review. Unfortunately, Mr Ellwood needs a bit more deprogramming (and I'm slightly surprised that neither Justin nor Dan Stembridge didn't pick him up on this point).

to be fair, back in the FOAS days, there were studies into using transport planes as stand off spear throwers.
 
Which implies lift capacity. A Tucano is never getting off the deck carrying Storm Shadow and for someone in that position to suggest it could is poor.

no different to calling 431’s ‘tanks’.

FWIW, transport planes as stand off spear throwers are back in the frame again.
nothing new, history repeats and all that...

U.K. then....

3BAD81C8-FCCB-45D9-A1F5-6D3A67CCD18D.jpeg


USAF now..

 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
no different to calling 431’s ‘tanks’.

FWIW, transport planes as stand off spear throwers are back in the frame again.
nothing new, history repeats and all that...

U.K. then....

View attachment 507359

USAF now..

Yes, seen.

It’s attractive, in concept. But in the US’s case, B-21. In our case, Typhoon, F-35 then Tempest.

The aim is fewer airframe types, not more. Versatile ones.

My point stands. It’s not unreasonable to expect the chair of a committee to have done some reading.
 

Latest Threads

Top