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.

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.

that’s why the military types loose so often with politicians.
they fixate on the errors in the fine point of terminology, not see the bigger pictures.

the basic point is valid - why not use a cheap prop plane as a stand off spear thrower.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
they are very well trained in precision speaking, but often terrible at communicating.

’an aviation platform delivering effects in the littoral domain.’

’You mean ‘aircraft carrier’?
Not my point. A cheap airframe will require expensive, sophisticated weapons. It can’t self-defend, so if your opposition can get close before weapons release you lose, and it can’t go into nasty places if it needs to.

A ‘proper’ aircraft can, and do much else besides.

There’s a reason why some things cost.
 
Not my point. A cheap airframe will require expensive, sophisticated weapons. It can’t self-defend, so if your opposition can get close before weapons release you lose, and it can’t go into nasty places if it needs to.

A ‘proper’ aircraft can, and do much else besides.

There’s a reason why some things cost.

the whole point of palletised stand off weapons is to remove the need to go near the SAM belts.
a C-17 out of Akrotiri could happily throw stuff across the sea to sandy places while staying at home.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
or you could read the original DERA documentation, or the current USAF documentation - which is indeed, all out there on the internet.
Why? The points I've made are valid. We studied the concept and rejected it. The reasons are many but among them is not procuring a one-trick pony with limited survivability.
 
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.
You'll be able to tell me what their F15-SA doesn't have then? Rhetorical of course...as much chance of that as there is of you reading the link I gave to an ITAR case involving Typhoon...

To be clear, the first F-15C models did only have limited offensive capabilities and the RSPs did lobby successfully to block F-15E sales. Which was a godsend for the blessed Margaret and UK Plc in so many ways. Myself and others benefitting from employment as well....

...and lo, the children of Sam, noticing the tribe of al-Saud not giving a feck and purchasing their wares elswhere, decided that withholding their speshul magik weapons was counterproductive and would sir like to purchase a shiny new F-15S model, which has lots of bombs and stuff innit?
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
or you could read the original DERA documentation, or the current USAF documentation - which is indeed, all out there on the internet.

You might also look at why the proposals for inexpensive platforms for CASOM (as Storm Shadow began life as) weren't taken forward.
 
No, it was because when a cost-benefit analysis was conducted, it transpired that they'd be a sandalous waste of mone... I'll get my coat now, shall I?

Just as the 'bin four squadrons of Tornado and replace with loads of cheap Super Tucanos' argument fell apart on closer examination, so the 'cheap stand off option' falls apart when subject to scrutiny - unless you have the budget to afford a specialised force which is likely to be used infrequently (and for which the Russians will claim to have developed a counter with a ludicrously-ranged R27/R33/R37 derivative to counter it).
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
No, it was because when a cost-benefit analysis was conducted, it transpired that they'd be a sandalous waste of mone... I'll get my coat now, shall I?

Just as the 'bin four squadrons of Tornado and replace with loads of cheap Super Tucanos' argument fell apart on closer examination, so the 'cheap stand off option' falls apart when subject to scrutiny - unless you have the budget to afford a specialised force which is likely to be used infrequently (and for which the Russians will claim to have developed a counter with a ludicrously-ranged R27/R33/R37 derivative to counter it).
In other words, 'buy properly, buy once'.
 
No, it was because when a cost-benefit analysis was conducted, it transpired that they'd be a sandalous waste of mone... I'll get my coat now, shall I?

Just as the 'bin four squadrons of Tornado and replace with loads of cheap Super Tucanos' argument fell apart on closer examination, so the 'cheap stand off option' falls apart when subject to scrutiny - unless you have the budget to afford a specialised force which is likely to be used infrequently (and for which the Russians will claim to have developed a counter with a ludicrously-ranged R27/R33/R37 derivative to counter it).

Clearly a very flawed Analysis - since L'Oracle himself is a proponent of said idea
 
20 of X to cheaply replace 10 of Y ignores the fact of extra bums in extra driving seats.
Where are they going to be generated from ?
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
20 of X to cheaply replace 10 of Y ignores the fact of extra bums in extra driving seats.
Where are they going to be generated from ?

Can't they be mobilised from the Reserves? :)
 
Oh dear. Tobias nice but dim has not done his research.

Parliamentlive.tv

About 15:30.....

Why haven't we got unmanned planes flying off the carriers? X47B has been around for a number of years etc etc.

RAF ACM - X47B is an experimental aircraft developed by the americans to fly off their carriers and needs a catapult.

TNBD - But, but Scan Eagle flies off frigates ......splutter.
 

Latest Threads

Top