Future naval technology

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Livin_on_a_prayer, Jun 28, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The Royal navy is making significant improvments to upgrade itself into blue water role, but which of its current projects will provide the biggest improvment in capability to HM forces and be the most successful?
  2. Sounds like an essay title to me!

    CVF useless without JSF.

    JSF pointless without CVF.

    CVF can't protect itself fully from supersonic ASMs without T45.

    All need SSNs to defeat submarine threat.

    So in essay to your essay question, and after you have discussed the benefits and merits of each (in terms of cost, performance and time perfhaps), the Navy needs all of the above if its is to undertake expeditionary ops. Don't forget to mention the new amphibious shipping in order to earn a few extra marks!
  3. We should simply build 2 small aircraft carriers then build 2 more.

    Also whats wrong with rebuilding the Harrier, I mean it done the job and
    our enemies havent exactly up the stakes in military technology so what is
    the points in having JSF
  4. Have you seen the size of new carriers, their nearly as big as the nimitz class ships. Would keep the argies away at least!
  5. LOAP, at 65,000t CVF is (if it's ever built) only 2/3rds the size of a Nimitz (100,000t) and only a bit bigger than the next generation of US LHA's (50,000t).
  6. Give ya British Matalo, good serviceable equipment and his training will produce the result.
    Bit like Tom, all he ever needed was decent tools.
  7. J_D

    J_D LE

    You can't have one without the other, simple as.
  8. JSF is multi-role, stealthy, supersonic, carries twice the ordnance and has twice the range.
  9. Is that the same JSF that cannot take off with any kind of weapons load?
    Harrier has proved time and again to be an efficient and capable multi role aircraft, but was never liked because the Yanks didn't design it.
    JSF is a jack of all trades high tech wonderplane just like Tornado was and we know how crap they are / were.
  10. AlienFTM

    AlienFTM LE Book Reviewer

    http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht12f-104.htm : printed below for ease. My bold at the bottom. Note the copyright statement at the bottom.

    Sorry. Since a member of ARRSE introduced me to Captain Lockheed and the Starfighter (Bob Calvert) I have developed an unhealthy interest in the F104. Take a look at Side 2 track 5, Track Five, "INTERVIEW Officer and New Recruit" from the link below and see a really unhealthy interest.

    Visit some of the other links on this page:


    and you may agree that the F104 got bad press. A number of Air Forces only gave up the F104 (the Italians as recently as 2004) because of other commitments, e.g the Typhoon (and the increasing difficulty of getting parts for an aircraft no longer being built by Lockheed).
  11. AlienFTM

    AlienFTM LE Book Reviewer

    1. The requirement for Harrier back in the 60s ( 50s? ) and what went into service were a long way apart. Range, weapon load, supersonic speed, etc were all hugely compromised by it went ahead anyway. I guess that makes it a 1980s jack of all trades high tech wonderplane just like Tornado was in the 90s and the JSF in the Naughies.

    2. The Yanks disliked the Harrier as originally delivered so much that (I believe they grounded all AV8A Harriers and) they redesigned an awful lot for the AV8B Harrier simply to make it do what they wanted. Like be able to land on their carriers without crashing.

    I guess 2. is the reverse of what the Luftwaffe asked Lockheed to do to the F104 (see my previous thread and links).
  12. I cant believe people are actually being serious about redesigning the harrier; these same cynical bastards would be moaning in 20 years time because it's "old kit". We have the chance to have a stealth, multi role fighter with significant increases ordnance and range, and as usually the moaning begins. Lets not forget that its is part British made, ie:

    Aft fuselage and empennages
    Horizontal and vertical tails
    Crew life support and escape
    Electronic warfare systems
    Fuel system
    Flight Control Software (FCS1)
    Stores Management System
    Power Systems
    Integrated Canopy Frame
    Speedbrake Actuator
    Main/Nosegear Door Actuators
    Remote Interface Units
    Fuselage Remote Interface Units

    All we need now is the codes...
  13. LOAP - only part of those are 'British made'. The rest are made by US subsidiaries of BAE.

    AlienFTM - so the answer is to licence-build a navalised version of the F104!
  14. Harrier vs JSF?

    I'd sooner have a stick at the start of the fight than a stick with a nail after the fight.
  15. Marvellous stuff about the "Zipper", AlienFTM! I've developed a real love for them in the meantime!

    I remember one of these doing a slam in the early Seventies when we were on scheme at the time. in Germany It came in at sort of zero feet, the driver bolked it, baled out and the plane just dived into a field. We were hoping that it'd go up in a spectacular blaze of glory, but all it did was was a sort of cartwheel into the ground and then lay still! Worra fückin' bummer!