Tornado To Go Sooner Than Anticipated

The Minister has a cunning plan, all RAF bases are to lay in a stock of these for a rainy day




Unit price £12.99, a saving of £59,999, 987.01
 

John Civie

Old-Salt
ive got an airfix F5A and a Seahawk on my desk awaiting construction if their needed for queen and country and all that.
by the way MM i didnt post that about the BBMF lancaster,

in the long run i think the F35 is the future of the RAF post recession as its the most modern jet available
 
Apologies about the 'cut and paste' error JC; I've now corrected it on my response.

You may be right on the F-35C option although Typhoon and F-35 compliment each other very nicely. It'll make sense for the RAF and RN to operate a common type.

My only concerns are F-35 will never be a stellar air-air player imho. Additionally, as a single engine type, attrition will be high (even allowing for increased reliance on synthetic trg for currency) so we'll need to buy quite a few.

Regards,
MM
 
Apologies about the 'cut and paste' error JC; I've now corrected it on my response.

You may be right on the F-35C option although Typhoon and F-35 compliment each other very nicely. It'll make sense for the RAF and RN to operate a common type.

My only concerns are F-35 will never be a stellar air-air player imho. Additionally, as a single engine type, attrition will be high (even allowing for increased reliance on synthetic trg for currency) so we'll need to buy quite a few.

Regards,
MM


I take that to mean in a WVR fight?
 

John Civie

Old-Salt
MM, as you say tiffy will be primarily air to air but isnt comparing the two a like apples and pears as although tiffy can run rings around the opposition F35 has its stealth so should see and shoot the opposition before the enemy realises its their, on first strike missions F35c with 2 x 1000lb lgb and 2 x asramm and if we go for the 25mm weapon pod should be a real improvment over GR4 as they shouldnt be seen and be self escorting so less need for tiffys to be escorting them. also isnt F35 meant to be a good electronic warfare platform without modification another feather in its cap if it is and if used with all the hard points armed for bear wont it be capable of carrying more firepower than GR4
 
sunof, not necessarily just WVR. The performance just looks a tad limiting from a kinematic perspective.

LO will help (although it's not a Harry Potter invisibility cloak) and it'll have a similar range/payload to GR4 I suspect. I wouldn't pin your hopes on all the Gucci toys being paid for but the one enormous advantage F-35 will enjoy is its superb sensor fit. That's far more important than the LO bit.

I just hope all the exploitation bit is thought about to ensure we can get it offboard.

Regards,
MM
 
My only concerns are F-35 will never be a stellar air-air player imho. Additionally, as a single engine type, attrition will be high (even allowing for increased reliance on synthetic trg for currency) so we'll need to buy quite a few.

MM I wonder if the single engine/twin engine debate will ever end. I remember in the early 80s seeing an article at the TLP about this subject, it included a photo entitled " the best use of twin engines". It was a photo of 2 F16s in formation. Good point. Probably one reason the smaller Nato allies went for the F16 and not the Tornado, F4 or whatever else with twin engines of the period.
 
And look how many F-16s and, closer to home, Harriers have been lost in comparison.

Swings and roundabouts re performance when everything works but single engine means higher attrition when things don't. Interestingly, the USN still harbour significant reservations on the matter.

Regards,
MM
 
sunof, not necessarily just WVR. The performance just looks a tad limiting from a kinematic perspective.
Regards,
MM

I've heard similar misgivings from some USAF pilots - 'Speed Kills' and the F-35 is not the swiftest arrow in the quiver.


I wouldn't pin your hopes on all the Gucci toys being paid for but the one enormous advantage F-35 will enjoy is its superb sensor fit.
Regards,
MM
Isn't that the big advantage of F-35 over say Typhoon, you get it fully togged out as a baseline, not the Tranche 1, 2, never happen situation we find ourselves in with Typhoon?


And look how many F-16s and, closer to home, Harriers have been lost in comparison.

Swings and roundabouts re performance when everything works but single engine means higher attrition when things don't. Interestingly, the USN still harbour significant reservations on the matter.

Regards,
MM


Ah the F-16, or to use it's popular trans Atlantic nickname, 'the Lawn Dart' .:eye:
 

Gaz_ED

Old-Salt
Problem with F-35 is limited carriage options to maintain LO. Typhoon can carry a lot of weapons, and therefore endure in a BVR fight. Launch - leg it-turn around-launch again and so on. Base config is 4 AMRAAM/Meteor and 2 ASRAAM. You then have the option of 13 weapon stations. -1 for LDP, -1 for a more up-to-date DASS (until present system is re-vamped), still leaves 11 for tanks/missiles etc. In terms of combat persistence, Typhoon wins hands down. Quicker to the fight, expanded AAM envelopes due to launch height and speed, and quicker to run away again.
 
Problem with F-35 is limited carriage options to maintain LO. Typhoon can carry a lot of weapons, and therefore endure in a BVR fight. Launch - leg it-turn around-launch again and so on. Base config is 4 AMRAAM/Meteor and 2 ASRAAM. You then have the option of 13 weapon stations. -1 for LDP, -1 for a more up-to-date DASS (until present system is re-vamped), still leaves 11 for tanks/missiles etc. In terms of combat persistence, Typhoon wins hands down. Quicker to the fight, expanded AAM envelopes due to launch height and speed, and quicker to run away again.


If your carrying all those tanks to match the endurance of the F-35C, you're going to a rather draggy beast and not busting Mr Machs numbers my much I would have thought. Situation would change if the conformal tanks see the light of day, but I'm not holding my breath at the mo for them.
 

Gaz_ED

Old-Salt
Not unusual to have supersonic rated tanks. F3 up to M1.5 for "2250 litre big jugs", I believe. Can only speculate that Typhoon would do better. Of course fuel in tanks is used first, so they are available to be jettisoned if it all goes furry.
 

John Civie

Old-Salt
with F35 and external stores im sure some where along the line their were going to be LO external tanks and such for the craft similar to the cannon pod, but if the plans work out F35 should be able to go an impressive distance on internal fuel alone with a usefull weapon load.
in the long run do they not plan to rearange the internal bomb bays on later batches to increase the volume and types of weapon that can be carried internally?
 
sunoficarus said:
Isn't that the big advantage of F-35 over say Typhoon, you get it fully togged out as a baseline, not the Tranche 1, 2, never happen situation we find ourselves in with Typhoon?
The US don’t have tranches, they call them spirals or blocks instead!

Regards,
MM
 

johnnypaveway

Old-Salt
Problem with F-35 is limited carriage options to maintain LO. Typhoon can carry a lot of weapons, and therefore endure in a BVR fight. Launch - leg it-turn around-launch again and so on. Base config is 4 AMRAAM/Meteor and 2 ASRAAM. You then have the option of 13 weapon stations. -1 for LDP, -1 for a more up-to-date DASS (until present system is re-vamped), still leaves 11 for tanks/missiles etc. In terms of combat persistence, Typhoon wins hands down. Quicker to the fight, expanded AAM envelopes due to launch height and speed, and quicker to run away again.
Run away? Run away? I am sure they refer to it is bravely 'retrograding' or somehting prior to re-attack!
 

Gaz_ED

Old-Salt
Apologies. Ahem, "dis-engage with a view to re-engaging"!

Anyone aware of the F35 stealthy carriage options. Not much room in those bays for more than 2x AMRAAM,2x 9X/ASRAAM.
 
LO underwing pods have been mooted as a means of increasing payload without compromising RCS. However, it remains unfunded (even for the US) to my knowledge.

Regards,
MM
 

John Civie

Old-Salt
i think the future blocks / tranches will have an increased internal weapon load, but for external carrige i suppose if the needs their in the future then perhaps something along the lines of how their is a proposal for a stealthy super hornet with a stealthy pod that the weapon can be contained within on the pylon

missed MM's post
 
LO underwing pods have been mooted as a means of increasing payload without compromising RCS. However, it remains unfunded (even for the US) to my knowledge.

Regards,
MM

IIRC, LM did look at some arrangement of tandem storage in the internal bays to bump up the missile loadout, but I think it died a death.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top