interestrateripoff

Navy Aircraft Carrier Plans Hit By Further Delays

60 posts in this topic

We and our US 'allies' can spend all we like on firepower and 'defence',,, but we are still getting our asses severely handed to us in Afghanistan. Maybe our army should consist of bearded arabs armed only with AK47's (just kidding of course)...

Maybe your not that far off the mark. Maybe our army should adapt the ROE of the bearded ones. That is NONE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a fighter lands on a carrier the arrestor cable catches a hook attached to the aircraft, preventing it from overshooting and ditching into the sea.

Doh - they forgot to put the nets up. Another £300 million down the drain each. Never mind it's free money.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you are infering here? A strategic occupation? If our leaders continue this pathetic 'sabre rattling' over Iran and expect to get everyone fired up to take them on, they have another think coming... I really think people are getting fatigued by the constant war of spin.

We should just be getting on with business like the Chinese and Indians. Ok, so you can cast up some stuff they are involved in, but in the main they are two relatively peaceful nations more interested in building schools and roads in return for natural resources, than they are in regime change and population manipulation.

William Hague talking up the situation in Iran? all he is doing is making life hard on us here by boosting the price of our oil imports. He is not speaking on my behalf...

The theoretical mineral wealth of Afghanistan notwithstanding, have a look at the American / Allied disposition forces and establishments in the area. What do you think is the next logical step?

Getting on with business like the Chinese and Indians? Relatively peaceful? Gosh. I would thank our lucky stars if either or both do not get involve in an almighty scrap during our lifetimes. Especially not with each other. Regime change and population manipulation? I think you need to look harder. I think you are naive if you call Chinese foreign investment anything but that. Once the Indians manage to quell their own backyard they will start.

I'm open to the idea of future or even current wars being technological or financial. For example, now that Iraq's oil reserves are being carved up, China steps in with mind-boggling amounts of cash, diminishing the West's returns of the occupation. The West wouldn't dare take it back by force. Equally China is in thrall to USD debt and that may prove a restrictive to her ultimate financial power.

Actually the story seems a bit of an invention as there's a carrier variant.

Assuming it's the same plane of course.

From popularmechanics.com

I think the carrier variant is where the problem is. The Americans lack a good reason to develop a VSTOL version. Catapults and arrestors allow relatively "normal" jets to be designed for carrier use. These still do not get away for the need for a large runway, hence the size of the US and French carriers. But they require far more training and are inherently more risky. Our philosophy is for cheaper smaller carriers with a ski jump and vertical landing. Our future carrier program is where these philosophies are in conflict, allowing plenty of opportunity to display feckwittery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the carrier variant is where the problem is. The Americans lack a good reason to develop a VSTOL version. Catapults and arrestors allow relatively "normal" jets to be designed for carrier use. These still do not get away for the need for a large runway, hence the size of the US and French carriers. But they require far more training and are inherently more risky. Our philosophy is for cheaper smaller carriers with a ski jump and vertical landing. Our future carrier program is where these philosophies are in conflict, allowing plenty of opportunity to display feckwittery.

The problem with going the VSTOL route is that you end up with a vastly more expensive aircraft which can carry much less of a war load then a conventional aircraft. The only reason that the UK had the Harrier and the ski-jump carriers was because Dennis the Menace cancelled the conventional carrier programme. At one point people were scared to refer to what became the Harrier carrier as a carrier of any sort in case it would be cancelled too, instead using the term 'through deck cruiser'.

The UK did in fact operate the F4 Phantom off smaller carriers than the US although the British F4s were the biggest, most powerful, most expensive and slowest Phantoms in the world at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eh? Is there something we haven't been told?
I think Ruffles has started his weekend early on the piss / weed / crack pipe :lol:
Iraq did have a massive army on the border, and it didn't stop the Kuwaitis doing some (*ahem*) completely accidental directional drilling.

The drilling took place long before Iraq put it's forces on the border. Kuwait had been cross-drilling and extracting oil for quite some time and Iraq had been complaining but no-one did anything as the US was the one buying the oil from Kuwait!

Iraq only sent it's forces to the border when Kuwait upped the pumping rate and dumped all the oil on the market, depressing world oil prices and thus actually reducing the income Iraq was getting from the oil it was producing.

Because most of Iraq's oil money was spent on stuff for the people, instead of bejewelled palaces and solid gold Rolls Royce's for the huge royal family, the reduction in income was actually leading to suffering for the people of Iraq as the government was having to slash spending. In a country with free healthcare, schools, universities etc. a big reduction in oil income quickly had an effect on the people.

So Saddam sent his troops to the border to threaten Kuwait. Then it all gets a bit blurry - no-one really knows what happened. The general in charge of the troops ordered them over the border, and the next day Saddam claimed he gave the order... unofficial stories say Saddam hadn't given the order and was furious... but he had to claim it was his orders else it would look like he had lost control of the army and would have had uprisings in the 2 major oil producing regions.

It wouldn't be unreasonable to think that if Saddam had planned to actually invade Kuwait he would have done it in a more controlled manner, not let the troops go on a looting spree, and instead announced he was liberating the people of Kuwait. If he had simply announced free healthcare and education for all and begun building hospitals and schools, there is a good chance he could have got to keep Kuwait. The Kuwaiti royal family are only popular in Kuwait because you can basically be shot for saying anything bad about them. By the time the US got forces ready to "free" Kuwait and return it to the royal family they'de have problems as the people of Kuwait would be making noises indicating they were perfectly happy as they were, and might even put up a fight. You need to remember that that while the amount of money Kuwait has is vast, it all went to the royal family and most people lived in poverty.

I could decipher 'Sink The Freaking U'.. what does the U stand for?

STFU = Shut The F**k Up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with going the VSTOL route is that you end up with a vastly more expensive aircraft which can carry much less of a war load then a conventional aircraft. The only reason that the UK had the Harrier and the ski-jump carriers was because Dennis the Menace cancelled the conventional carrier programme. At one point people were scared to refer to what became the Harrier carrier as a carrier of any sort in case it would be cancelled too, instead using the term 'through deck cruiser'.

The irony being that the British carriers with the Harriers on were a brilliant idea anyway, even if they were originally designed and helicopter carriers.

Smaller with a shallower draft means they can go places the American carriers can't, and being smaller you can get more for your money, spreading them out and making them harder targets... as the argies found in the Falklands when their missile locked onto the biggest ship in the fleet and it turned out to be a supply vessel.

And the harrier design itself was awesome... it was basically unmatched in air-to-air combat thanks to it's thrust vectoring. Even though thrust vectoring is now standard on modern fighter, they just can't match the harrier. The big problem with the harrier was a high crash rate, caused by pilots putting the nozzles back too fast before the plane had enough forward speed for the wings to generate lift, although late in it's life they put a computer in charge of that and it ended up with one of the lowest crash rates. They also had an issue with landing with full fuel and weapons in hot climates, the solution being to drop the droptank. (The droptanks were cheap enough.)

If I had been in charge, I would have built more even-smaller carriers and simply had the harrier re-worked. Fit a more modern engine with a better power-to-weight ratio and build the rest using modern materials like composites. (Remember that while the avionics have been upgraded over the years, the airframe and engine were designed before computers had keyboards.) You'de get the weight down low enough that you could stick more weapons and fuel on and STILL land it full loaded. It still wouldn't go supersonic, but all that speed stuff became pointless once missiles went supersonic and couldn't be outrun anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The drilling took place long before Iraq put it's forces on the border. Kuwait had been cross-drilling and extracting oil for quite some time and Iraq had been complaining but no-one did anything as the US was the one buying the oil from Kuwait!

//

Interesting. Who knows what to believe these days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony being that the British carriers with the Harriers on were a brilliant idea anyway, even if they were originally designed and helicopter carriers.

//

Fascinating too on the Harrier. It was a great aircraft - the best of British ingenuity. As ever it is politicians who seem to screw things up.

Edited by tinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating too on the Harrier. It was a great aircraft - the best of British ingenuity. As ever it politicians who seem to screw things up.

Yes, it is viable solution. Tear the contract up, get those snouts out of the trough, and build small. Look at the cost of Ocean and the Bay class, its not rocket science. Add in a few score gunboats and mine hunters and we could be very useful vassals indeed.

Or go the other way, go American.

I'm sure we're not being original here, its just that we rubbish at untwisting our knickers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with going the VSTOL route is that you end up with a vastly more expensive aircraft which can carry much less of a war load then a conventional aircraft.

If I remember correctly, there were many days during the Falklands war where conventional aircraft wouldn't have been able to fly, because the weather was so bad that they couldn't land using a conventional wire system. One of the Harrier pilots wrote about how on at least one occasion he was hovering in roughly the place where he thought the ship was trying to spot it through the fog so he could drop onto the deck before he ran out of fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the harrier design itself was awesome...

Yes it was.

it was basically unmatched in air-to-air combat thanks to it's thrust vectoring.

That's a rather limited view of what air to air combat is. The Harrier has some special capabilities and would require a bogey to take those into account. In many important respects though, it's a very poor fighter.

Even though thrust vectoring is now standard on modern fighter, they just can't match the harrier.

It wasn't standard last time I looked.

If I had been in charge, I would have built more even-smaller carriers and simply had the harrier re-worked. Fit a more modern engine with a better power-to-weight ratio and build the rest using modern materials like composites.

They did this. It's as good as it is because of more powerful engines and the use of composite materials. The AV8B and the Harrier II are very different from the original Harrier GR1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We and our US 'allies' can spend all we like on firepower and 'defence',,, but we are still getting our asses severely handed to us in Afghanistan. Maybe our army should consist of bearded arabs armed only with AK47's (just kidding of course)...

Actually, we aren't. We're just not getting anywhere much. Do you think we're always getting blown to bits and never doing anything back? But it does reinforce the point about defence being pretty much impossible beyond "don't be seen."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it was.

That's a rather limited view of what air to air combat is. The Harrier has some special capabilities and would require a bogey to take those into account. In many important respects though, it's a very poor fighter.

It wasn't standard last time I looked.

They did this. It's as good as it is because of more powerful engines and the use of composite materials. The AV8B and the Harrier II are very different from the original Harrier GR1.

this is very true, Cameron imo made a massive blunder in the defence review, don't forget they scrapped the nimrods too, it is going to cost a fortune of american owned ip to get the Navy remotely near respectable. This money would be much better spent in the UK even if in simple terms it is more costly.

well actually, the whole thing is a farce.

Basically we are sacking UK workers and then borrowing billions to fund US workers developing ip that we will never own or be able to take advantage of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is very true, Cameron imo made a massive blunder in the defence review, don't forget they scrapped the nimrods too, it is going to cost a fortune of american owned ip to get the Navy remotely near respectable. This money would be much better spent in the UK even if in simple terms it is more costly.

well actually, the whole thing is a farce.

Basically we are sacking UK workers and then borrowing billions to fund US workers developing ip that we will never own or be able to take advantage of.

Yup - add to that 4 fleet auxillary tankers are going to be built in Korea. Another £500m on the tab :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is very true, Cameron imo made a massive blunder in the defence review, don't forget they scrapped the nimrods too, it is going to cost a fortune of american owned ip to get the Navy remotely near respectable. This money would be much better spent in the UK even if in simple terms it is more costly.

well actually, the whole thing is a farce.

Basically we are sacking UK workers and then borrowing billions to fund US workers developing ip that we will never own or be able to take advantage of.

I agree that it was a mistake to scrap the Harrier fleet. It's an excellent and very versatile close air support platform.

What I don't agree with, however, are the previous assertions that it's a great fighter aircraft. As a fighter it is rather poor.

If it did well in the Falklands then that has more to do with the quality of Argentinian pilots and the fact the Harriers had the AIM-9L version of the Sidewinder.

Its VIFF capability basically amounts to improved turning ability and the ability to come to a dead stop very quickly.

The turning ability versus speed thing has been going on since the early days of aerial combat. Oddly enough, the guys with the speed have been on top throughout, barring a few short periods where there was some learning to be done.

If you turn better than your faster enemy then you may well win if your enemy makes the mistake of engaging you in a turning fight. If he doesn't choose to do that, then you're a bit stuffed, as he gets to dictate the fight.

VIFF-ing to a full stop would basically dump all your energy (energy management being a key principle of aerial combat.) You better pick your moment very carefully, or you're a dead budgie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that it was a mistake to scrap the Harrier fleet. It's an excellent and very versatile close air support platform.

What I don't agree with, however, are the previous assertions that it's a great fighter aircraft. As a fighter it is rather poor.

If it did well in the Falklands then that has more to do with the quality of Argentinian pilots and the fact the Harriers had the AIM-9L version of the Sidewinder.

Its VIFF capability basically amounts to improved turning ability and the ability to come to a dead stop very quickly.

The turning ability versus speed thing has been going on since the early days of aerial combat. Oddly enough, the guys with the speed have been on top throughout, barring a few short periods where there was some learning to be done.

If you turn better than your faster enemy then you may well win if your enemy makes the mistake of engaging you in a turning fight. If he doesn't choose to do that, then you're a bit stuffed, as he gets to dictate the fight.

VIFF-ing to a full stop would basically dump all your energy (energy management being a key principle of aerial combat.) You better pick your moment very carefully, or you're a dead budgie.

I know, but the point is it is the best choice as we have no other options and the farce is that it is such a ridiculous mess.

this country and it's interests have been left undefended by a Tory govt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't agree with, however, are the previous assertions that it's a great fighter aircraft. As a fighter it is rather poor.

I'm not aware of a Western fighter of its era that the Harrier hasn't beaten in exercises, in some cases with a much greater success rate than the other guys.

Its VIFF capability basically amounts to improved turning ability and the ability to come to a dead stop very quickly.

One of the other benefits of the Pegasus is that the hot exhaust vents under the wing. If a heat-seaking missile is targeting a conventional fighter you have to turn far enough that it can't see the exhaust on your tail, which is kind of tricky if they're behind you. With the Harrier the pilots could pull up so the wing blocked the exhaust and the missile would lose its lock.

Ultimately you've really got about three choices in a modern fighter-vs-fighter combat; fire a missile from a long distance, fly past at speed and fire cannon or missiles, or get into a turning fight with cannon or missiles. If I remember correctly the cancelled Harrier upgrade would have given it a long-range missile capability, and it could out-manoeuvre just about anything in a turning fight. So the only place where it would be worse off is in a high-speed pass, where it could potentially out-manoeuvre a cannon attack and hide the exhaust from a heat-seeking missile attack.

Probably the biggest downside was the limited payload capability if you wanted a vertical takeoff, or the need to dump expensive weapons before a vertical landing if you used a rolling takeoff and didn't use them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, but the point is it is the best choice as we have no other options and the farce is that it is such a ridiculous mess.

No, the best choice would have been to develop the planned follow-ons from the Harrier which would have eliminated many of its faults and brought it into the 21st century. They would have been flying a decade or more before the F-35 might turn up.

this country and it's interests have been left undefended by a Tory govt.

In case you hadn't noticed, Britain had a Labour government from 1997 to 2010. They're the ones who signed up for the F-35 and expensive carriers, not the Tories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not aware of a Western fighter of its era that the Harrier hasn't beaten in exercises, in some cases with a much greater success rate than the other guys.

Probably depends on what the success criteria of the exercise are. If they happen to be dealing with BVR bogeys killed then you're still rather stuffed.

One of the other benefits of the Pegasus is that the hot exhaust vents under the wing. If a heat-seaking missile is targeting a conventional fighter you have to turn far enough that it can't see the exhaust on your tail, which is kind of tricky if they're behind you. With the Harrier the pilots could pull up so the wing blocked the exhaust and the missile would lose its lock.

One of the points about the AIM-9L advantage is that it can lock from the front. It doesn't need to be looking up your tailpipe.

Ultimately you've really got about three choices in a modern fighter-vs-fighter combat; fire a missile from a long distance, fly past at speed and fire cannon or missiles, or get into a turning fight with cannon or missiles. If I remember correctly the cancelled Harrier upgrade would have given it a long-range missile capability, and it could out-manoeuvre just about anything in a turning fight. So the only place where it would be worse off is in a high-speed pass, where it could potentially out-manoeuvre a cannon attack and hide the exhaust from a heat-seeking missile attack.

They upgraded to AMRAAMs with the naval harrier, IRRC. So, a medium range BVR capability on a slow fighter.

OK, you might outmanoeuvre the first bogey on your 6 by VIFF-ing. Better hope he doesn't have his mates with him though.

The point about turning fights is that the faster fighter always gets to choose.

Probably the biggest downside was the limited payload capability if you wanted a vertical takeoff, or the need to dump expensive weapons before a vertical landing if you used a rolling takeoff and didn't use them.

That will always be the case. And it's not really a downside. It's already in their standard operating procedures that they do a short take off to be able to caryy a bigger load. Has bugger all to do with fighter vs fighter combat too.

Edited by bewildered_renter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably depends on what the success criteria of the exercise are. If they happen to be dealing with BVR bogeys killed then you're still rather stuffed.

But for BVR fighting, what you're flying is irrelevant other than the weapons and sensors it carries. A Cessna would win against an F-22 if it could see the F-22 and hit it before the F-22 fired back.

If you believe the future is shooting missiles at a blob on the radar screen from fifty miles away, you should be buying large numbers of cheap drones, not tiny numbers of incredibly expensive fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But for BVR fighting, what you're flying is irrelevant other than the weapons and sensors it carries. A Cessna would win against an F-22 if it could see the F-22 and hit it before the F-22 fired back.

If you believe the future is shooting missiles at a blob on the radar screen from fifty miles away, you should be buying large numbers of cheap drones, not tiny numbers of incredibly expensive fighters.

And can the Harrier do this? At all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you believe the future is shooting missiles at a blob on the radar screen from fifty miles away, you should be buying large numbers of cheap drones, not tiny numbers of incredibly expensive fighters.

Err yes.

The MOD, like most standing army, is just a jobs-for-boys gig.

We've been in afghan for 10 years now.

We are fighting a bunch of goat herders with 50 year old weapons.

We have spent inordinate amounts of money on blood and all we have to show for it is Hamid Karzi.

Great!

Remember the tosh about nation building etc.

Our forces are based around an idea of prancing around like a Prussian from 105 years ago.

Go for missiles, go for missiles BIG!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And can the Harrier do this? At all?

AMRAAM has a range of 45 miles according to Wikipedia. So pretty much yes.

Also, the P1216 would have been supersonic if it had been built, as would some of the other proposed Harrier follow-ons. So if the government had been serious about keeping the Harrier and developing it, they would have had a far more capable fighter by now.

Instead they may one day get the F-35, which is incredibly expensive and similarly limited in payload due to the stealth capabilities, which are pretty much useless against any existing opponent; you don't need a stealth plane to attack third-world crap-holes, yet it's probably not good enough to survive attacking China or Russia.

Edited by MarkG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMRAAM has a range of 45 miles according to Wikipedia. So pretty much yes.

Also, the P1216 would have been supersonic if it had been built, as would some of the other proposed Harrier follow-ons. So if the government had been serious about keeping the Harrier and developing it, they would have had a far more capable fighter by now.

And the radar can do that too?

P1216- a new fighter, fine on paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.