davidg Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 for a much cheaper and still fairly effective air-strike capability,the rafale is a good plane. most pilots who have flown it say it's very user-friendly. or just stick with the typhoon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 or just stick with the typhoon? Typhoon is not a bomber althought they are adapting it for that role. The JSF is a disaster but no one dares cancel it for all sorts of political and financial reasons. Only our aircraft carriers are a bigger disaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oracle Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 (edited) Typhoon is not a bomber althought they are adapting it for that role. The JSF is a disaster but no one dares cancel it for all sorts of political and financial reasons. Only our aircraft carriers are a bigger disaster. I agree. in this day and age of supersonic anti-ship missiles etc then we need to think out of the box, ships are actually very slow. even at max speed, and aircraft carrier in it's present form can only travel around 35-40mph, and it can't turn for buggery. better to invest in a dozen "catamaran/trimaran" type carriers that can hold 20 planes( plus2 dozen uav's each) and travel at 50mph,plus turn on a sixpence, than 2 big ones that hold 80. also, they've got to be nuclear powered...with traditional fuel you need a host of supply ships to refuel, which will also be targets. better for international "coverage" as well ..one of the above ith helicopter support would be sufficent to stop any "falklands" type event, but if we were talking a falkands+gibraltar+syria+iran+ ukraine/baltcs then presently we are screwed without additional nato help. Edited December 15, 2014 by oracle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyguy Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 I agree. in this day and age of supersonic anti-ship missiles etc then we need to think out of the box, ships are actually very slow. And very big. And made of metal. You could not come up with an easier target for even a back yard missiller a la Hamas. Give it a few more years and the US, UK + French navies will just be sailing round in the middle of the Pacific, avoiding misslies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Typhoon is not a bomber althought they are adapting it for that role. The JSF is a disaster but no one dares cancel it for all sorts of political and financial reasons. Only our aircraft carriers are a bigger disaster. Especially as the Labour idiots didn't go for an angled flight deck and sort out the cats. We could then have walked away from the JSF and bought something that could actually fly off a carrier. Can't wait for the news that that JSF doesn't like sea water!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidg Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 So what are the choices for the carrier(s)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 So what are the choices for the carrier(s)? 1. JSF 2. JSF 3. JSF 4. JSF And if all else fails the 5th option is.... 5. JSF If they had gone with an angled flight deck we could have gone with Carrier version of the Rafale or the F18 Hornet. Plus we'd also have been able to have eyes in the sky and electronic warfare capability etc... Instead we have a carrier which will be full of JSF which will probably always have technical issues and be crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frozen_out Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 No surprise. Regardless of circular nature of the arguent as someone who had a mil aerospace background myself and good knowledge of electronics I still say that the rate of change in capability and rate of reduction in cost in sensor/electronics/software is at such staggering rate that smart unmanned will utterly overwhelm any of the manned platforms currently in development during their planned lifetime. . Probably the most sensible thing written on the thread so far. I'm imagining an army of self-fuelling drones permanently flying at high altitude, capable of a speed in excess of mach 5 ready to be called to action anywhere on the globe at a moments notice. Drones will ultimately prove more dangerous than nuclear weapons IMO, because they have the potential to completely destroy a country without leaving scorched Earth. A much more sensible response to a nuclear first strike than MAD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare Bear Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Especially as the Labour idiots didn't go for an angled flight deck and sort out the cats. We could then have walked away from the JSF and bought something that could actually fly off a carrier. Can't wait for the news that that JSF doesn't like sea water!!! Must be the first carriers built since WW2 without angled decks and cats. Idiots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidg Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 1. JSF The one that can't fly in hot weather, at night or when it is windy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Must be the first carriers built since WW2 without angled decks and cats. Idiots. The story behind that is BAE are heavily involved in the JSF project, so the carriers were designed to prevent any other aircraft from using them. Whether it's possible to retrofit them with angled decks and cats I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Whether it's possible to retrofit them with angled decks and cats I don't know. No. It would be too expensive and would alter the balance, weight distribution of the vessel. Yes, technically it could be done but you really, really would not want to. It would be a repeat of all those dreadnoughts, battelships and aircraft carriers from the 1990s through to WW2 where similar redesigns were done and you mostly ended up with disasters. It has been written thousands of times before but carriers without the ability to also fly things like air refueling, airborne early warning, even the ability to have cargo aircraft land on it bringing in personnel and supplies, is just stupidity beyond belief. I did wonder whether they wanted it so so that these carriers would never operate in war without the yanks... but I think they just went for stupid and didn't have a clue what they were building. Shocking that senior military officers agreed to this IMPO. The JSF will be slow, visible to radar, unable to carry a moderate to heavy payload and unable to carry enough fuel to give it a decent range - so carriers will have to get closer to land and danger - and... big white elephants. It should be fairly safe attacking tribesmen... aslong as they live near the coast... and don't ever accquire any anti-ship missiles... but it will not stand a chance against the Chinese or Russians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Brings us back to why the contract for the aircraft carriers was awarded with such haste. 2010 Election and a certain Gordon Brown whose constituency needed a boost. In isolation a decision so bad, yet just one of many unfathomable, politically motivated decisions that actually benefit no one. Remember seeing a documentary on the JSF (Harrier replacement), it looked awesome, That's the magic of TV! And spin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare Bear Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Brings us back to why the contract for the aircraft carriers was awarded with such haste. 2010 Election and a certain Gordon Brown whose constituency needed a boost. In isolation a decision so bad, yet just one of many unfathomable, politically motivated decisions that actually benefit no one. Remember seeing a documentary on the JSF (Harrier replacement), it looked awesome, That's the magic of TV! And spin. Hardly confined to the defense industry though. Remember when it was said that Active Directory only ran properly on an overhead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Pentagon's most expensive fighter jet set for use by the Royal Navy on HMS Queen Elizabeth can't carry advance weapons because of design flaw The Ministry of Defense has ordered 48 F-35Bs and they are the only fighter jets set to launch off two planned British aircraft carriers - the HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Prince of Wales. Another impressive feat!!! 48 isn't a big carrier airwing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errol Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 It should be fairly safe attacking tribesmen... Well that's ok then. The Americans/NATO try to avoid fighting anyone who can actually fight back. These carriers will be excellent for attacking African/Arabic peasants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errol Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Pentagon's most expensive fighter jet set for use by the Royal Navy on HMS Queen Elizabeth can't carry advance weapons because of design flaw The Ministry of Defense has ordered 48 F-35Bs and they are the only fighter jets set to launch off two planned British aircraft carriers - the HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Prince of Wales. Another impressive feat!!! 48 isn't a big carrier airwing! Only 48? No replacement aircraft? I would have thought you would want at least double the required planes - so as to be able to rotate them on maintenance/damage etc. God help us if there is ever a real war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sPinwheel Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Id live to see a plane designed along the lines of the A-10. That thing could take a hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Only 48? No replacement aircraft? I would have thought you would want at least double the required planes - so as to be able to rotate them on maintenance/damage etc. God help us if there is ever a real war. Aircraft carried: Tailored air group of up to 40 aircraft (50 full load):[11] F-35B Lightning II Chinook AgustaWestland Apache Merlin Lynx Wildcat Merlin Crowsnest AEW I wonder what the configuration will be? It certainly doesn't sound like an effective air group with 24 planes per ship, or will the actual number be even less 18 per ship with spares? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errol Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 18 JSF per ship? lol? Clearly just for fighting peasants then. In a real war they would lose most of those planes within the first day or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bora Horza Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 The two Queen Elizabeth carriers plus the helicopter carrier will put the Royal Navy approximately 3rd in rank of the world's largest carrier fleets. Once China and India have completed their carrier building programmes we'll probably drop a few places but given the massive population and land mass differences I think UK fleet power is pretty impressive. British people do seem to be rather negative about their own country. I do wonder if this kind of thinking is self-destructive in the long-term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errol Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) The two Queen Elizabeth carriers plus the helicopter carrier will put the Royal Navy approximately 3rd in rank of the world's largest carrier fleets. Once China and India have completed their carrier building programmes we'll probably drop a few places but given the massive population and land mass differences I think UK fleet power is pretty impressive. British people do seem to be rather negative about their own country. I do wonder if this kind of thinking is self-destructive in the long-term. Impressive, but serves no real purpose (other than to threaten/bomb peasants or people who can't fight back). Anyone or any country can be 'impressive' if they throw enough money around. And in this case, the carriers are being crippled by apparently rubbish aircraft. In any event, if there was a 'proper' war, the carriers would stay at home in port or at least in very safe waters. They would be sitting ducks for the missiles available these days (to nations like China/Russia and even India). Only 1 relatively cheap missile would be required to take out a high-profile very expensive target. Edited March 2, 2015 by Errol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Yeah, I'm not any kind of military student but carriers seem to be about being able to deploy efficiently faraway without needing access agreement elsewhere, but seemingly very vulnerable. I don't know, maybe these days they're very tough. I agree with the OP though, that negativity seems hard-wired now, and it's not only about this country. That's just a symptom. Is it the appetite of 24 hour news? I have no idea. It's quite damaging in that a tendency to think negatively feeds upon itself and if it becomes habitual it's a killer in every possible way - relationships, career, lifestyle, health. Critical thinking is great. Negative thinking is awful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bora Horza Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Carriers are untested in modern conflict and I agree are likely to prove highly vulnerable against another well-armed opponent. But that's not really what they're for – surely carriers are the modern equivalent to gunboats? They enable a country to project its power (which can be for good or bad purposes, depending on the politics), protect its trade routes and so on. Regarding British negativity, a theory: it's a hang-over from the British Empire days, we're used to being no.1 - anything less than that is a failure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Roady Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 In any event, if there was a 'proper' war, the carriers would stay at home in port or at least in very safe waters. They would be sitting ducks for the missiles available these days (to nations like China/Russia and even India). Only 1 relatively cheap missile would be required to take out a high-profile very expensive target. What...do the Navy know this? Have you sent the first and second sea lords an email to this effect? Possibly the defebce secretary as well? Perhaps you can also provide advice on alternatives. The Royal Navy is only the oldest fighting service in the world and the inventor of all aspects naval aviation, so I am sure they will be most interested in your opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.