Thanks Thanks:  43
Likes Likes:  73
Dislikes Dislikes:  3
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 224
  1. #76
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,477
    Post Thanks / Like
    Shocking.

    Cameron and Co won't last a second term.

    He justified his defence cuts on labour mis-management...now this coalition are doing likewise.
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  2. Likes RoyalGreenJacket liked this post
  3. #77
    Commander in Chief RoyalGreenJacket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Home of the British Army
    Posts
    7,756
    Post Thanks / Like
    surely a few decent cats would cost less and provide us with a more effective jet if we went with the F-35C instead of the F-35B?

    barking mad.
    RGJ

    ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

    The Rifles

  4. #78
    Commander in Chief RoyalGreenJacket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Home of the British Army
    Posts
    7,756
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldie fish View Post
    Not looking good at all.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4bb456e4-9...#axzz1uPslv9d1

    Back to the yet non operational F35-B. Seems cats and traps would cost £2bn
    £2bn? we're all in the wrong job.
    RGJ

    ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

    The Rifles

  5. Likes Goldie fish liked this post
  6. #79
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,675
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyalGreenJacket View Post
    £2bn? we're all in the wrong job.
    the US is selling the cats for $500m, the '£2bn' figure suggests that it will require more engineering time to fit the cats into the carriers - for which they were designed - than it took to build the whole of HMS Invincible.

    its remarkable - you might almost think that someone had pulled the figure out of their arse. or was lying...

  7. #80
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    2,942
    Post Thanks / Like
    For that price, surely the UK (who have the technical know how!) could build an indigenous cat and trap setup themselves?
    "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
    "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

  8. Likes RoyalGreenJacket liked this post
  9. #81
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,675
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by morpheus View Post
    For that price, surely the UK (who have the technical know how!) could build an indigenous cat and trap setup themselves?
    the '£2bn' figure is bollocks, its 20% of the build price of a 100,000ton, nuclear powered carrier with the same system. does that sound remotely realistic to you?

    personally i'm convinced that this is BAEs at work - the C version of JSF is less valuable to them than the B - and while they are also building the carriers and would profit by the RN spending more on the carriers, they have a far bigger dog in F-35B than they have in the carriers, and if the RN were not to be customers for the B it stands a far higher chance of being cancelled all together. its too heavy, too compromised, and too expensive. only the fact that the USMC and RN want it is keeping it alive for political reasons.

    BAE are scared - rightly so - that if we continued with cat and traps we'd eventually decide to cancel a F-35C buy and opt for the cheaper F/A-18F instead - and they have bog all to do with F/A-18F. the decision is nothing more than the government working for the benefit of BAE, and against the interests of the taxpayer and defence. disgusting.

  10. Likes RoyalGreenJacket liked this post
  11. #82
    Closed Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Villa Straylight
    Posts
    2,082
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yup - this certainly looks industry driven.

    So, to protect shareholders, the RN will end up with less capable carriers and aircraft, which cost far more to purchase and to operate, and (in the case of the carriers) are only interoperable with aircraft of less capable allies (even the French are CATOBAR after all). And on top of all of that, they run the very real risk of having the aircraft cancelled and the carriers left unable to operate any other modern fast jet. Brilliant.

  12. #83
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Government in U-turn over F35-B fighter planes
    The government has changed its mind over the type of fighter planes it is ordering for the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier.

    Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the F35-C had hit development problems and it would be cheaper in the long term to order F35-B jump jets, as originally planned by Labour.

    The cost of the U-turn will be at least £50m, he revealed.

    Labour said it was an "omnishambles" which risked "international ridicule".

    Mr Hammond said delays to the F-35C programme meant they would have not been operational until 2023 - three years later than planned.

    "When the facts change, the responsible thing to do is to examine the decision made and be willing to change, however inconvenient that may be," said Mr Hammond.

    'Facts have changed'

    As part of its defence spending review in 2010, the government decided to "mothball" one of the two aircraft carriers ordered by Labour.

    By abandoning the plan to fit "cats and traps" to one of the carriers while mothballing the other, he said it opened up the possibility that both HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Queen Elizabeth could eventually become operational.

    "The 2010 SDSR decision on carriers was right at the time, but the facts have changed and therefore so too must our approach. This government will not blindly pursue projects and ignore cost growth and delays," said Mr Hammond.

    "Carrier strike with 'cats and traps' using the carrier variant jet no longer represents the best way of delivering carrier strike and I am not prepared to tolerate a three-year further delay to reintroducing our carrier strike capability.

    "This announcement means we remain on course to deliver carrier strike in 2020 as a key part of our Future Force 2020."

    The estimated cost of fitting the "cats and traps" system to HMS Prince of Wales had risen from £950m to £2bn "with no guarantee that it will not rise further".

    But, he revealed, the government had spent between £40m and £50m on design and assessment work and there would also be penalty costs associated with scrapping the F-35C deal.

    'Incompetence'

    But he told MPs the eventual cost of the U-turn would be "nowhere near" the £250m claimed by Labour.

    Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said the government should never have scrapped its Harrier jump jets, which he said had been "sold off to America for a fraction of their value" - a decision he said risked "international ridicule".

    He called on Prime Minister David Cameron to apologise for the government's "incompetence".

    He said: "I know the advice the prime minister received which was that the Defence Review policy was high risk and high cost - but yet the prime minister over-ruled it.

    "The Public Accounts Select Committee warned of rising costs. The National Audit Office said the government had an immature understanding of the costs.

    "The Defence Select Committee warned against strategic shrinkage. The prime minister's decisions have cost British time, British money, British talent and British prestige."

    He added: "The previous Labour government got it right and this government's policy has unravelled."
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18008171
    "Omnishambles". Nice word. Would make a great name for a band.

  13. #84
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,675
    Post Thanks / Like
    i think we should rejoin Ireland - we have demonstrated that we can't run a country on our own...

  14. Likes Goldie fish, Herald, Orion liked this post
  15. #85
    Colonel pmtts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Nowhereshire
    Posts
    2,366
    Post Thanks / Like
    He called on Prime Minister David Cameron to apologise for the government's "incompetence".
    A bit rich for a member of a former Government party who the people voted out due to their many " incompetence" issues!

  16. #86
    MIA mugs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Up in Down
    Posts
    1,962
    Post Thanks / Like
    Stupid Tory Government!
    Theirs not to make reply,
    Theirs not to reason why,
    Theirs but to do and die:
    Into the valley of Death
    Rode the six hundred.

    The Charge of the Light Brigade

  17. #87
    Closed Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Villa Straylight
    Posts
    2,082
    Post Thanks / Like
    "Carrier strike with 'cats and traps' using the carrier variant jet no longer represents the best way of delivering carrier strike"
    There is a pearl of wisdom that should be transmitted immediately to the USN, who persist in operating 11 of these plainly sub-optimal CATOBAR carriers. The French, Russians and Chinese should probably be told also that the best way of delivering naval air power is through overweight, over complex STOVL fighters that operate with lower t/w ratios, poorer payload/range and greater cost than their CATOBAR competitors.

    For countries like Spain and Italy, with relatively small carriers, there is an argument for STOVL aircraft, but if you are going to the trouble of building a pair of 60,000t carriers, why would you deliberately restrict your operational ability? Strange days.

  18. Likes ropebag liked this post
  19. #88
    Commander in Chief RoyalGreenJacket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Home of the British Army
    Posts
    7,756
    Post Thanks / Like
    i can't believe we have ditched an aircraft which put it's single engine to good use in both forward flight and VTOL, for an aircraft that has 2 engines - one of which it has to carry around as absolute dead weight for the duration of the mission except take-off and landing.

    we should have just bought some cheap siamese cats off the chinese and crude bear traps from the russians and ended up with carriers and aircraft fully interoperable with almost every other carrier nation.

    this is feckin outrageous.
    RGJ

    ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

    The Rifles

  20. #89
    Closed Account Docman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    "That would be an ecuminical matter"
    Posts
    4,554
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Aidan View Post
    The French, Russians and Chinese should probably be told
    You forgot Brazilians & Indians.

  21. #90
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,477
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldie fish View Post
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18008171
    "Omnishambles". Nice word. Would make a great name for a band.
    I can think of a more appropriate word; first part cluster....
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  22. #91
    Closed Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Villa Straylight
    Posts
    2,082
    Post Thanks / Like
    You forgot Brazilians & Indians.
    Neither operate any conventional aircraft off carriers at the moment. The Brazilians don't have any operational A-4s - apparently they haven't conducted flight ops since 2005. The only Indian carrier in service is a STOVL carrier (Vikraat - formerly the Hermes), but the two they're building are STOBAR (the INS Vikramaditya - try saying that after a few pints - will enter service later this year and the first Vikrant ship will comission in 2014). Two very capable ships, and more on the way.

    On the bright side, if the F-35B doesn't work out, the RN can always buy Mig-29K or Tejas and run those off the ski jump ...

  23. #92
    Amadan Orion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Osborne's Very Very Broke Island
    Posts
    1,253
    Post Thanks / Like
    Wittering still has a Harrier as a gate guardian (as of 18:45 today) if there's none left in the hangers can they clone the gate guardian ??

  24. Likes RoyalGreenJacket liked this post
  25. #93
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,477
    Post Thanks / Like
    So - does this mean that these aircraft will be capable of flying off smaller platforms eg HMS Ocean, RFA Argus, any large container ship taken up from trade a la Atlantic Conveyor? If so, is that a plus point for the purchase of these things?

    Also - am I right in saying that these (F35-B) will be the eventual replacement for RAF Tornado, and so could operate (as Harrier did) from remote sites?

    Does that capability balance up the loss of payload etc?

    Or am I talking crap...I have been known to in the past...
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  26. Likes RoyalGreenJacket liked this post
  27. #94
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,675
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by spider View Post
    So - does this mean that these aircraft will be capable of flying off smaller platforms eg HMS Ocean, RFA Argus, any large container ship taken up from trade a la Atlantic Conveyor? If so, is that a plus point for the purchase of these things?

    Also - am I right in saying that these (F35-B) will be the eventual replacement for RAF Tornado, and so could operate (as Harrier did) from remote sites?

    Does that capability balance up the loss of payload etc?...
    depends. a bit...

    in terms of a very basic 'land, refuel, piss off' capability then Ocean, Albion, Bulwark and RFA Argus (maybe even a Bay class LPD?) could do a job - not a good job, but better than a $150m+ airframe-ditching-in-the-sea job. however, everything i've heard about JSF says its going to be a fussy bastard: this is not an aircraft you could operate from a strip of motorway, or perhaps in comparrison with the Harrier, a bit of PSP at Port San Carlos in 1982 or the bombsite that was Kandahar Airfield in 2001. it looks to me like its version of 'austere basing' is RAF Lossiemouth or a purpose built Aircraft Carrier.

    F-35B is not technically a Tornado replacement, but we all know that it will be the aircraft that does the GR4 role of blowing shit up on the Ground while Typhoon blows shit up in the Air - its undoubtedly better as a deep penetration strike aircraft than Tornado because its stealthy, because it can self-escort, and it can take 2x 1000lb JDAM's internally. however, in terms of being a CAS platform i think its on shaky ground: its too expensive to risk - and certainly it'll be at the same risk as non-stealthy platforms when you nail two external fuel tanks, a gun pod, and a couple of Brimstones/EPWIV's to the outside - and there won't be enough of them to do the CAS role.

  28. Thanks apc, spider thanked for this post
    Likes spider liked this post
  29. #95
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    369
    Post Thanks / Like
    With a U turn like this, surely it's not to late to ask the USMC for the Harriers back ....PLEASE!

  30. Likes RoyalGreenJacket liked this post
  31. #96
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,675
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Pure Hover View Post
    With a U turn like this, surely it's not to late to ask the USMC for the Harriers back ....PLEASE!
    we can ask, but they've already put them to good use retiring a number of utterly shagged out F/A-18 units. that ship has sailed - and even if it hadn't, with only Ocean and Lusty in service we don't have the number of decks required to have one in service on a 24/7 basis - moreover, Ocean and Apache have shown themselves to be very handy indeed, and without AMRAAM, Harrier GR9 is just a faster AH-64. so why bother?

  32. Likes RoyalGreenJacket, Flamingo liked this post
  33. #97
    Commander in Chief RoyalGreenJacket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Home of the British Army
    Posts
    7,756
    Post Thanks / Like
    well - if it fails as a fighter / bomber - we can always use it to remove stubborn road markings:

    RGJ

    ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

    The Rifles

  34. Likes Goldie fish, ropebag liked this post
  35. #98
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,477
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm trying as usual to see the positives in this...

    Are HMG now saying that with savings made by reverting back to this aircraft that both carriers will be commissioned?
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  36. #99
    Hostage Flamingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the water
    Posts
    3,062
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by spider View Post
    I'm trying as usual to see the positives in this...

    Are HMG now saying that with savings made by reverting back to this aircraft that both carriers will be commissioned?
    No, but they will not have to cut benefits for potential voters with an election starting to loom on the horizon...
    'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
    'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
    Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
    He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
    http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

  37. #100
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,675
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by spider View Post
    I'm trying as usual to see the positives in this...

    Are HMG now saying that with savings made by reverting back to this aircraft that both carriers will be commissioned?
    yes, they reckon that to keep the extra carrier in service in the STOV/L configuration will cost about £60m per year - and thats just too cheap not to go for. the plan (and yes, its an MOD plan...) is that one ship will be available with the other in re-fit/training/laid-up. this is, it must be said, one of the weaknesses of the CTOL plan - that with one carrier, the re-fit/training cycle meant that we'd only really have a qualified air-group for perhaps 6 months of the year - hence the importance of the partnership with the French. while the F-35B is a 'lesser beast' than the F-35C, having two carriers instead of one does mean that there will always be one available - and 'pretty good' 7 days a week is a damn sight better than 'perfect' 3.5 days a week and sweet fanny adams the rest of the time.

    it is, imv, a very good decision for the next 20 years - but then it falls down. without CTOL we're not going to be able to put a decent AEW/AWACS platform or a high-end UCAV on the boat as things currently stand. of course, tech moves on, and its possible that in 2030 we'll be able to launch a 48hr duration UAV with a mini-SAMPSON radar from the carrier, in which case we'll be sorted.

  38. Thanks RoyalGreenJacket, spider thanked for this post
    Likes RoyalGreenJacket, spider liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •