Posts by Rudeboy

Re: and Pigs might fly a.k.a F-35

"Nominally the Sea Ceptor missiles on a Type 23 escort will defend up to Mach 3.2. Although the Kh-32 isn't really hypersonic it has a speed of Mach 3 to 3.5, so maybe, maybe not."

You're basing Sea Ceptors ability to intercept based on a tail chase scenario...its what the Daily Mail did....can you not see a rather obvious problem with that?

Re: and Pigs might fly a.k.a F-35

Which procurements are those then....

The world wants to know....

Re: and Pigs might fly a.k.a F-35

That was true with earlier generations of aircraft. Going supersonic actually used colossal amounts of fuel and wasn't possible with most external stores.

But...F-35 carries its weapons internally. Typhoon and F-22 in particular have the ability to supercruise at high mach numbers (go supersonic and sustain it without using afterburner). Thats a paradigm shift. The Rafale can just manage it, Gripen can't, SU-27 can't.

For comparison a production F-15C allegedly has a top speed of m2.5. In reality that was a stripped down, cleaned up version on max afterburner for a few seconds. A normal F-15C with limited external stores couldn't go beyond m1.8 with full burners engaged. In comparison F-22 and Typhoon can hit m1.5 with full warloads without afterburner. They're massively faster in practice. If we ever allow RR to upgrade the Typhoon engines to their full potential (about a 30-40% increase in power with no increase in fuel burn) god knows how fast it would go.

Re: It's not RAF nor UK It's Nato ...

If you seriously believe the Indian claims you need professional help, and an understanding of how these exercises are undertaken. The RAF noprmally never comments about these things, but dismissed the Indian claims (made by an Indian journalist NOT by the pilots) in a particularly clear cut manner.

The best example being the US/Indian exercises when Indian SU-30's triumphed against US F-15C's.

But...when you read the circumstances and restrictions that were placed on the US side and the advantages stacked on the Indian side by the exercise rules it was very easy to see why.

More interesting would be when the Indians went to the US. They weren't allowed to join in with Red Flag but were allowed to attend a prior event. They got absolutely hammered. And on that occasion the rules were very even.

Typhoon was developed specifically to defeat SU-27 derivatives. The chances of it losing 9 times out of 10 are comical.

Now have a look at what weapons the SU-27 derivatives actually carry....not vaporware...not active homing missiles that don't exist. What they actually carry.

The Russian air force wouldn't last beyond the opening day and they know it.

Re: Deviation From Plan

"Could, not should.

I've not yet seen any use case for the carriers other than backing up the US when bombing a third world country with neither powerful allies nor any home grown air or sea defences. That's not a very compelling scenario, given the consequences of "Allied" military interventions."

Carriers have been used (or in 1 case should/could) in every single conflict involving the UK since 1935....

And you say they have no use?

Re: Deviation From Plan

"They were intended to use the new-fangled electromagnetic catapults but Gorden Brown brought their commissioning forward by about 10 years in an attempt to keep his seat."

Nope. The UK was looking at developing its own electromagnetic system called EMCAT rather than EMALS. A trial system called EMKIT had already been operated.

"Which meant the new catapults were not ready for prime time and BAE took the opportunity to screw the taxpayer."

Again Nope. The design was decided on earlier on for far more sensible reasons. BAE is also not the Prime Contractor....its Thales. Design work was done by BMT in Bristol. The decision to go STOVL made far more sense for loads of reasons (see my other post on this thread for why CATOBAR is not all what people think it is today).

"So we are left with a pair of nearly useless boats that can only fly 1 hyper-expensive and just as useless airframe.

Without any alternative, the Yanks can price gouge us to fill the ultimate pork barrel fund that is the F35."

F-35 is far cheaper than Typhoon, by pver 30% at the moment.....the price increases and development cost increases have all been borne by the US. For once the UK MoD has bought them sensibly. When the main UK order goes in under full rate production the price of F-35B will be c$90m. An absolute bargain (Typhoon's real cost is $160m each).

"If S£$% politics was not involved we should have had a pair of nuke carriers using the production tested reactors the RR built for the subs and be able to fly any naval air-frame."

Why not 10 if money is no object? In reality if we'd have gone nuke we'd have a 1 carrier, with a reactor not designed for surface ship use, that cost twice as much and would spend far more time in port....like the French. Again the MoD got it spot on.

I'll post this again to all who think CATOBAR is a good idea...

The point around being able to operate less types of planes holds less and less water by the day.

Right now there are a grand total of 4 types of aircraft in production that use CATOBAR systems. They are:

Rafale (France)

F-18E/F/G (US)

F-35C (US)

E-2D (US)

And, errrr.....thats it. The only other possible aircraft is the unmanned MQ-25 which is on the drawing board, and will be procured in limited numbers from 2025 onwards. Nothing else is on the horizon.

Of the remaining already operational CATOBAR aircraft the EA-6B and F-18 A/B/C/D have been retired from shipborne operations, the S-3 is long gone and the C-2 Greyhound is being replaced by the CMV-22 Osprey in the Carrier Onboard Delivery role. Which will of course be able to operate from a STOVL carrier.

3 of the above 4 aircraft in production (the Rafale, F-18E/F and F-35C) do roughly the same job, fighter bomber. F-35B is clearly superior to Rafale and F-18E/F. It's also the same as the F-35C with only a marginal reduction in range. In fact the UK's F-35B will be a better fighter than either of those 3 due to its VLO characteristics and Meteor and Asraam missiles (F-35C's Amraam and AIM-9X aren't in the same league).

So essentially, what it comes down to is the E-2D Hawkeye.

E-2D's cost around $250m each. The UK would need at least 12 to equip both carriers, do training, maintenance and have an attrition replacement. Thats $3bn right there. With shorebased support, training packages, spares, maintenance contract its more like $5bn. And thats before we get to the increased manning and lifetime costs.

To run a CATOBAR based CVF you'd need at least 3 (probably 4) sets of EMALS and arrestor gear. 1 for each carrier, 1 for a shorebased training facility and 1 spare. Thats at least $2-3bn just there. Those systems will also need lots more people to run then and maintain them. That would double the cost over the lifetime at a minimum to at least $4bn.

The question then is if you think getting E-2D is worth at least $10bn....and thats more than both carriers cost....together.

Personally in an age where persistent UAV support is almost here (think lots of Airbus/QinetiQ Zephyrs overhead at $4m a pop) I think it would be an enormous waste, particularly when Crowsnest will deliver a decent capability for far less.

STOVL carriers also have much safer, faster launch cycles than STOBAR. They can also conduct air ops in worse weather conditions. The disadvantages have mostly gone now, weapon bring back will be fine with the F-35B and SRVL, at least comparable with any CATOBAR fighter. The range issue is a lot closer than most people think as CATOBAR aircraft use far more fuel on launch and recovery, and have to retain a larger reserve for Bolter situations. In practically all situations the real range of an F-35C will be the same as a F-35B.

You'd still need arrestor gear....

And that would cost pretty much the same to be fitted as the Cats alone would do.

We're talking c£10bn to get a deeply inferior aircraft onboard ship.

And no, more weapons are cleared for F-35 already...

Re: Another wee problem

Errrrr.....this is spectacularly wrong.

The Dreadnought Class will have 6 Torpedo Tubes and will be armed with Spearfish Torpedo's....

All US Ohio Class carry Torpedo's. They DO NOT carry ICBM's and Cruise Missiles. 4 Ohio Class had their Trident missile systems removed. These were replaced with Tomahawk cruise missile VLS cells. Their designation changed from SSBN to SSGN. The US has the luxury of another 16 Ohio Class to undertake the SSBN mission.

The Triomphant carrys Torpedo's only. No cruise missiles. The MdCN has not, and will not be fitted.

The Borei's also only carry Torpedoes. No cruise missiles. They do have the Starfish, which is a missile that delivers a torpedo. But that is all.

It's clear you do not know the first thing about the use and deployment of SSBN's, with comments like "give the fleet a hand in need."....that's embarrassing. Please stop.