It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FredT
I can see India, but not the UK. Hell, for that matter, just about any fighter is STOBAR capable, since they're talking off light.
originally posted by: FredT
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FredT
I can see India, but not the UK. Hell, for that matter, just about any fighter is STOBAR capable, since they're talking off light.
True, but apparently they are looking at STOBAR and CATOBAR capable as the Migs etc would require modification to use a catapult which is where their future carriers would be.
Also, as with India the offsets will be a factor. With BREXIT, the UK may be looking alot harder at this. They may need to preserve industrial base and be willing to buy the Hornet strictly on those terms. A mixed F-18E/F-35 fleet would not be the worst thing in terms of capability either esp if you certify the F-18 to carry the Meteor things get interesting. The F-18E's could lug quite a few of the missiles and loiter a bit behind while the -35's operating foreword of the carrier group could cue them.
originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: pheonix358
I can't tell if you're sarcastic.
You do realize how much a Boeing 777 costs right? Cheapest list price is $261.5 million. Multiply that by 1.3 because military (P-8A is 30% more expensive than 737-900ER). A Super Hornet is going to be $70 million. So that's 5 Super Hornet for each militarized Boeing 777.
originally posted by: thebozeian
They had the opportunity to regain catapult capability but instead faffed about and ended up just blowing a lot of study money and making themselves look silly in the process.
originally posted by: Forensick
originally posted by: thebozeian
They had the opportunity to regain catapult capability but instead faffed about and ended up just blowing a lot of study money and making themselves look silly in the process.
5th Gen fighters
2 x 65,000 tonne carrier
Second only to their allies the USA in terms of global carrier capability
Not having an expensive and unnecessary steam catapult and arrestor gear requiring lots more sailors, power and maintenance.
Making themselves look silly? Dont think so.
originally posted by: justwokeup
originally posted by: Forensick
originally posted by: thebozeian
They had the opportunity to regain catapult capability but instead faffed about and ended up just blowing a lot of study money and making themselves look silly in the process.
5th Gen fighters
2 x 65,000 tonne carrier
Second only to their allies the USA in terms of global carrier capability
Not having an expensive and unnecessary steam catapult and arrestor gear requiring lots more sailors, power and maintenance.
Making themselves look silly? Dont think so.
If it had been re-evaluated 5 years earlier it might have stuck. It was a political led decision to study changing and far too late into the carrier programme to be financially viable.
Biggest problem of not having catapults is we are stuck with rotorcraft AEW again. Would have been nice to have the option of E2s.