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.

 

Royal Navy in Serious Consideration To Cancel F-35

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   
It has been reported that the Royal Navy is in serious consideration to cancel the F-35 and replace it with a smaller order for the F-18F, which will save significant amounts of money in cost savings that the coalition Government has forced upon it to finance the Trident replacement program.

The switch would mean an adjustment to the two Queen Elizabeth class carriers to make them CATOBAR capable, but at this point in their development such a change would be cheap to make in comparison to the ever rising costs of the F-35.

www.arrse.co.uk...




posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
That's not a bad idea really, the F-18f is a proven aircraft? It should more than fulfil our needs and it looks way cooler than the F-35 in my view... Coolness factor counts right?



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Cancelling the F-35 would be a good move for the RN, as would developing the Taranis into a navalised stealthy strike UCAV.

So in my humble opinion it should also be a fully cancelled system across the entire UK defence dept. More Typhoon Tranche 3s for the RAF, 30 Taranis styled deep penetration and strike UCAVs in both air to air and air to ground configuration and a huge massive saving on a project thats simply spiralling way past any affordability criteria it set out to fufill.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Double post...

There is a picture of a UK carrier concept model with UCAVs on the catapults waiting launch that look suspiciously like Taranis. I think they would be a shoe in for the RN.

I also dig the two seater logic for a UCAV swarm controller in the WSO seat.



[edit on 2-8-2010 by Astr0]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
is'nt the f 35 still massively overweight for what it was desighned for



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Hmm sounds like a remarkably sensible option to me. They'd have to throw BAe a bone though or they'd pull the 'jobs in jeopardy' card.

2 seaters please so we can have a UCAV swarm controller in the back in future and have them all fitted for (although not necessarily with) the EA-18G Growler equipment.

Like the thinking on Naval Taranis too.....



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by da pickles
is'nt the f 35 still massively overweight for what it was desighned for


Yes. Its so over weight they had to remove all fire fighting / retardent capability to meet weight criteria. Yes, a modern valuable jet for the CAS role (future) meant to replace the A-10 with no way to retard a fire inside it in the event of taking damage.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
If the F35 is scrapped I would not lose too much sleep. BAE is a major industrial partner with Lockheed Martin with the F35 programme and this should not cease to be the case if the UK pull- out... It is unfortunate that the F35 has got so costly and the there have been arguments about the inability of the UK to have “sovereign control” over the local development of the aircraft which has doubtlessly soured the water. No loss IMHO.

The F18 Super Hornet is a bigger aeroplane then Rafale by some margin and also somewhat larger than the F35. The Rafale will be fielded on the new French carrier which shares a common design heritage to the new RN carriers.

Would there not be political mileage in going for the Rafale rather than the Super Hornet. Both designs are competent aircraft with advantages and disadvantages. There is so much written about both planes, but I think the Rafale seems to be more multi role and is already fitted with systems used by the UK, such as Stormshadow. Plus Rafale is a fine looking plane.

With the UK Government suggesting closer ties with Europe in defence cooperation and collaboration could we see a move to acquire Rafale and (perhaps) the French being roped into some UK led project, perhaps a joining of the BAE UCAV Taranis programme with the similar Dassault nEUROn programme to form a preeminent European effort.

Oh, I know that the history of UK / French military programmes is littered with failure, but also some successes. Maybe this is the time to review closer working especially as both countries will see pressures on budgets for future programmes and both countries must see the strategic sense.

Regards

[edit on 2/8/2010 by paraphi]



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


Interesting but I'd vote no for that one. If we're going to buy COTS we should buy american COTS. Rafale has stagnated in comparison to the F-18F/G due purely to a lack of french government funding and the inability to find an export success early.

It lacks things the F-18F/G already has had fielded for some time e.g. AESA, HMD. I would also bet the upgrade path for the F-18 will be better funded than Rafale into the future.

Lets buy contemporary US COTS and follow the US with the upgrades. Lets get the maximum bang for US development cash that they will spend anyway. Whats the point being shackled to a partner or partners that are as broke as we are.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 02:36 AM
link   
The F-18E/F/G is the better route to go. Better parts commonality and the like.

Not to mention the airframe will remain supported and upgraded for quite some time to come. Cheaper maintenance costs and a longer-lived investment.

Performance-wise - I'm not sure there is much of a difference (versus Rafeal - the F-35 is a penguin - would make a killer bobsled). A Hornet configured for air-to-air is far more maneuverable than you'd first expect.

As far as avionics go - the F-18 has the better avionics, for the most part. The F-35 brings a little more to the table, but not anything justifying the cost in performance and the absolutely insane per-unit prices the F-35 is going to now.

Won't be much longer until the F-22 per-unit is cheaper than the F-35.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
personally i dont think this is a good idea when the russians will be making the pak fa available for export, who knows what countries will get their hands on them, id like us to have a few stealth planes just in case!.

also i just can't see it happening after being involved for so long and especially after all our complaints about partner countries dropping out of the eurofighter programme.

surely britain has already invested too much in the F35 to drop out at this late stage?

and would there be a fine of some kind?

thanks

rich



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
According to the article this will lead to savings of £10bn, that should be reason enough bearing in mind the Super Hornet is a superb and under rated piece of kit.

Taranis can have the stealth, it’s not like you can sneak 65,000+ tonnes of carrier into a war zone anyhow, and ‘they’ are going to know you are coming.

Only pity if you ask me is that the role can't be filled by the theoretical navalised Typhoon which the Indians now seem to want as well, not to mention that developing such an aircraft 10-15 years ago would have kept the French in the EF programme and lowered costs.... etc

(I could carry on with European defence procurement idiocy for several weeks).

Jensy



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by jensy
 


yes they will see you coming but im talking about for the air to air role, if in future we came up against a country using the pak fa then i would like us to have something that stands a chance against it, i really dont see the u.c.a.v.s being good enough for a very long time, they probably will be at bombing but i just dont see them going head to head against a manned stealth plane for a while.

thanks

rich



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   
What happened to the SH being a slow, unmaneuverable POS? Why don't they navalize the Eurofighter because apparently that would be easy?

Just wondering...

[edit on 4/8/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
What happened to the SH being a slow, unmaneuverable POS? Why don't they navalize the Eurofighter because apparently that would be easy?

Just wondering...

[edit on 4/8/2010 by C0bzz]


While a navalised Eurofighter would, in my opinion, be fairly easy to accomplish, it has the political label of another development program - we would be scrapping the JSF only to launch a new program of our own, which would have its own costs and potential overruns on top of the program to convert the CVFs to CATOBAR operations.

In contrast, the Hornet is available today, is already certified for the operational role we are looking to fill and is operated by other countries in the same or similar roles. Politically its the no brainer, very little that could come back to bite the Government with this choice.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Sorry guys but I dont get the love-in for the Super Hornet at all. Great systems, no question, but all installed in a big, heavy POS airframe. Always thought it was a half-arsed job from day one and have never changed my opinion. The mere fact that the USN operates it (because they had no choice) is not something that sways me.

Rafale would be a better option for our smaller ships but I really can't see us ever buying French again.

'Sea Typhoon is, I feel, harder to achieve than people seem to think and, as Richard said, you are talking about a new development programme. Definitely not happenening.

I like the Taranis idea and I feel this is the way we are definitely going, but not before 2025, which is a problem.

What some people may not realise is that the new RN CV's are designed for arrested landings from the off, we just decided not to fit the first one out for it straight away to save some pennies.

We are stuck for choice really as, using an historical anaolgy, we are (as is everyone else) choosing between Skua's and Sea Gladiators because nobody has figured out how to pay for putting a Spitfire on a ship.

My own choice would be to forget the F-35B, but not move too far and opt for the F-35C instead as that promises to be a much better aircraft all round.

Feel free to disagree



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Personally, I do not fault the Royal Navy one iota, nor any other nation reconsidering the F-35. Despite all its hailed technological marvels and bells and whistles, it is one over-priced and over-due piece of excrement.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
The F-18E/F/G is the better route to go. Better parts commonality and the like.

Not to mention the airframe will remain supported and upgraded for quite some time to come. Cheaper maintenance costs and a longer-lived investment.

Performance-wise - I'm not sure there is much of a difference (versus Rafeal - the F-35 is a penguin - would make a killer bobsled). A Hornet configured for air-to-air is far more maneuverable than you'd first expect.

As far as avionics go - the F-18 has the better avionics, for the most part. The F-35 brings a little more to the table, but not anything justifying the cost in performance and the absolutely insane per-unit prices the F-35 is going to now.

Won't be much longer until the F-22 per-unit is cheaper than the F-35.


I've heard it on good authority that the US won't give the F22 to anybody, that means WHAT ??????

They wont give it to Australia or the UK...hmmmmmm

PS: It has just been announced that Australia will retire it's fleet of F111' in December this year after 37 years of service.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by downunderET]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
comeon please please please cancel the F-35 order. (Royal navy you guys really need some tomcats no hornets, TOMCATS are what we need. The Tornado needs an Interceptor friend which can operate from sea.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jensy

(I could carry on with European defence procurement idiocy for several weeks).

Jensy


Oh but please do by all means! I'm sure there is an audience here on ATS (in addition to me of course) to that subject matter.

Plus your avataar is appropriate for such diatribe


[edit on 5-8-2010 by Daedalus3]




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join