Royal Navy in Serious Consideration To Cancel F-35

Originally posted by Luke.S
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.

Um, interceptors have outlived their usefulness, including and especially the Tomcat...

Boeing has been very agressive with marketing the F-18E/G/G and its no surprise that last weeks AWST had a brief mention of a "Silent" Hornet variant they were looking at. Much like the F-15 SE the "Silent" Hornet would have improved thrust (20%) and some improved stealth, but not the confomational bays like the 15SE. The flyaway cost will be better than the F-35B and you would be minus the stealth aspect.

Edit to add: Is there a chance this is posturing to make sure the alternative engine is funded?

[edit on 8/9/10 by FredT]

In new rumours, the UKs second CVF to be built will be offered for sale to India, with the F-35 almost certainly to be canceled within the next 18 months.

reply to post by RichardPrice


Richard, I seriously doubt that.
Although we have sold a numbe of carriers to India over the years, they are going their own direction. They have the capability to build similar quality ships for a fraction of the price. I very much doubt we would be able to recoup any money and still sell it at a competitive price to a nation like India.
Shame Monaco or Dubai have no use for a super-carrier.

Jensy

reply to post by Lonestar24


I fail to see how an aircraft designed to -intercept- strike aircraft before they can... you know... strike - is a role that can be out-lived.

We're just no longer presented with an obvious threat. Well... There's China.. but they are our friends.....

When Su-xx F%^#-Yous start blowing up your Carriers is not the time to say: "We need to start a decade-long development contract for a fleet interceptor."

That said - this whole issue of countries possibly canceling on the F-35 is probably going to play out for quite a while before it's decided. It's moving at the speed of bureaucracy, which means the damned thing will be in a museum before it actually enters service.

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]

It still is a POS.

Don't let the temporary love in of the Brits on here fool you.


A crap airframe saved (to an extent) by electronic wizardry. If I had the choice before a fight, I'd pick an RBE2 equipped Rafale ahead of a Subpar Hornet.

Originally posted by Lonestar24
Um, interceptors have outlived their usefulness, including and especially the Tomcat...

Definitely not.

Tomcat Ds were far more effective over Afghanistan than the "super" hornets in pretty much every measurable yardstick bar possibly mission availability; but even then, they'd still have dropped more payload on targets than the Hornets.

[Sure, their availability wasn't great - but that is not something that could not have been rectified in the Tomcat 2000 or the Super Tomcat 21...]


If a carrier's might is dictated by its ability to project power, then the USN has made a massive backward step (of the order of a 50% reduction in capability) since retiring the Tomcat.

Originally posted by kilcoo316

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]

It still is a POS.

Don't let the temporary love in of the Brits on here fool you.


A crap airframe saved (to an extent) by electronic wizardry. If I had the choice before a fight, I'd pick an RBE2 equipped Rafale ahead of a Subpar Hornet.

Why doesn't the RN get the Rafale then?

While the F-35 is a mean, mean plane, the F-18F is more than capable enough to handle most any air or ground threats that may present themselves to enemies of your beloved island nation.

As for the "cool factor," it is the humble opinion of this U.S. American man that the F-18 is one of the meanest looking jets in the fleet. Second only to the A-10 (she's a beautiful bitch) and a hair in front of the AC-130 Spectre. I mean come on, who doesn't love a flying artillery station with state of the art target identification and acquisitioning.

How about:

1. Install the catapults on these new carriers. I have seen the plans, i know this can be done.

2. Buy F-35C models just like US Navy does.


Using STOVL fighter in carriers what have room for catapult is nonsense. There you have it... I solved RN's fighter problems, no need to thank me.

Originally posted by C0bzz
Why doesn't the RN get the Rafale then?

To do so would admit the French were right all along back in the day of the FEFA....


There are historical reasons.


Of course, as has been shown, the French were right all along - and to be fair to them, they usually do get these big decisions right. In contrast, the UK almost always get them wrong.

Originally posted by Use your brain
While the F-35 is a mean, mean plane, the F-18F is more than capable enough to handle most any air or ground threats that may present themselves to enemies of your beloved island nation.

Apart from, say, Afghanistan, where the F/A-18 E/Fs inadequate range and terrible range/payload leave it useless.

reply to post by kilcoo316


I'm not sure I would agree with useless. Last time I had boots on the ground (years ago), F-18s were in an out of K Valley dropping large amounts of ordinance. They certainly have been hindered when compared to some of our other operational aircraft, but useless is a term I would reserve for the AC-130 Spectre during daylight hours.

The A10 is by far one of the most effective planes in the Stan however. CAS missions are a snap with a pair of those beasts and a good FAC.

regardless of specifications i feel the rn will drop their order to between one third and one half f-35's, deferring one supercarrier until the first of class is built to determine cost overruns etc.
fakedirt.

iirc with the tomcats they could take off miles from land with a full payload. Fly all the way to the middle of the country or beyond, drop their payload and loiter for a few minutes and then return to the carrier. Size does pay. (so do swing wings, higher top speed and lower stall speed, only disadvantage you can tell what power state they are in, but in a tomcat when they got the new engines all you had to do was go Zone 5 and sweep the wings and you were out of there faster than a bat out of hell)

Originally posted by Use your brain
I'm not sure I would agree with useless. Last time I had boots on the ground (years ago), F-18s were in an out of K Valley dropping large amounts of ordinance.

If they were legacy hornets, I guess the bombing point must have been located little more than a few miles from the end of the runway!!!

I was an AT in the Navy and was in when the last Tomcat squadron was decommissioned. Many of us wondered why the F-14 Tomcat was scrapped when it is faster than the F/A-18 Hornet, has a better fuel range, and payload capacity. The reasoning was it's maintenance cost were high compared to the Hornet, but considering all the Tomcats were old birds and the Hornets were relatively new of course the older bird would need more maintenance. One would think the logical course of action would have been to make a newer version of the Tomcat.

Now the F-35 is suppose to start landing on carriers both conventionally(if can call landing on a carrier that) and vertically(like the AV-8 Harrier). Now mine and my fellow shipmates question about the F-35 is who in the right mind thinks a single engine fighter jet is a good addition to the fleet? The Navy has truly had taken a step backwards imho.

Originally posted by RichardPrice
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,

Why bother replacing the order, just cancel it. Lets face it Britain is not going to be attacked by anyone in Europe by air. Russia is not going to attack England either so that just the Chinese left and they do not even have the capacity to send aircraft to attack England. Ahh but these planes are for over seas operations.

If I was the PM I would reduce the air force to defence purposes only. NO strike capability and then reduce the Navy to only being a support service for our overseas territories, and again these can all have land based defence aircraft and missile batteries.

This is all about money again, this time the lack of it. Well if previous governments had not wasted so much of it in Iraq there would not be a problem today. If you closed all three forces, Army, Navy and Airforce no one would attack us as we are part of NATO and the EU. Military spending is totally BOGUS!

Even better if there were no individual militaries then there would be no wars. No need to go to far and try and make one world government, but a UN global military would ensure NO WARS! Every nation gives a percentage of troops and money. it would make the world a much more peaceful place to live and safer too.

Wait for the hail storm to this this thread as people go nuts at the suggestion. your right, much better for us each to have our own armies, air forces etc and kill each other year after year after year until one day someone gets really p1ssy and nukes someone again!

reply to post by kilcoo316


Very likely, most of the time the FAC was calling in CAS, we mud-humpers were just aware that we had a flight overhead with full payloads. I'm certainly not an aviation expert, and as far as maximum effective range when equipped with various load-outs on various series of F-18's is something best left to you fellas.

I could have sworn that some of those fast movers were Naval aircraft, but if you fellas are asserting that carrier-launched F18's would have hit the point of no return before hitting K Valley, then I'll have to take your word (until I can verify it otherwise). I know A10's and F15's were doing most of the CAS for us, but I'm 100 on the fact that F18's dropped quite a bit of ordinance onto the mountain side.

If it makes anyone feel better, I'm sure you all got a glimpse of Iran's "revolutionary" new water/aircraft. The UK could save some pennies and just build tens of thousands of those puppies. Hell, I bet you could train a child to fly one of those in under a month

reply to post by jrod


My sentiments, exactly.

Kind of interesting - I was just entering AT(I) A-school when your squadron took its last flight.

I was sad to see the Tomcat go (though I can't claim experience with it). I didn't see how they planned to make up the interceptor role with the F-18E/F, or the strike role (CAS is pretty decent with the super bug, and it's got some favorable handling - but nothing all that outstanding over the D-model tomcats sitting a generation or two behind in avionics and aerodynamic research) - but at least the Hornet was capable in many respects.

The F-35 is the biggest "WTF" to come along since the F-105. It is almost a line-for-line repeat of the same mistakes. "Stealth" is the new supersonic flight capability. JDAM is the new "can drop nuclear bombs" capability. It's the silver-bullet solution for strategy and logistics. The advertising for it is about the same.

I wasn't even alive when they built and retired the F-105... Most of the people in charge of our country were starting their careers, then - why should the lessons learned there escape them?