Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Britain should 'scrap F-35 stealth fighter'


Still Waters
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not being so incredibly astronomically expensive that it costs as much to equip one squadron as it did for a whole air force in the old days means that they're rubbish? Surely you know that in the world of defense procurement, how much something costs is very rarely an indication of how good it is, or how much value for money.

I believe in this case the cost does reflect just how good the F35 is. Okay we could have built a plane similar or designed a Typhoon fighter navalised it. but were is the advancement? in a fast paced and challenging world technological advancement is crucial to stay ahead of the game. its what superpowers do. keep pushing the boundaries. The United Kingdom understands this and to that end we are buying into the technology, the skill set, the advancement. it keeps us in the race.

Its okay to look at the spec of the plane and compare it to other planes. which all have pluses and minuses, but that's on paper. what happens when you have a maverick in the cockpit. these highly trained pilots will push these plans to the limits. do things which the spec sheet doesn't even list. like i said before which country wants to be on the receiving end of the F35's capability.

If you look at the UK's requirement for the F35B it fits snugly in place with the rest of the jigsaw flying off the carriers as part of Naval carrier group. when a Royal Navy carrier group forms up into a picket formation. 3 nuclear subs, six type 23 frigates, three type 45 destroyers one Queen Elizabeth Aircraft carrier they are controlling the airspace of over a thousand nautical miles, and flying within that is the F35B. with all the assets data linked and sharing information over a network. One type 45 destroyer alone as the ability to track 2,000 targets, simultaneously control and coordinate multiple missiles in the air at once to intercept and destroyed at any given time. This makes for an excellent system which can withstand a saturation attack, even against supersonic targets.

Its also the Passive and soft-kill element that is always overlooked. and this is a point i was trying to get over in another post in regard to the F35 - This ability to disrupt an opponent’s ability to actively engage you is a hugely important capability in which the Royal Navy puts a heavy emphasis on. sensor suites are not taken into consideration because of a failure of people to realise that not all weapons systems actually fire anything, and that modern warfare is in some ways a lot more complex than it used to be, for example - when a ship on ship engagement was decided purely on the size and number of its guns and the skill and bravery of its crew. Those days are gone for ever - So when looking at a modern Royal Navy warship and its capabilities, or the F35B though it’s easy to dismiss certain aspects of its armoury, in doing so it’s easy to miscalculate the full spectrum of capabilities when concentrating on the more “sexy” aspects of the number of guns and missiles it has.

So when we discuss the F35B we have to remember the role it will be playing. remember these types of planes are designed to be used along with other assets. not alone - like some lone ranger - Look at the F117 stealth fighter which was shot down in the Balkans. the only reason it was shot down was because it flew despite having no Electronic warfare aircraft available which jam and disrupt enemy electronic systems. I've explained this before, but before any fighter goes into action its at the third phase. first is the missile strike of static systems, second is the surveillance and electronic suppressing aircraft. followed by the fighter / bomber in this case the F35B.

so i still havent read a post on here which as changed my mind on the ability of the F35.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...One type 45 destroyer alone as the ability to track 2,000 targets, simultaneously control and coordinate multiple missiles in the air at once to intercept and destroyed at any given time. This makes for an excellent system which can withstand a saturation attack, even against supersonic targets....

Hee hee... sorry to "cherry pick" your post Steve, but you know I'm always up for a bit of mischief. :P

The mighty type-42 can indeed track 2000 targets.

But it only has .. what.. 48 missiles in its (non-reloadable) missile launch array.

And enough ready ammunition in each of its Phallanx CIWS for .. what... ten 3-second bursts each ?

So thats 68 airborn targets accounted for, out of 2000.

So that amazing radar/computer system basically exists to allow time for the staff of the CIC to lay bets as to which of the remaining one thousand, nine hundred and thirty-two unallocated inbound threats will actually sink them.

If I was in that CIC, I'd be VERY happy to have the much-maligned F35's on hand to help.

Edited by RoofGardener
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's ironic to be applauding Type-45 destroyers while appeasing the F-35 when that warship alone kills the myth that is "stealth".

Stealth compromises performance. Why compromise an aircraft for no good reason? Good sales and marketing campaigns by Lockheed Martin making incredible claims about the F-35 appear to have been successful to an extent. But the price of high technology falls like an avalanche as a habit, betting on technology alone is a rapidly depreciating bet.

If the UK would have started a new generation of fighter aircraft, and while Lockheed Martin was busy ramping up the F-35 and F-35B, there'd be an incredible new aircraft in the skies over the UK ready to challenge the F-35 in honest competitions. If short takeoff and vertical landing are truly necessary I wish the UK would have developed a new aircraft borrowing what's needed from Harrier. When the UK's fighter won the honest competitions, it'd be the US and other allies who'd be buying fighters from the UK. Bureaucrats and politicians figuring out their purchase orders of foreign aircraft in advance of any serious combat testing? That probably isn't the best idea for the UK or any major power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stupid thing is we had all this bickering and problems with the Eurofighter.

I recall huge delays, huge overspend and people being extremely critical about how good it's performance would be. Now in service it is considered to be a very capable fighter.

I imagine the F35 will be the same.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hee hee... sorry to "cherry pick" your post Steve, but you know I'm always up for a bit of mischief. :P

The mighty type-42 can indeed track 2000 targets.

But it only has .. what.. 48 missiles in its (non-reloadable) missile launch array.

And enough ready ammunition in each of its Phallanx CIWS for .. what... ten 3-second bursts each ?

So thats 68 airborn targets accounted for, out of 2000.

So that amazing radar/computer system basically exists to allow time for the staff of the CIC to lay bets as to which of the remaining one thousand, nine hundred and thirty-two unallocated inbound threats will actually sink them.

If I was in that CIC, I'd be VERY happy to have the much-maligned F35's on hand to help.

Yes your right the Type 45 has 48 missiles, and this is split between a mixture of long range and close range Aster 15 & 30 sea viper surface to air missiles. but having the type 45 being able to track 2000 targets is useful for future upgrades to the weapons system - the Type 45 forecastle Missile silo can be extended in the future for up to 64 cells and is invaluable for cross data linking with other ships. but i don't think any weapons platform could deal with a saturation attack of 2000 incoming targets.

Stupid thing is we had all this bickering and problems with the Eurofighter.

I recall huge delays, huge overspend and people being extremely critical about how good it's performance would be. Now in service it is considered to be a very capable fighter.

I imagine the F35 will be the same.

I remember seeing the euro fighter for the first time pulling all sorts manoeuvres i thought were impossible without the wings coming off, it was a truly wow, holy **** moment. my second thought was we need to buy more of these.

i think the problem with the F35 is the timing - its came in the middle of a global recession. so the rising cost attracts more attention, which then leads to people taking an interest and then every time there is a set back its magnified. its a pitty it wasnt made in the skunk works. and then only revealed when it was operational, peoples jaws would have dropped and because it had the skunk works 'badge' it would have been accepted as a bad ass ***********er. go anywhere do anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have also read that the RAF is going to replace the Eurofighter with the F35c when they are retired in 2030. The Eurofighter as good as it is only has 6000 hours permitted on it's airframe. They hope to extend the 2030 retirement date but it is difficult to estimate as we have no idea how much they will be used up until then.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have also read that the RAF is going to replace the Eurofighter with the F35c when they are retired in 2030. The Eurofighter as good as it is only has 6000 hours permitted on it's airframe. They hope to extend the 2030 retirement date but it is difficult to estimate as we have no idea how much they will be used up until then.

interesting... i didn't know that, i know the first tranche 1 typhoons are being retired starting next year and completed by 2018. im sure we'll sell them to......someone. maybe the Arabs/gulf states - the typhoon tranche 3's are slowly entering service 40 delivered this year.

Click on the image and it'll go bigger - so able to read.

Typhoon%20Infographic.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very impressive.

However I had a very interesting chat a while back with my father who I thought brought up an interesting point. These aircraft costing 30-40+ million a piece take years to procure and build.

Imagine a really nasty conflict where loses started to mount up. You would never be able to replace them in numbers and the cost would be horrendous, maybe not even achievable. I know the US has mothballed 1000's of old fighters like F4 Phantoms, F15's etc for this reason.

Long gone are the days of WW2 when the UK could roll planes off a production line daily in numbers greater than loses.

This I believe is a far bigger danger in future conflicts than the delays and politics of the F35.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes your right the Type 45 has 48 missiles, and this is split between a mixture of long range and close range Aster 15 & 30 sea viper surface to air missiles. but having the type 45 being able to track 2000 targets is useful for future upgrades to the weapons system - the Type 45 forecastle Missile silo can be extended in the future for up to 64 cells and is invaluable for cross data linking with other ships. but i don't think any weapons platform could deal with a saturation attack of 2000 incoming targets.

I remember seeing the euro fighter for the first time pulling all sorts manoeuvres i thought were impossible without the wings coming off, it was a truly wow, holy **** moment. my second thought was we need to buy more of these.

... and that's exactly it. We need to buy more of these, but as they're all so expensive we can only afford about 30. it's rather like with German armour in WWII; nothing (apart perhaps from a Sherman Firefly or T34/85) could equal a Panther, Jagdpanther, Tiger or Tiger II, but they could never build enough of them, so they could never hope to stop everything.

Edited by Admiral Rhubarb
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and that's exactly it. We need to buy more of these, but as they're all so expensive we can only afford about 30. it's rather like with German armour in WWII; nothing (apart perhaps from a Sherman Firefly or T34/85) could equal a Panther, Jagdpanther, Tiger or Tiger II, but they could never build enough of them, so they could never hope to stop everything.

As a country we can afford many more ships and planes, its just the political will is not there. yet during the cold war, and with our economy not at its best we still managed 6% of GDP spent on military. which as declined to just 2.7% today. there is a Defence spending review next year. i'd be very surprised if the defence budget isn't cut yet again. if the Labour party get elected they'll definitely cut the budget - bad times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stupid thing is we had all this bickering and problems with the Eurofighter.

I recall huge delays, huge overspend and people being extremely critical about how good it's performance would be. Now in service it is considered to be a very capable fighter.

I imagine the F35 will be the same.

That's pretty much the case with almost every weapons system in service today - from sidearms to submarines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's pretty much the case with almost every weapons system in service today - from sidearms to submarines.

Delays and cost would have been even worse if we had tried to build a new Harrier. In successive Government failures we have lost a lot or our expertise and capabilities to take on a project like this alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

picture of Queen Elizabeth the Aircraft Carrier which the F35B will fly off. Queen Elizabeth is nearing the day when she's floated out. the 4th July (Independence day). you can see her pictured having her paint job done ready for the big occasion.

she's coming on a treat.

image from Aircraft Carrier Alliance facebook page.

https://www.facebook...?type=1

10408957_727543617287388_1447967951154982355_n.jpg

Edited by stevewinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

picture of Queen Elizabeth the Aircraft Carrier which the F35B will fly off. Queen Elizabeth is nearing the day when she's floated out. the 4th July (Independence day).

have the Government forgotten that we're not America?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

picture of Queen Elizabeth the Aircraft Carrier which the F35B will fly off. Queen Elizabeth is nearing the day when she's floated out. the 4th July (Independence day). you can see her pictured having her paint job done ready for the big occasion.

she's coming on a treat.

image from Aircraft Carrier Alliance facebook page.

https://www.facebook...?type=1

10408957_727543617287388_1447967951154982355_n.jpg

I seem to recall similar complaints were made about delays and the cost of the carriers, pretty much the same as the F35B.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to recall similar complaints were made about delays and the cost of the carriers, pretty much the same as the F35B.

Yes mate, and these two ships will have a life in service of 50 years. seems a long time, but dont forget HMS Hermes who famously served during the Falklands war - in victory over Argentina. and set the record for the longest continuous time on station at sea for any ship is still at, the grand age of 61 years young in active service with the Indian Navy as INS Viraat (R22) and is expected to serve until 2020 and bow out of service at the age of 67.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Yes mate, and these two ships will have a life in service of 50 years. seems a long time, but dont forget HMS Hermes who famously served during the Falklands war - in victory over Argentina. and set the record for the longest continuous time on station at sea for any ship is still at, the grand age of 61 years young in active service with the Indian Navy as INS Viraat (R22) and is expected to serve until 2020 and bow out of service at the age of 67.

They will join the 20 other carriers left in service around the globe. They will be operational when many will be due retirement, with no replacements ordered.

The French carrier I have read needs a major reactor overhaul which could take 2+ years in 2015. The replacement to bridge the gap was cancelled.

When many countries find their carriers at the end of their lives with no replacement, Britain will be launching state of the art new ones. Sweet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then Britain could rule the waves again? :clap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and that's exactly it. We need to buy more of these, but as they're all so expensive we can only afford about 30. it's rather like with German armour in WWII; nothing (apart perhaps from a Sherman Firefly or T34/85) could equal a Panther, Jagdpanther, Tiger or Tiger II, but they could never build enough of them, so they could never hope to stop everything.

Comparing modern fighters to WW2 era planes and MBT's is like chalk and cheese. Fighters and most other military kit now-days, have to pack multiple mission tasks into one frame which leads to complex products that requires higher degrees of engineering and R&D and not to mention maintenance and training. Quality over quantity adds a cost... As for the Germans. just too many enemies for their industrial base to cope with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing modern fighters to WW2 era planes and MBT's is like chalk and cheese. Fighters and most other military kit now-days, have to pack multiple mission tasks into one frame which leads to complex products that requires higher degrees of engineering and R&D and not to mention maintenance and training.

They did in WWII too. the Typhoon (I) and P-47, etc, (and Fw 190) made very good fighter-bombers with the minimal conversion and without the need for billions of man-years of design. Things are just too complicated and too extravagant these days. The reason for this is because it's politicians, the Ministry of Defence, the DoD etc that specify and design everything. Most of the great aircraft of the past weren't designed to precise Ministry specifications, many were private ventures by the manufacturers and the Ministry had to be convinced how useful they could be.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some photos of the paint job. scaffolding being removed from the twin islands. make no mistake about it these ships are super carriers. running cost for one ship alone is £70million per year. that includes everything, crew wages, food, fuel, water, everything etc....

Its also been confirmed HMS Illustrious will be at the ceremony on the 4th July.

HMS Illustrious is currently on exercise 'Deep Blue' in the North Atlantic carrying out the biggest anti submarine exercise since the cold war.

HMS Illustrious will spearhead Deep Blue, with eight new Mk2s due to join the Portsmouth-based carrier, plus one Mk1 – the largest concentration of submarine-hunting helicopters in recent memory, and the largest ever concentration of Merlins at sea.

Merlins en-route to HMS Illustrious and landing.

6181366-large.jpg

d79ce0e31c5c47a69d5171fcf1576e7b-0x0.jpg

Pictures from the Daily Mail website. there is a two minute video on the link.

http://www.dailymail...vast-scale.html

HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-5-Wired-18jun14_getty_b.jpg

HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-1-Wired-18jun14_getty_b.jpg

article-2662160-1EDBD08400000578-118_634x677.jpg

article-2662160-1EE169B700000578-882_634x417.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did in WWII too. the Typhoon (I) and P-47, etc, (and Fw 190) made very good fighter-bombers with the minimal conversion and without the need for billions of man-years of design. Things are just too complicated and too extravagant these days. The reason for this is because it's politicians, the Ministry of Defence, the DoD etc that specify and design everything. Most of the great aircraft of the past weren't designed to precise Ministry specifications, many were private ventures by the manufacturers and the Ministry had to be convinced how useful they could be.

Point taken. Maybe the governments that lay these specifications and paying through the nose for their war-toys do so on purpose. Keeping their industrial defence complex's flush with work and money and busy inventing new technologies/applications in the absence of full time production lines working around the clock, churning out copy after copy, is counted as a necessary cost for national security.

Edited by Harry_Dresden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

HMS Illustrious has arrived in Rosyth for the naming ceremony of HMS Queen Elizabeth. Illustrious is in the dock next to Queen Elizabeth were Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will name the New Super Carrier tomorrow on Friday 4th July 2014

The Queen will smash a bottle of Islay malt whisky, from Bowmore Distillery, against HMS Queen Elizabeth at the event on Friday. It was the first distillery the Queen ever visited in an official capacity, the Scotland Office said. The naming of the warship comes five years after the first metal was cut on the vessel and 33 months after the first section entered the dry dock at Rosyth for assembly.

Im sure it will be on the News tomorrow, The main ceremony will begin around 1100am. Entertainment will be provided before the main event.

Captain: HMS Queen Elizabeth is ‘the start of a new era of British sea power’

The largest warship ever built for the Royal Navy will be officially named by the Queen tomorrow. Among those in attendance will be Commodore Jerry Kyd, who is poised to become the first seagoing captain of HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Short BBC Video

HMS Illustrious in the background, HMS Queen Elizabeth foreground.

EmaTy8v.jpg

fxykH5O.jpg

View from HMS Illustrious as she enters the dock.

10300174_10152535467678205_4818729465840218477_n.jpg

fxykH5O.jpg

Edited by stevewinn
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

from Wki the Pedia:

Naming ceremony[edit]

Queen Elizabeth was named at Rosyth on 4 July 2014 by Elizabeth II, who said that the warship "marks a new phase in our naval history". Instead of smashing the traditional bottle of champagne on the hull, she smashed a bottle of whisky from theBowmore distillery on the Scottish island of Islay. The ceremony was attended by the Duke of Edinburgh (the Lord High Admiral), George Zambellas (First Sea Lord), and by politicians including David Cameron and Gordon Brown (the Prime Minister and his immediate predecessor) and Alex Salmond (First Minister of Scotland). It also featured a fly-past by the Red Arrows and a second comprising navy, air force and army helicopters.[20]

Alex? What's he doing there? He doesn't think he'll be able to borrow her when he wants to, does he? He can jolly well get his own if he wants one. I'm sure there's a redundant Russian carrier or two lying about somewhere that they'd be only too happy to sell to him. :unsure2:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.