Royal navy buys Hornets not JSF...

[Baff1 0]

The Marine Eurofighter Typhoon is now the most economically sensible and only independent defense solution for the UK and the Vectored thrust engine variant of the Eurofighter Typhoon is now ready for the two engine Typhoon meaning a navalised version would be ready easily in time.

The Eurofighter is a UK independant project?

Why isn't it called the UKfighter then!

I can't remember the last time we produced an independant aerolane. I doubt I was even alive.

@DM the more supplies it needs, the more vulnerable it's supply chain is. I don't know if nuclear is practical or cost effective, but it's certainly desireable to my mind.

Edited October 24, 2010 by Baff1

[dm 9]

@DM the more supplies it needs, the more vulnerable it's supply chain is. I don't know if nuclear is practical or cost effective, but it's certainly desireable to my mind.

Oh indeed, but i was more commenting on the ridiculousness of

nuclear powered so they don't need a fueller in the fleet too.

[Baff1 0]

Maybe teh solar panels and windmills are FTW.

[rksl-rock 1300]

...

I can't remember the last time we produced an independant aerolane. I doubt I was even alive...

Its was (arguably) the Sea Harrier. The last solely British Fighter ever made.

[TomatoArden 0]

Its was (arguably) the Sea Harrier. The last solely British Fighter ever made.

what about the Britten Norman Islander/Defender or the recently scrapped Nimrod? Of course the Shar was the latest fighter.... and the Nimrod was just a remanufacture

[rksl-rock 1300]

what about the Britten Norman Islander/Defender or the recently scrapped Nimrod? Of course the Shar was the latest fighter.... and the Nimrod was just a remanufacture

Yup you are right. I hadn't thought about them. I was more focused on fighters i guess.

But you could argue that both the Islander and Nimrod predate the Sea Harrier :rolleyes:

[TomatoArden 0]

Yup you are right. I hadn't thought about them. I was more focused on fighters i guess.

But you could argue that both the Islander and Nimrod predate the Sea Harrier :rolleyes:

actually they do..even the defender version of the islander does...I only thought of that as it was only recently that the AAC acquired the defender. The Nimrod is based on the De Haviland Comet.. which first flew in 1948. Makes you wonder why the MOD didn't consider replacing it with something more modern instead of that silly re manufacturing project

[da12thMonkey 1943]

The Nimrod is based on the De Haviland Comet.. which first flew in 1948. Makes you wonder why the MOD didn't consider replacing it with something more modern instead of that silly re manufacturing project

Well, we're replacing the Nimrod R.1 SIGINT aircraft with a version of the RC-135 Rivet Joint made from refurbishing three KC-135R tankers - airframes that are at least 45 years old.

Rock; in your opinion is the sensor suite on F-35 in any way adequate at performing a maritime patrol/asw role? I've seen a smattering of posts on other forums saying that MRA.4 isn't needed so much, because F-35 could perform such recce roles (with a much shorter range and loitering time) - I wondered if they're talking shite or not.

[TomatoArden 0]

Well, we're replacing the Nimrod R.1 SIGINT aircraft with a version of the RC-135 Rivet Joint made from refurbishing three KC-135R tankers - airframes that are at least 45 years old.

Rock; in your opinion is the sensor suite on F-35 in any way adequate at performing a maritime patrol/asw role? I've seen a smattering of posts on other forums saying that MRA.4 isn't needed so much, because F-35 could perform such recce roles (with a much shorter range and loitering time) - I wondered if they're talking shite or not.

base don the fact that the Americans have bothered to develop the P-8 Poseidon to replace the P-3 Orion, then surely the answer is nope.

[rksl-rock 1300]

Well, we're replacing the Nimrod R.1 SIGINT aircraft with a version of the RC-135 Rivet Joint made from refurbishing three KC-135R tankers - airframes that are at least 45 years old.

I was gobsmacked when i found out the real ages of the airframes. Even though one of them only has ~20,000 hours on it, every one of them is older than me. I have to wonder if this conversion includes the massively extensive structural re-lifeing the USAF KC-135 are getting. If not i can see it being another Chinook HC3 debacle.

Rock; in your opinion is the sensor suite on F-35 in any way adequate at performing a maritime patrol/asw role? I've seen a smattering of posts on other forums saying that MRA.4 isn't needed so much, because F-35 could perform such recce roles (with a much shorter range and loitering time) - I wondered if they're talking shite or not.

Yes mate they are talking pure shite. Nothing beats a dedicated ASW/Maritime Patrol aircraft.

The (Government version of) reality is that the maritime patrol capability will be taken up by the RN Frigates flying Merlin HM1 - A claim the RN made imo to save the HM1 ASW capability in light of the threat to convert all the ASW platforms to Troop carriers/medium lift types. Since the RN has a significant power bloc in the MoD at the moment its probably been a contributing factor in the decision to kill off Nimrod.

(Slightly off topic but as a result of the SDSR all Merlins HC3 and HC3A of the RAF will be handed over to the RN. While the RAF will retain the Puma until it goes out of service and get new CH-47F Chinooks designated HC6 to replace the war losses and some of the Merlin fleet. Reducing the RAF capability even further. Seems like the SDSR has been a real winner for the RN doesn't it)

Edit - Puma seems to be being extened and the RAF retain the Merlins. Which is a complete u-turn on the press breifing released a week before.

SDSR Details here - http://www.direct.gov.uk/sdsr

EOTS while rather impressive in concept is not designed for maritime roles or search and rescue. F-35's can't detect or engage sub surface targets, has no sub hunting sensors and has a rather limited range compared to a Nimrod MR2. Anyone claiming that it fills the capability gap left by Nimrod is full of it.

EOTS and the rest of the sensor suite is really nothing more than a more sophisticated Sniper ATP pod fused with a host of passive sensors all linked together and with full Link16+ networking capability. The innovation is less about the hardware and more about the way it takes data from the suite of different sensors (radar, IR, electro magnetic, radio etc) and passes the correlated information to the pilots in a single user friendly display. And also that it has the capability to pass the same info around the F-35/Link16 network. But the range and power is very limited compared to a dedicated platform such as the Nimrod/Sentinel/Sentry which makes it a purely tactical and not a strategic asset.

igoV7W7la_0

9fm5vfGW5RY

It does have a lot of ISTAR capability but nothing like that of a dedicated platform like the Sentinel R1 or the Nimrod R1. I can understand why the Nimrod MR4 was axed. It was the perfect sacrificial lamb for the SDSR. It was a perfect example of the labour government's inability to control a project's spending. But at the same time its capability is desperately needed.

Personally I wouldn't have chosen to upgrade the Nimrod airframe, but considering the technology transfer issues and the nature of the kit that goes on these aircraft a non-UK airframe provider/partner was un thinkable. Even the US has repeatedly said that the Nimrod MR2's capability was second to none in both ISTAR and Maritime roles. The fact they back the P-8 Poseidon over the proven Orion 2000 project was in part because they saw the benefits Nimrod provided.

And regarding the retirement of the £1bn Sentinel R1s, what a freaking stupid idea that is. The UK finally gets an equivalent, if not superior capability to the US JSTARS system. Possibly the most significant leap in the UK armed force's independent capability in years and the Muppets in Whitehall throw it away... Labour or ConDem they are all short sighted morons.

Edited October 24, 2010 by Placebo

[dm 9]

And regarding the retirement of the £1bn Sentinel R1s, what a freaking stupid idea that is. The UK finally gets an equivalent, if not superior capability to the US JSTARS system. Possibly the most significant leap in the UK armed force's independent capability in years and the Muppets in Whitehall throw it away... Labour or ConDem they are all short sighted morons.

Given that its not happening until the cessation of ops in Afghanistan, do they not have time to realise how dumb this is an back-track on it, or is it written in stone now its in SDSR?

[rksl-rock 1300]

Given that its not happening until the cessation of ops in Afghanistan, do they not have time to realise how dumb this is an back-track on it, or is it written in stone now its in SDSR?

I'm guessing here, but I suspect it depends if the Afghan Ops continue past the term of the current government. If we come out of Afghanistan before the next general election we'll lose Sentinel and other systems forever. If it goes on longer then we might actually have some hope of a reprieve.

I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll see a rise in international tensions in a few years and it will highlight the SDSR for the political power gaming that it is. Stripping back the UK military with the current level of perceived threats in the near future is just dangerous. This review completely ignores the recommendations of the IISS and UN Security predictions. They say they are stripping off the "waste" but they aren't replacing the older systems with modern equivalents. They are removing key capabilities assuming that we will always operate in concert with the US. Its just short sighted. Systems like Sentinel and Nimrod advanced electronic surveillance systems provide an ISTAR capability that no one outside of the US apart from us has. To kill them off is just madness.

[Tankbuster 1733]

but they aren't replacing the older systems with modern equivalents. They are removing key capabilities assuming that we will always operate in concert with the US. Its just short sighted. Systems like Sentinel and Nimrod advanced electronic surveillance systems provide an ISTAR capability that no one outside of the US apart from us has. To kill them off is just madness.

You are absolutely right and this is a real worry. One wonders why Whitehall want to continue with Trident, claiming we need to be a world player "punching above our weight", while they strip operational capabilities from our blokes on the ground.

Perhaps I'm seeing this too simplistically?

[hellfire257 3]

The Nuke vs. Forces debate is nothing new. Eisenhower did the same thing during the Cold War to the US AFAIK. It seemed to work well with their policy of brinkmanship at the time, but given our current and most likely path in future events, it seems a bit daft, but we will see.

[Daniel 0]

Veering a little offtopic...

The major argument for continuing Trident (Successor class) is that we lack the crystal ball that tells us what future threats we'll face. Having our own fairly independent sovereign deterrent means we can deal with any future worst case scenario.

Although that doesn't in any way justify killing off some our other capabilities...

Question regarding scrapping Nimrod and the F-35/ASW Merlin topic:

Won't the Astute fleet somewhat plug the gap once it's commissioned? It should have better performance than the current attack sub fleet (as long as they avoid crashing any more subs into Scotland).

Edited October 25, 2010 by Daniel

[Baff1 0]

The Nuke vs. Forces debate is nothing new. Eisenhower did the same thing during the Cold War to the US AFAIK. It seemed to work well with their policy of brinkmanship at the time, but given our current and most likely path in future events, it seems a bit daft, but we will see.

Upto a point. Clearly you can't use nukes at point blank range without killing yourself.

So an enemy that can move fast enough can get inside your cities where your nukes are no longer such a great idea.

One thing I feel is that our enemies will always seek to attack us where we are weakest. So weak submarine defence encourages submarine strike. Weak air defence encourages air assault.

It is certainly better to have the most catastrophic of these enventualites, strongly defended against. Nuclear would obviously be top of my list. But a nuclear deteraant you can't defend isn't an effective one.

Losing the Nimrods is a far bigger issue than the carriers.

[NeMeSiS 11]

So an enemy that can move fast enough can get inside your cities where your nukes are no longer such a great idea.

That of course doesnt stop you from bombing their cities. ;)

[Baff1 0]

Their ability to bomb your cities right back might do however.

Are you going to condemn all your own cities to death just to save one?

Will the American's really condemn themselves all to death to save Berlin or Amsterdam or London from foreign occupation?

Or can an enemy even bumrush your nuclear forces before they can deploy?

Edited October 25, 2010 by Baff1

[NeMeSiS 11]

Their ability to bomb your cities right back might do however.

Are you going to condemn all your own cities to death just to save one?

No, but thats my point. Wether they are in your cities or not does not really affect your decision to use nukes or not.

[Baff1 0]

But I might still use one if they are in your city. Just not mine.

If Britain nuked Amsterdam (because it was full of a Russian invasion force), would the Russians condemn all their people to death by nuking Britain?

But on the otherhand, if I did so, would the Netherlands still be my ally. Or would the alliance be broken by this action.

Also, if it looked like I was going to lose all my cities and not just one, then I would nuke as that would be my best chance.

It's a complex issue.

And any predictions of how we would respond to a crisis of that nature is speculation only. It would depend on the decision of an individual national leader at the time more than any military plan or doctrine.

One thing is for certain, I am more likely to use my nukes against a Russian army in the field than I am a Russian Army in Amsterdam, London or Berlin.

It does make a very big difference.

Nuking your enemy is one thing, nuking your friend quite another.

Edited October 25, 2010 by Baff1

[vektorboson 8]

If Britain nuked Amsterdam (because it was full of a Russian invasion force), would the Russians condemn all their people to death by nuking Britain?

If Russia invades The Netherlands, you nuke Moscow, not Amsterdam...

That's the whole point of strategic nukes :)

Read on "Mutually Assured Destruction"; that's why NATO always held up the option of a first strike, as a deterrent so the Eastern Bloc does not try a conventional attack.

Edited October 25, 2010 by vektorboson

[Ulanthorn 10]

You do not win a modern war by "killing them all", that's rarely needed nor really possible exept you want to start a new holocaust. Even WWII was not won by killing all german soldiers "in the field". Just look at Iraq or Afghanistan...the only way the coalition could "win" it was to declare it won...but it is still going on.

[JdB 151]

If Russia invades The Netherlands, you nuke Moscow, not Amsterdam...

That's the whole point of strategic nukes :)

Yeah, for nuking Russian armies you use tactical nukes instead.

[Baff1 0]

If Russia invades The Netherlands, you nuke Moscow, not Amsterdam...

That's the whole point of strategic nukes :)

Read on "Mutually Assured Destruction"; that's why NATO always held up the option of a first strike, as a deterrent so the Eastern Bloc does not try a conventional attack.

Nice theory but my money is on it going out the window completely in the event of any such war.

Sorry Netherlands but if Russia invades you, the chances of the rest of us all choosing the mass suicide option is very slim.

It's probably for the best if you get some nukes of your own.

[Ulanthorn 10]

Nice theory but my money is on it going out the window completely in the event of any such war.

Sorry Netherlands but if Russia invades you, the chances of the rest of us all choosing the mass suicide option is very slim.

It's probably for the best if you get some nukes of your own.

Remeber... it was only the US that ever really used nukes...and at that time the people in charge did not really know what they ordered.

It is very well know since a few decades that no side can win a nuclear war, no matter how much hybris a nation may accumulate.

Edited October 25, 2010 by Ulanthorn