This is a discussion on Royal Air Force [RAF] discussions and updates within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by welsh1
RAF fans, whats your thoughts on the navalised EF? knowing the rising costs of the JSF ...
RAF fans, whats your thoughts on the navalised EF? knowing the rising costs of the JSF do you think an alterantive will be found for the new carriers?
i personally think there should have been a navy tiffie from the start..but it does seem an excellent use of the airframes that the uk are compelled to buy...we lose nothing from jsf programme as we are already partners in the programme and will still revieve dividends from sales even if we dont buy any of the overkill f35's....
and anyway,the navy needs interceptors and there,the typhoon excels over the f35....
RAF fans, whats your thoughts on the navalised EF? knowing the rising costs of the JSF do you think an alterantive will be found for the new carriers?
Absolutely not, no way, at all. Under any circumstances.
Why not? The Tiffy isn't a naval jet and there's nothing resembling a navalised version in sight. A STOBAR version is being offered to the Indians as part of their MRCA program, based on using some FCS changes to bring the aircraft back on board but it's been specifically stated that there's no way to make that work for CATOBAR - strengthening the Typhoon for a cat shot is impossible without a major redesign.
Given we're massively unlikely to order more than about forty jets for carrier use, all the R&D for that redesign would fall on that limited fleet. Worse, the Typhoon isn't particularly cheap to buy in the first place.
Saab are saying their Gripen redesign for STOBAR will cost about 1bn USD - about £600 million. Spread that over forty airframes for Typhoon and you're into £15m extra for each airframe, before you actually buy any parts or do any work.
Absolutely not, no way, at all. Under any circumstances.
Why not? The Tiffy isn't a naval jet and there's nothing resembling a navalised version in sight. A STOBAR version is being offered to the Indians as part of their MRCA program, based on using some FCS changes to bring the aircraft back on board but it's been specifically stated that there's no way to make that work for CATOBAR - strengthening the Typhoon for a cat shot is impossible without a major redesign.
Given we're massively unlikely to order more than about forty jets for carrier use, all the R&D for that redesign would fall on that limited fleet. Worse, the Typhoon isn't particularly cheap to buy in the first place.
Saab are saying their Gripen redesign for STOBAR will cost about 1bn USD - about £600 million. Spread that over forty airframes for Typhoon and you're into £15m extra for each airframe, before you actually buy any parts or do any work.
It's not viable or sensible,
Ian
as i understand it,bae are stating that it wouldnt need a catapult and would launch from the ski jump..........
as i understand it,bae are stating that it wouldnt need a catapult and would launch from the ski jump..........
Which is why I said " A STOBAR version is being offered to the Indians as part of their MRCA program, based on using some FCS changes to bring the aircraft back on board but it's been specifically stated that there's no way to make that work for CATOBAR - strengthening the Typhoon for a cat shot is impossible without a major redesign."
STOBAR = worst of all worlds.
Traditionally, low max take off weights and poor bring back weights - it'd be a total waste of a very sizeable carrier.
Something came to my attention from the RN thread, and my question is this.
Do the RAF really only operate 1 type of anti-ship munition? Looking at the RAF website the only entry is the Stingray torpedo and its the only air-launched anti-ship munition on the RN site too (but helis on T45s can operate Sea Skua missiles which isn't on the list)
I know the answer is probably yes, and if so I'd say that was slightly inadequate
Something came to my attention from the RN thread, and my question is this.
Do the RAF really only operate 1 type of anti-ship munition? Looking at the RAF website the only entry is the Stingray torpedo and its the only air-launched anti-ship munition on the RN site too (but helis on T45s can operate Sea Skua missiles which isn't on the list)
I know the answer is probably yes, and if so I'd say that was slightly inadequate
It's the British way of war, spend silly money on expensive platforms and then don't spend any money on the weapons....carriers with no aircraft (thats an old favourite!)....fighters with no anti ship missiles....remember the SSN with only old WW2 torpedos in the Falkands. It normally takes 1-2 humiliating defeats in a war before we get our act together.
It's the British way of war, spend silly money on expensive platforms and then don't spend any money on the weapons....carriers with no aircraft (thats an old favourite!)....fighters with no anti ship missiles....remember the SSN with only old WW2 torpedos in the Falkands. It normally takes 1-2 humiliating defeats in a war before we get our act together.
Ugh that just seems hugely illogical, to be honest I'm suprised why some 'defence experts' in the government allows this sort of rubbish to happen.
IIRC didn't MBDA have a product mounted on the Typhoon at a Dubai airshow last year which was an anti-ship missile?
Ugh that just seems hugely illogical, to be honest I'm suprised why some 'defence experts' in the government allows this sort of rubbish to happen.
IIRC didn't MBDA have a product mounted on the Typhoon at a Dubai airshow last year which was an anti-ship missile?
Andrew Gordon's excellent book "The Rules of the Game" British Naval Command and the Battle of Jutland, has a great assessment of the natural failings of the military establishment, one of his points was summed this up; the long we get from a conflict the more the military forget the lessons learned from the previous one.
Nothing struck me more than the sight of armoured vehicles in Afghanistan with retro fitted cages on them, it reminded me so much of the detachable plates fitted to the plasitc kits of WW2 panzers I painted as a child. Its as if the hollow charge had only come in use in the last few years not 70 years ago!
.remember the SSN with only old WW2 torpedos in the Falkands. It normally takes 1-2 humiliating defeats in a war before we get our act together.
That's factually incorrect - Conqueror was carrying Tigerfish and the older unguided MK 21's - the unguided weapons were selected for the attack because they carried more explosive than the Tigerfish and were deemed more likely to sink a ship of the size and construction type of the Belgrano (that's as reported from an interview with the XO present at the time of the attack)
That's factually incorrect - Conqueror was carrying Tigerfish and the older unguided MK 21's - the unguided weapons were selected for the attack because they carried more explosive than the Tigerfish and were deemed more likely to sink a ship of the size and construction type of the Belgrano (that's as reported from an interview with the XO present at the time of the attack)
Interesting according to Wiki (ok not always 100% accurate) but a Tigerfish had a 750lb warhead and a Mk 21 a 740lb, doubt the difference would have been much important compared to the know habit of Tigerfish for failing to leave the tubes.
Interesting according to Wiki (ok not always 100% accurate) but a Tigerfish had a 750lb warhead and a Mk 21 a 740lb, doubt the difference would have been much important compared to the know habit of Tigerfish for failing to leave the tubes.
I'm only reporting the words of an RN officer who was actually on the Conqueror as accurately as possible.He was quite definite about the reason why they were selected. Tigerfish was almost certainly less reliable at the time and I've certainly heard it reported as a reason for the weapon selection but the interview I saw was compelling testimony.
In any event, the sub definitely had more than just WWII torpedoes on board, in contrast to your earlier claim otherwise.... Start up a topic on the naval forum about the matter if it's of interest (you seem determined to talk about aviation on the RN forum and vice versa)
I'm only reporting the words of an RN officer who was actually on the Conqueror as accurately as possible.He was quite definite about the reason why they were selected. Tigerfish was almost certainly less reliable at the time and I've certainly heard it reported as a reason for the weapon selection but the interview I saw was compelling testimony.
In any event, the sub definitely had more than just WWII torpedoes on board, in contrast to your earlier claim otherwise.... Start up a topic on the naval forum about the matter if it's of interest (you seem determined to talk about aviation on the RN forum and vice versa)
That was a wording mistake on my part, I did know she had Tigerfish onboard, I meant the only available option was to use a Mk 21. In fact I heard a report (which I did not quote because I could not reference) that they did attempt to fire a Tigerfish and it failed to leave the tube, which then resulted in the Mark 21 being used. Either way there is plenty of evidence that Tigerfish was a dog, the last (last because I believe Spearfish is a success) of a long line of unsuccessful torpedo designs which if the RN had been faced with a foe with a serious ASW capability would have compromised the significant investment in SSNs.
Just wondering what happened to the harpoon missiles for the nimrod fleet couldn't they be fitted to the typhoon i think a couple of flights with them would make certain countries think twice about any adventures
That was a wording mistake on my part, I did know she had Tigerfish onboard, I meant the only available option was to use a Mk 21. In fact I heard a report (which I did not quote because I could not reference) that they did attempt to fire a Tigerfish and it failed to leave the tube, which then resulted in the Mark 21 being used. Either way there is plenty of evidence that Tigerfish was a dog, the last (last because I believe Spearfish is a success) of a long line of unsuccessful torpedo designs which if the RN had been faced with a foe with a serious ASW capability would have compromised the significant investment in SSNs.
If you must discuss the issue, take it to the RN thread, please. Thankyou.
Just wondering what happened to the harpoon missiles for the nimrod fleet couldn't they be fitted to the typhoon i think a couple of flights with them would make certain countries think twice about any adventures
Integrating complex air launched weapons is not a trivial task. It's a time consuming and expensive process. The Harpoon missiles would be better off being used in theatre on the warships present there, or at least in coastal missile batteries.
It's not a matter of just bolting them onto hardpoints and then heading off to sink major enemy fleet units.
If the UK has a need to "send a message" that it has a strong anti-shipping capability available in theatre, then the deployment of a surface action group as well as submarine units, would be a much more visible (and viable) deterrent.
The deployment of Tomahawk LACM and GR-4 Tornado /Storm Shadow stand off precision attack capabilities would further reinforce the message that much hurt can be inflicted if need be...
The Typhoons would be much better employed in providing top cover and preventing aerial attacks against the overall blue force capability (by maritime patrol aircraft or helicopters).
