Royal Air Force (RAF-UK) Discussions and Updates

[swerve]

How can we do that? The current government hasn't made up its mind, & there'll be at least two more elections before we've finished buying them.

We have no commitment to buy any number, apart from the three already ordered. The current government is talking about an initial order of maybe 40, but that is just that - talk. There was previously a plan to buy 138, but that number is no longer officially mentioned.

AFAIK, that is all the information in the public domain.

 

[T.C.P]

How can we do that? The current government hasn't made up its mind, & there'll be at least two more elections before we've finished buying them.

We have no commitment to buy any number, apart from the three already ordered. The current government is talking about an initial order of maybe 40, but that is just that - talk. There was previously a plan to buy 138, but that number is no longer officially mentioned.

AFAIK, that is all the information in the public domain.

Wasn't the number 138 the total no. of F-35s for the British armed forces-RAF and RN?

 

[swerve]

Wasn't the number 138 the total no. of F-35s for the British armed forces-RAF and RN?

Yes - but the plan was always for there to be a single joint fleet, not separate RAF & RN F-35 inventories.

 

[T.C.P]

Yes - but the plan was always for there to be a single joint fleet, not separate RAF & RN F-35 inventories.

Really, I didn't know, thanx for the info.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yes - but the plan was always for there to be a single joint fleet, not separate RAF & RN F-35 inventories.

Joint Force Joint Strike Fighter?



Joint Force Lightning doesn't sound too bad though....

 

[Aussie Digger]

will you or anyone else atleast give me a minimum number of F-35 the UK will end up procuring?

You could try and be a bit more polite with your questions, may help you get the answers you are seeking...

In this case there IS no maximum or minimum number of F-35's for the UK because the Government has not yet DECIDED on how many it will buy.

As already stated it has confirmed an order for 3, so I guess you can use that if you really need to.

AD

 

[cpt007]

You could try and be a bit more polite with your questions, may help you get the answers you are seeking...

I don't see anything impolite about my post

 

[Aussie Digger]

I don't see anything impolite about my post

The posts at times seem a bit curt and abrupt to me is all. A problem with text only where the emotion behind the question cannot always be adequately conveyed perhaps, but that should be taken into consideration, especially when you have mostly been requesting info from others.

This place is meant for a two way or multiple way discussion afterall. We are not soley an information booth...

Regards,

AD

 

[cpt007]

This place is meant for a two way or multiple way discussion afterall. We are not soley an information booth...

Regards,

AD

I believe in sharing information,that is why in some of my posts I also provide the link and also a summary to help people understand my viewpoint and also some of the readers may obtain new information like for example only 107 typhoon were going to be used in the long term.

 

[JWCook]

will you or anyone else atleast give me a minimum number of F-35 the UK will end up procuring?

To give you some idea of the thinking, the RAF has only allocated 66 serial numbers to the JCA (JSF/F-35) this was in 2009 and was for the STOVL model.

The thinking at present is to reduce this even further:haha, figures of between 20-40 units are being discussed, the reasoning is only one carrier is to be used for air ops and there can always be an off the shelf purchase later (however unlikely that may be.).

More interesting is why the UK unilaterlily decided to drop the B, just before the US put it on ice.:rolling

So the original 138 plan is now down to less than half, no decision has been made but it is only a matter of time.

Cheers

 

[welsh1]

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?

 

[jaffo4011]

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....

 

[StobieWan]

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.

It's not viable or sensible,

Ian

 

[jaffo4011]

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..........

 

[StobieWan]

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.

Ian

 

[RobWilliams]

Long time since this thread was last active.

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

 

[1805]

Long time since this thread was last active.

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.

 

[RobWilliams]

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?

 

[1805]

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!

 

[StobieWan]

.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)