I would think an airbourne control centre is more likely to look like an E3 or B52. Lots of space for crews.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
1. No, you need to increase the size to enable it to have enough range, with a big enough payload, for the job it's meant for, i.e. deep strike.
2. Pilot weight & kit is a small percentage of a large aircraft, but it's a significant percentage of a small aircraft, such as Taranis. There are reasons other than saving the lives of pilots. A pilot can't remain effective in a cockpit for the length of time a UAV can remain airborne.
3. A UAV is cheaper than a manned aircraft of equivalent performance, because the things needed to keep the pilot alive, & feed him information, are expensive. Some of that cost is offloaded onto ground systems, of course.
4. Who's talking about an F-35 equivalent? The Taranis successor is meant to be for strike or recce, not air defence or the other things an F-35 can do. All that guff about going from one non-afterburning EJ200 to two with burners is just that, guff. Jaguar wasn't reinvented to build a Hawk with two afterburning Adours, AMX didn't grow into something with two afterburning Speys, etc., etc. In both cases, the aircraft size was fitted to its role, & the engine picked to power that size. That's what is planned here, & there's no reason to imagine anything else.
I sure you can find projects where scope creep has pushed cost up, reducing numberss ordered. There will be many roles/types of UCAV/UAV, the UK need to focus on the right areas to invest in. I personally feel deep strike, although supporting the RAFs internal agenda, does not the Army's for high or low tech operations and will certainly be at the more difficult range for both technology and expensive which will limited exports.
The US will develop a deep strike, lets buy that off the shelf and get a Taranis in now.
Where are these high intensity wars in which we will be losing pilots so fast? With a limited budget the UK needs to focus on real threats, not fighting a reunited Soviet Union or and increasingly mutually trade dependent China?
Iran could be a difficult air defence enviroment but not to that level. Once a UACV get to £20m+ I don't think it stacks up against cruise missiles. How much is a Tomahawk, £500k?
Apparently Gordon Brown is speaking in the House of Commons about the maintenance contracts for the 2 Carriers being placed in Scotland. Does anyone have any view on the wisdom of this as opposed to their home based Portsmouth?
If anyone has strong view it would be great to hear them in the next 3 hours
If anyone has strong view it would be great to hear them in the next 3 hours
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
That's why UCAV is more appropriate in the time-sensitive deep strike targeting role where pilots face higher shoot down risk loitering deep in hostile airspace. No one uses a tactom to whack time-sensitive targets. The cost-benefit is better when using cheap guided bombs ie multiple targets for each mission.
The UK/French agreement appears to have confirmed some of my earlier predictions:Apparently Gordon Brown is speaking in the House of Commons about the maintenance contracts for the 2 Carriers being placed in Scotland. Does anyone have any view on the wisdom of this as opposed to their home based Portsmouth?
If anyone has strong view it would be great to hear them in the next 3 hours
Naval fast air will fly from each others active carrier during periods of refit;
UK DDG's will protect CdG until QE is active as part of any joint operations;
The French will buy time on the UK strategic tanker fleet,and
Nuclear tech will be shared and A400 servicing.
No mention of carrier servicing, however I can't see the UK transferring the role to France when it has some of the largest dry docks in Europe unless they are already in use.
Is there any other person other than me who thinks that 12 JSF is too less
Troothsayer
New Member
12 JSF 'routinely' deployed isn't far short of the original estimate of what was supposed to be on deck in peacetime.
No chance UK carriers (with only 1 in service at a time) were going to go around with 36 F-35 on board. Of course during a conflict they will be able to surge up to that 36.
No chance UK carriers (with only 1 in service at a time) were going to go around with 36 F-35 on board. Of course during a conflict they will be able to surge up to that 36.
I'm hoping that the standard deployment will comprise 12 or 18 F35C's, complimented by a possible12 French jets. We may see just 12 if the carrier is used in the commando support role where the mission requires more rotary assets than fixed wing. CAS can be supplemented by Apache. A failed State intervention operation in Africa for example would be better supported by an equal mix of both rotary and fixed wing.
With the new agreement signed with the French confirming a combined UK/French carrier group, could the UK not bring the F35C purchase forward, enough for a training and conversion unit allowing for limited training on CDG before the arrival of the first cat and trap fitted QE.
Sure but that would defeat the whole point of HM Govt's agenda. They want to cut the amount of money they spend. Not buying F-35s in significant numbers until the end of the 2010s is part of that. You may have a couple of trials and training aircraft from early batches (like the RAAF) but you won't see a squadron IOC until 2020, even if the "Marine Royal" has a carrier to fly them from.
I would probably make more sense to bring a catapult equiped QE back on track for 2016, so the MN can provide emergency Rafale support on her. This may be useful to the MN is the CDG is out of commission at any point.
If we could financially escape for the F35 purchase, a Rafale for PW deal makes much more sense for both countries.
Financially, Cameron is not interested in bringing the carriers forward. Also, the F35 is a done deal as the Americans and UK industry would go ballistic if we backed out.
One thought though, do the French have spare Rafale jets we could lease for the short term? Being able to operate French jets and the French being able to operate UK jets would not be a bad idea.
I suspect it would be difficult to get out of the F35, but if we are talking about reduced volume anyway of c50. Also a big British contribution was the RR lift jet? That said the lower and known cost of the Rafale, combined with the income form selling PW (at a good price if we are taking the Rafale at similar) would probably comfortably offset exit clauses.
There is always an option then to build a 2nd carrier/Ocean replacement of a more sensible size (slightly bigger than CDG) post 2020 when funding may be better and the ship yard jobs arguement stronger.
Agreed a common RN/MN air group be very valuable. I like the closer relationship with the French; they have proved to be our most reliable ally for the last 100 years, surely we can forgive them the previous 900! As for Chirac I wish we had listern to him and not Bush over Iraq.
I would imagine that Boeing will be like a rat up a drain pipe pitching the Super Hornet for CTOL
Succinctly put. In terms of cost I would think Dassault hard-pressed to offer a similar deal in terms of cost etc on Rafale as what Boeing could do for the Super, considering the relative fleet sizes. Seems like the Super would be a better option from a certain standpoint but then I guess it depends on the Brit's priorities and future potential defence arrangements with France - and I don't know enough about the issue to speculate on that.
Ironically, many moons ago, the French first pref for replacing the Crusader was the classic Hornet - and Boeing have a pretty good idea about Shornet capabilities and availability rates etc vis a vis rafale.
more to the point - and something thats already got some attention in Oz is that there is an expectation that some of the critical mil technology and feeds going to the UK might get dialed down as the US is not keen on UK equal sharing 4-5I's information across the channel.
either way, there will be an impact at that level, and that will hurt as the US info feeds for the UK are significant - there's no way that the French can fill that gap.
With CdG being so unreliable you would think the French might opt to buy PW as an alternative to PA2. Take it as a completed hull, tow it across the Channel for local content. UK could offset the French pain by leasing a small number of Rafi's from say 2012 onwards, fly them from CdG until the F35C/QE combo comes on-line. The French yards will be kept busy building two Mistral's for Russia anyway.
I'm waiting for the announcement that UK RAF/FAA will be attached to French sqn's, mirroring the programme in the US flying SH.
If you think about it compatibility wise the UK buying Rafi would make absolute sense following the decision to share capabilties. Maintenance requirements would be the same making it so much easier to cross-deck each others sqn's. Politically though it would be a hard pill to swallow and have a knock-on cost impact to other F35 buyers, plus I convinced RAF/FAA would much prefer SH as a cost driven alternative to F35C.
No bitter a pill than for the French buying a carrier built in the UK. The sense in buying Rafale for PW must be so powerful I can't believe it is not being considered. If the RN know whats good for it (which it has not shown to date) it should focus on getting the carriers back on track for 2016 and anything fixed wing flying asap rather than getting fussy about SH v F35 v Rafale. Be realistic the RAF would much rather no carrier.