Well, seeming as someone else will be footing the bill for building and intergration, then the MOD should buy some.
If not, i'd be truely astounded at the decision.
The Future of Britain.
- Thread starter ComeonBritain
- Start date
If not, i'd be truely astounded at the decision.
There is a stated intention to regenerate an MPA capability at some point, & measures are being taken (e.g. seconding crews to allied forces) to maintain skills, but AFAIK there is not, at present, any official plan.
One interesting proposal is minor modification of the Sentinels to improve the over water abilities of the radar, as a stop gap. Apparently, it's just a software change. But that is just a surveillance ability, not a full MPA.
I won't - we never bought the 25mm cannon pack the USMC fitted to their own Harriers. I suspect if we get an F35 with a gun, the gun will have an F35A wrapped around it.
I really don't want to take F35 strafing anyway - seems a bit red baron to me - and there are many instances where using cannon from the Apache was deemed too dangerous vs using a Hellfire (the Hellfire will land on the target from above and focus it's blast into the deck, cannon rounds arrive from one side or another and can travel another 2km or more if they miss.)
True, from what i've been reading from pilots operating in the likes of Afghanistan etc it appears that the main benefit of fast air is the massive amounts of ordnance they carry (+ recce assets) rather than strafing ability.
But it's a bit of a tricky issue, have guns or not have guns. If a situation arises where an F-35B should 'need' guns, considering the technology, something's already gone pretty badly wrong.
But of course, this has all been said before with consequences that cost lives. If it were me, i'd buy the things, but i'm not one of the decision makers
Very surprised about lack of guns, they were always said to make up 20% of a planes fire power can understand worry of strafing, and since the end of jaguar/ harrier we really haven't had the kind of aircraft that excel at that ground attack role. OKay we do have tornado GR4. But it was never really meant for that role a
Though it does quite well in it. But we have bought the not cheap Apache with the ability to carry out much of such ground attack work I still think the UK is missing a trick with not forming reserved units with either attack helicopters or maybe a COIN version such as a super tucano to provide that useful light ground attack role
Though it does quite well in it. But we have bought the not cheap Apache with the ability to carry out much of such ground attack work I still think the UK is missing a trick with not forming reserved units with either attack helicopters or maybe a COIN version such as a super tucano to provide that useful light ground attack role
The issue with that is that seeming as Afghanistan is drawing down, would buying COIN aircraft be any use to the RAF?
The UK likes to have a variety of hardware that's capable of dealing with high tech opponents, something which the Tucano doesn't fit.
I've always liked the idea of the UK producing export-only subs, like the Germans do. Diesel/electric with AIP job.
Impossible, because us Brits like to keep our submarine secrets close to our chests (not to mention the more obvious problems), but it's something i'd like the idea of.
the concerned
Active Member
i still see us getting involved in Somalia to help get AU past the post.As good a job they doing they could do with some help maybe deploy a couple of reapers in Kenya.This is one place that has got to be sorted now rather than later.
I like the idea of coin as its a capability that is cheap to create and give us something else to bring to the party maybe the Apaches already give us all we need I don't think we lack anything to export but by the time we try to extract " value for money" as its hard to justify 75 million for an indigenous built high tech aircraft that can only do one job it also means by the time we have a finished product it is too expensive for many too buy apart from other nations attempting to do the same as us tech wise. Its like we just can't build an export version any body wants that can't be done by an F 15 or SU 30 it does no help that we have allowed a monster to develop in BAE systems with to many fingers in too many pies around the world.
In theory, COIN aircraft do seem like a perfectly reasonable asset, just not for the UK.
I'd like to see your source for £75million, most of the figures I remember point to £35-50million. But i'd welcome something concrete.
If anything, a COIN aircraft brings less to the party than an Apache IMO. If the UK had to buy a relatively cheap aircraft then i'd be more than happy to advocate the Hawk to use as a base.
Whats wrong with BAE becoming a global arms supplier than just a UK one?
the concerned
Active Member
Could the hawk t.2 use brimstone missiles.if not what would it take to adapt them to use them.
75 million is the figure that was been thrown about the media for the cost of a typhoon my point been lost in my bad grammar was our planes end up costing a fortune and are too advanced for many countries to afford. If the Apache can do the job that is fine by me as far as coin type tasks go. Hawk is an asset that we seem to have neglected for example the phillipines is looking for a good reliable fighter the hawk could fit the bill it is small able to be armed with side winder and gun pods yet do sent seem to have been an option maybe this is a problem I have with BAE is that it seems to have become fixated on high end technological products such as Typhoon and the F35 that an export opportunity in lower tech but exportable end of the market such as the Hawk airframe which engines and avionics could be easily updated to suit the needs of less well off countries its like under bar we have become so good at doing the difficult stuff we have neglected the simple stuff
the concerned
Active Member
i know i'm repeating myself but the follow on to the reaper would be a good coin/cas aircraft.its about 200mph faster plus has more range and an internal bomb bay with3',000lb payload plus wing stations. Why spend money developing something when its here already.
Ahhh, i see, for Tiffy instead of Apache, I see.
BAE has done fairly well with the Hawk, from their own website they've sold almost 1000 Hawk jets. I'm sure - after the MMRCA debacle - they're very interested in pushing their aircraft in the market wherever they can. I suppose they feel that their worth as a jet trainer is sufficient to give the company a decent return, doubtless it's successor will be pushed just as hard to keep the customers linked to BAE.
I do agree, i'd like to see more smaller, cheaper things designed and sold on the market. But i'm more in favour of finding a sector of the market and then trying to be "the best" in terms of affordability and exportability.
Hopefully we might claw back some maritime footing back from DCNS with the Type 26, Germany (+ France) seemed to have cornered the market in SSK sales.
IIRC years ago there was talk about Saudi interest in the Type 45s, but that's gone.
We should be pushing the type 26 we have the yards busy at the moment with carriers and the 45s but if we can get deals done on a good all rounder of a frigate then they can just keep rolling. What happened to those nearly new diesel subs we sold after the end of the cold war could we not dust off some of those designs with a bit of updating and maybe keep barrow in some work other than astutes? Obviously the south china sea and Persian gulf means everybody is updating can't see why we shouldn't get a bit of that action.
the concerned
Active Member
Weren't Taiwan in the market for upto 12 subs but everyone wouldn't deal because of pressure from China.They don't regard anyone elses thoughts when they sell ground attack aircraft to countries like Sudan,why let them dictate our exports.With regards to the T-26 class frigates if there not going to start being put into service until 2020 at the earliest why could we not order an extra batch now to replace the T-45's .The first T-45 would be at least 12 yrs old by then and by the time we've built 13 f them that would be another 10yrs so why not have 1 good ship design doing everything.
Well apparently international interest in the Type 26 is "high" (forgetting Australia, Canada, Turkey and India as potential customers - AFAIK they've packed in their plans of the Type 26).
The only real initial export potential IMO is Brazil, purely because they've not pulled out yet + have experience with British frigates.
That's what I was thinking, we could offer something competitive with Germany/France in my opinion, but not at the expense of slowing down the Astutes. But massively unlikely, considering we're not very keen on sharing our subs with people these days
It's just a toss up between the political and diplomatic hassle with China (+ any economic repercussions) with any financial gains. IIRC there was a deal with the US, upgrading or offering new F-16s or suchlike, that fell through because of Chinese pressure. But that could all be nonsense as i've got no links to hand.
It's possible, Type 26 is being offered in an AAW configuration but with Artisan 3D it's not up to the standards of SAMPSON in terms of AAW.
Best not be thinking about Type 45 replacement just yet, they're not all even in service yet!
It's more that our submarine fleet is - really - our ultimate weapon. We can't afford to sell people any sort of sub technology which we use/used as whilst it may not be the top of the line kit we use in the Astutes or Vanguards or whatever, it may just be enough to sell the basic idea and they develop it further themselves which could cause our submariners a big problem.
We want ours to have the best sensors and be the quiestest they can, flogging technology which could - potentially - give others an equal footing is something we don't want to do.
Really it's a case of we don't want it to come back and bite us in the ass in the future, and the safest way not to do that is not to sell it, period.
At least, that's my explanation, and it seems to make sense to me anyway.