Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#1
...in my blog to be exact...
Just over a week ago I blogged about Defence cut options and suggested that the Navy might drop their order for F35C Joint Strike Fighters in favour of F/A18's to fly off the new aircraft carriers. I had no specific knowledge, other than a broad awareness of defence issues.
It seems though I was right.
In the Sunday Times yesterday it was reported that the Royal Navy is likely to drop its purchase of the F35 and buy F/A18F Super Hornets for the carriers instead.
The F/A18 is a proven aircraft, the last batch of which were purchased by the US Navy for less than £50m each compared to over £100m per F35. As an 'off-the-shelf' purchase they can be ready for when our carriers become operational rather than some years later (like the F35).
It will need the installation of catapults into the carriers but they have been designed with that in mind for the future anyway and with the huge cost savings in aircraft purchases it would be well worth it.
Some capability will be lost of course, particularly in the ground attack role, but such a loss will not be significant and the US Navy believes that the F/A18 will remain effective in all roles right up to 2035.
The F/A18 carries a wide range of munitions for both air superiority and ground attack but can also be modified for air to air refuelling and other roles making it a superb multi-purpose carrier aircraft.
One of the big problems for the MoD more generally has been procurement over-runs and costs. They have been used as a means to support the UK Defence industry, rather than the UK Defence needs, by developing equipment for which there is often cheaper, better and proven alternatives already available. This move, should it happen, would be a big signal that this is changing and the UK defence needs will come first.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#2
striking aircraft, is it united kingdom made?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#3
Its a US aircraft made by McDonnell Douglas.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#4
Another picture showing the ordinance fit...
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#5
So we are having a fighter that is not so good,it willcost alot of UK jobs it is outdated by about five years or more we are going back to the old catapults days which again is out dated by ten years or more. Why not lets go back to the 1940s.It is not good news even the reds when in power done better ,so what you vote for is what you get.
Guest 686- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 556
#6
No, built by Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Northrop Grumman, GE Aircraft Engines, and Raytheon amongst others in the US and Canada. Apart from the USA it seems that Canada, Australia, Finland, Kuwait, Malaysia, Spain and Switzerland also use this aircraft or its variants.
I have to agree with BarryW, it seems madness to spend money the country doesn't have for a machine that will not be available until long after the platform that is to carry it is otherwise up and running. If past experience is anything to go by it probably won't work as advertised anyway. Purchasing a cheaper, proven aircraft does make far more sense to me. I still don't really understand why the Sea Harrier was dropped - another excellent aircraft that proved itself in battle.
On a similar vein I really would like to know what is likely to happen regarding the upgrade to the Trident ballistic missile submarine fleet. In my opinion replacing it with another ICBM-capable submarine also seems to be an expensive option when one considers that we already have submarines capable of deploying nuclear-tipped cruise missiles - if we still need a strategic nuclear deterrent at all that is.
Cost savings could/should be plowed into improving the Military Covenant!
Phil West
If at first you don't succeed, use a BIGGER hammer!!
Guest 686- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 556
#7
Vic: The F35 is a total unknown at the moment so no operational comparison is possible. It may turn out to be very good of course, but on the other hand it may turn out to be a peace of cr*p (like a certain multi-role helicopter that couldn't fly at night or in the rain).
Phil West
If at first you don't succeed, use a BIGGER hammer!!
#8
Phil, I think the xisting subs can take the new nuclear deterrents. No new subs required.
F18 is a very sensible option but, I wonder why the RN are allowed to have catapults when I had mine confiscated at school. Don't seem fair somehow.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#9
Vic - We cannot afford the F35 (to be built by Lockheed) and Phil is absolutely right.
The F/A18 option has far more plusses than minuses going for it and it is wrong to say it is not so good. It is a superb aircraft, the latest front line fighter/attack aircraft of the worlds premier carrier navy.
As for catapults, Vic - not outdated at all. The carriers are designed from scratch to have them retro-fitted in order to accomodate a range of aircraft types. In fact the original plan was to install a high tech type of cat that does not use steam as previous generations do/did. I am not sure which type will be fitted for the F/A18.
#10
We should also remember that our carriers are tiny compared to the proper ships the USA has.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#11
it is because we are small we need the best there is and this fighter is not the best and when the other is flying this one will be outdated and we will still have to turn to the better one,so why not just wait for a year get the better one which would help bring more jobs to the UK and we would have just like the royal Navy the very best there is in the world and would last for over the next ten years not like the one they are going for now.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#12
interesting point vic, would also mean jobs being saved.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#13
Thank you for your backing HOWARD.As I always say one must think outside the box and ahead.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#14
Sid - the new carriers are not so tiny. Not as big as the US Navy carriers that operate around 80 aircraft but they will operate 50 aircraft and will be the biggest ships ever operated by the Royal navy and second to none in the world except the Nimitz Class.
Vic - you have to be realistic. this country has been economically devastated by Gordon brown and we have to cut our cloth.
If its a choice between having the carriers with the F/A18 or no carriers at all - then better to have them. Besides there is nothing wrong at all with the F/A18, it is a superb and highly effective aircraft. The US Navy are against the F35 which will be adopted by the US Marines only (if at all, the programme may well be scrapped all together as the USA face defence cuts as well).
There may never be a F35 in service anywhere.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#15
The USA do not want it only because they did not build it.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#16
Vic - check your facts mate. The USA are building the F35 - it is a Lockheed aircraft. Hence the 'Joint' Strike Fighter - original plan was for it to be for the US Marine Corps and Royal Navy to replace the USMC AV8B and RN/RAF Harriers. The US Navy decided to stick with the F/A18, despite hopes early on, that they would adopt the F35. The development has only been part-funded by the UK.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
20 August 2010
14:0766320#17
An update on this.
8 Fleet Air Arm pilots are being sent to the USA to train with the US Marine Corps on catapult assisted take-off using F/A18s. Additionally a firm has also announced it had been awarded a £650,000 contract from the MoD to develop an electromagnetic catapult system suitable for the new aircraft carriers.
It seems things are moving against the VSTOL F35C's in favour of the F/A18 or maybe even the conventional and cheaper F35B.
Personally I think the F/A18 is the most cost effective option.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
20 August 2010
17:4066339#18
barry
is it a u.k. based company that has been awarded the contract?
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
20 August 2010
18:0466344#19
No it is not all made in the USA and is not so good as the one we was building now more jobs will go.And going backwards with the old catapult.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
20 August 2010
18:1066345#20
Howard - its called Converteam and I believe they are Americans in a very specialist field.
Victor - Lockheed do not manufacture in the UK but some components may be. You really do need to find out about naval aviation, if you did you would find that you cannot have a balanced carrier air group without the use of catapults. We are talking very high tech stuff here.
