Fitz323

What about threads titled Hmmmmm as to Hmmmmmmm??? ;-)

PS, I do love the Hornet especially in Super Hornet and Growler guise, but whoever came up with that name needs to be shot!!!!

Ok, where were we, “What organic capabilities? It is "sleathy" not a full steath plane, and even full stealth plans will be barely stealthy as soon as radar technology catches up with the design; how would you rate the chances of a F117 against a modern radar set?? “ The organic capabilities the F35 has as we all know are primarily it’s ability not to be seen, and I agree it does not have the full spectrum stealth capability of the F-22 but it was not designed to. What it does have is the next best thing from a frontal angle; it’s roughly the size of a small base ball or similar size which is admittedly a lot bigger than the F-22 but a hell of a lot smaller than the F-18. Radar tech is catching up but the F-35 now has third generation stealth capabilities which are night and day away from the aircraft you are keen to pitch it against. But the F-35 goes beyond the traditional “stealth” concept; the aircraft has been designed to have a very low IR signature (clever use of fuel cooling close to the surface structure) and very low “electronic” noise. The main organic capabilities I was really referring to are the complete systems that make up the aircraft from a design build stage rather than bolt on additions that the 4th generation aircraft possess. In clean configurations the performance of this aircraft compared to legacy aircraft it is due to replace may only be comparable or incrementally better at best however when you start adding pods, external stores provisions, fuel tanks, designator pods, ISTAR equipment etc etc etc to the actual basic configuration of these legacy aircraft their lethality actually decreases. By a long way too. Your last comment on this point was would I rate the chances of a Nighthawk against modern radar, simple answer is no, not really, but it is no longer in service and has not been for many years. I would rate it highly in certain scenarios and this has been proven many more times than you will read in the press. Next point, you said “Since the chances of us getting in a fighting war with the US, Russia or China are remote, when are we going to need the supposed organic capabilities you refer to?? “ Hopefully we will not get in a spat with the US (that would end quite badly) but Russia is certainly pushing the bounds of friendship with it’s position on Syria and other emerging trouble spots in the middle east. That's another topic though. China, maybe not in the foreseeable future but I think a certain possibility at some point; especially when you consider it military budget and equipment procurement have increased dramatically over the last decade or so. Coupled with the fact the world’s resources are running out, precious metal deposits required for high technology development are hoarded by this state. Although China’s defense spending is dwarfed by the US it is spending an alarming amount on cyber warfare which may at some point become an issue where military intervention may be required. But again, hopefully not. Realistically speaking I don’t think there is really much chance of a conventional conflict between two large, powerful countries a la the cold war, but I don’t believe in ignoring the possibility either. We did that at the end of the first world war and we were using WW1 aircaft at the beginning of the second. Where I do think the capabilities of the F-35 will be used, over the F-18 is in theatre strike, close air support and battle field interdiction; where it’s “organic” capabilities of forward sector stealth, internal stores provision, cruise efficiency etc will make it a far more effective survivable asset. These arenas could be certain “problem” nations acquiring relatively advanced SAM’s (just take a look at what came out of Libya and where that stuff is now) both highly mobile and semi mobile and the quite effective guerilla trend of shoot your missile and run away quickly – basically denying access to attacking nations due to asymmetric warfighting and unpredictability; these types of tactics do really present a problem for things like combat air support to our intelligence aircraft, and ground troops, ability to use nearby bases and runways due to being within strking distance (this includes host nations in other countries) as well as political affiliation issues that could arise from that. All of this provides the defending nation / terrorist group / whoever, a highly mobile, adaptable persistant air defense threat. Exactly what one of the F-35’s mission profiles is to be used against. It has been proven that the most effective way of dealing with this type of threat is persistant loitering over station (whatever that may be) and taking out targets of opportunity / known non mobile targets / command and control areas etc etc all while in a complex, moving, ever changing lethal environment. All of this which is incredibly stressful for the pilot with massive risk of information overload. This is where another of the F-35’s organic advantages comes in – sensor fussion. I work on a 4.5 generation aircraft and have done for nearly a decade and the one thing the pilots always say is the modern way of design imbedded within this type of aircraft will be a life savor and a force multiplier due to their abilty to carry out complex missions in a very extreme environment is all down to sensor fussion. Again, F-18, as good as it is, does not have this level of luxury. I’m gonna have to wrap this up as I’m off to work but one last point I want to make (well two actually) is that the aircatft we have been discussing is comparative to an F16, F18, F15 in the within visual range arena but does not need to be much better due to high off boresight weaponry, helmet mounted sighting systems, superior probability of kill aiming / firing solutions etc mean it is quite likely the F-35 would get the first shot in in the beyond visual range environment anyway. Last point, I think we have bought the “wrong” F-35, and I think we should have navalised the Typhoon and spent all of the money on that instead.

Ha ha, just finished night shift and i'm knackered. I will put my reply down as it's an interesting debate

Seeing as we are getting our helmets out fnarr fnarr I'm on the right. Fitz

I'll get back to you on that one as I'm off to work and the reply will be lengthy.

I agree if you bought some F18's for our carriers they would be more than adequate for our needs. That wasn't what I was saying; and I'm not defending our procurement. However, we've gone down the Lightening route and the F18 is virtually at the end of its design spectrum. It WILL Not be in service for another 40 years or so and if it is it will not be good enough to compete with other nations aircraft. Something to bare in mind is the 2 aircraft fulfil two very different requirements; although they are not dissimilar in a lot of their roles. The F18 is classed as a conventional aircraft on today's military and can really only carry out conventional missions. The F35 is a day 1 strike fighter I.e. it is capable of full strike capability on day 1 of a war; when all of the enemies air defence is intact, and at full strength etc. it will be used to disable all of this (that's the plan anyway) by use of it's organic capabilities. Something which the Hornet does not or ever will. Fitz

Not really sure how many aircraft a wing consists of but I'm gonna assume it must be about 2 because an F35 will be roughly 120 million USD depending on amount purchased and the US offered the F18 for 60 million USD for the Indian MMRCA contract. And I can assure you, there will be no comparison between the two aircraft mentioned. The stats you have quoted are easy numbers to argue a point on but when it comes down to mission performance there will be absolutely no contest. Fitz

Ken, not really sure on that one. I think 8 were planned but 6 to be actually built. Fitz

It certainly was a 'nice little earner' then and something still at the forefront of Saudi Arabia's thought processes. BAE are only just about breaking even on this contract and its only the sheer fiscal value that is keeping it from being a disaster. If was a UK - UK deal I reckon the plug would have been pulled long ago. Anything below 6% profit margin just isn't worth it.

Completely agree Nick and too many companies literally try and pull down the customers pants and the Uk government do not help matters either. Currently I am in Saudi Arabia on loan to BAE Systems covering the purchase, supply and Operations of 72 Typhoons and regardless of what my personal thoughts are on the host nation, they are certainly getting their own back from decades of being ripped off by BAE. Something UK MOD could learn from. Ken, I'm certainly not defending the Governments stance on the procurement of these assets in relation to value for money or operational effectiveness. Just merely saying how much things cost nowadays. Fitz

Someone more skilled at cost calculations than I am considers it cheaper.

How much do you think those carriers would actually cost now to build. You cannot compare the two at all. Our carriers are costing what they are costing. A carrier is also part if a group of surface and subsurface ships with our carrier needing less of those due to the tech it has, overall cost of the group has to be taken into consideration. Take a look at cost estimates for the USA's carrier replacement program and that puts it into perspective. Out carriers are not nuclear simply because they do not need to be and the cost of decommission for a nuclear carrier is hideous. Fitz

No one can argue a GPMG is a fantastic piece of kit.

L98 was a massive pile of poo, with the cocking handle too big and not built well enough. To be fair tho, it was a bit of an after thought and I never understood why they did not let cadets shoot the SA80 on repetition. Cadets shooting SLR's...... That could be painful ;-)

Not really, the current cost of the two carriers is in the region of approx 5 billion each. Nimitz was originally roughly half a billion but the cost to produce today including the upgrades since the seventies is estimated to be nearer 6 billion. The jump in technology that our two carriers will have from not only what we had previously, but other nations forces is significant to explain the huge cost. The new carrier is comparable in size (although not quite as big) as the super carriers the US has but the crew size is less than a third. That means a massive increase in technical spec which also cost a lot of cash. I agree that cost overruns are unacceptable and manufacturers should sometimes be penalised for this bit the majority of cost overruns that I have seen have been down to significant customer spec increases or requirement changes.

35.8 billion pounds on seven Astute-class submarines and developing a replacement for the four Vanguard-class submarines used for Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent. * 18.5 billion pounds on fighter jets, and UAVs, including the Joint Strike Fighter of which Britain has so far committed to buy 48, and the Typhoon, of which Britain has ordered 160. * 17.4 billion pounds on two aircraft carriers, six new Type 45 destroyers and the development of the Type 26 Global Combat Ship. * 13.9 billion pounds on air-to-air refuelling, passenger and heavy lift capability by leasing Airbus aircraft through the EADS-led AirTanker consortium. * 12.3 billion pounds on armoured fighting vehicles. * 12.1 billion pounds on helicopters. * 11.4 billion pounds on assorted munitions. = 124.1 billion pounds + 4.8 billion pound contingency allowance to manage unexpected cost increases, as well as an unallocated 8 billion pounds for future equipment needs = 136.9 billion out of a planned spend of 159 billion. Which leaves about 22 billion to mess about with !!!!! Fitz

Defence spending is not limited to actually buying new things. The cost of the upkeep of equipment, use of other nations training assets, replenishment of stock, fuel, munitions, uniform, pensions, medical, R&D, etc etc etc all eat a large chunk of the budget. Oh yea and all those medals!!!!

Still a bit heavy and only able to be fired from the right shoulder but with the multi use rails, forward grip, AGOG sight, carbine model, UGL etc its very very good. Just looks carp!!

Very out of date, we now have the A2 which has had a myriad of changes by H&K admittedly costly but now known to be one of the finest and most accurate 5.56 AR's in the world.

I watched a documentary on him a few years back and was surprised to see what a decent bloke he was. All of the money he has earned has been put in a savings account for his family. He even travels around with a plastic bag for all his clothes etc rather than buying a suitcase. Not too many female porn stars are fans though with some even going as far as having clauses in their contracts stating they will never "perform" with him.

Everything mentioned by the OP is very far from being crap. I've been in the armed forces for 15 years now with 10 of them working very closely with the yanks and I can assure you a lot of the kit we have comes out very favourable; especially the media despised Typhoon.

If they are 18's it's on those front brakes look big!!

JBL Creatures are very good for the money. Had several sets over the years and always been impressed with them.

Cost of the DPF removal and a full day on the rollers getting it mapped was in the region of £700 if I remember. Might have been less. Fitz