Reply With QuoteGentlemen, The latest edition of 'Carrier Waves' has been uploaded to the ACA website. Get your copy here: http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.c...-jan-2012.pdf? Enjoy.
cockneyjock1974
"What I will say is that I have seen comments that the USN are rubbing their hands together on us getting the carriers into service, I think they see them as an extension of their own fleet possibly!."
I think you may have a good point there CJ, as they have stated that their priority is now the Asia/Pacific area it would be in their and NATO's interest to have these carriers in the RN's inventory. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the US is urging the UK to make both carriers CTOL.
"It is expected to swap an order for 138 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) for a version of a cheaper aircraft currently flown off US carriers, the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet."
Sorry mate but this one I just can't go for.
No doubt that it has been discussed in the past but why buy legacy aircraft when sometime in the future you have to go for more modern airframes,that equals even more costs. Now then CJ I'm surprised at you,quoting the Sunday Times as a reliable source? I got my knuckles rapped for doing that in the past. lol.
Gentlemen, The latest edition of 'Carrier Waves' has been uploaded to the ACA website. Get your copy here: http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.c...-jan-2012.pdf? Enjoy.
I've just been looking at the costs for Hawkeye, the latest model in US service the E-2D advanced Hawkeye comes in at an eye watering $232m, no way can we afford that.Originally Posted by happyslapper
The E-2C which is the one most other countries are using is quoted at $80m so perhaps half a dozen of decent second hand models would be within our means.
Having said that I can still see us ending up with a Merlin derivative, which although very effective still doesn't have the legs of a fixed wing system.
cockneyjock1974,
O'h dear I hope I am not going to have to eat my hat :-
http://www.f-16.net/news_article4494.html
Too many people taking to heart what Eric Palmer writes. Fella has an agenda, and no special access to any information above and beyond bloggers.
Haha Jonas don't worry I'm sure we will get the F35 there's too much at stake at LM for it to fail. I certainly am not beating the F18 drum but if I had a choice right now of 2 ctol carriers in service with hornets or one with F35's I'd take the former option every time.
Ps thanks for the Sunday times tip, I thought it was just the Guardian that was off limits lol.
That may be so,but he didn't make up the DOD report or the report from the test pilot did he?
The following has been reported on several occasions :-
et, a November 2011 U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) quick-look report relating to engineering challenges arising from what is being called “concurrency issues” revealed that all eight run-in/rolling tests undertaken at NAS Lakehurst in August 2011 to see if the F-35C CV JSF could catch a wire with the tail hook have failed.
The report also mentions that the tail hook on the F-35C CV JSF is attached improperly to the aircraft. The distance from the hook to the main landing gear is so short that it is unlikely the aircraft will catch the landing wires on a ship's deck. This graphic from the review explains part of the problem. It illustrates the distance between the main landing gear and the tail hook of previous warplanes qualified to operate from aircraft carriers and compares these distances with that found on the F-35C CV JSF. In this regard, the report refers to the F-35C CV JSF as “an outlier”.
This is by no means a minor problem,and not one that the writer has thought up by himself whether or not he has his own agenda.
SDL - If you mean SH60, I don't believe so. They would have been compared to Lynx / Merlin, but those systems were built with UK Forces in mind, and are bespoke designs. A lot of it comes down to force doctrine. Besides which, do we really want our armed forces to be a clone of the US armed forces?!! No offence to our friends across the pond...!
Bit of an update on what our First Sea Lord is getting up to, quick visit to the USS John C Stennis.
http://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/3211
Nice quote at the end from him.
“We know carrier aviation is a hugely-complex business and we will get there again; the Royal Navy will once more be able to project an unhindered fixed-wing strike capability anywhere that the government wants UK power and influence to be felt.”
I wonder how one goes about "improperly attaching a tailhook" to an F35? It probably goes like this...
(Picture the scene... F35 at full throttle having done a bolter disappearing from view... Its tail hook is lying on the deck attached to the cable... Two development engineers are standing scratching their heads...)
Engineer 1. "Damn. I told you "Pritt stick" and duct tape wouldn't hold it."
Engineer 2. "We got a good price on in though..."
LOThAR?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think he was talking about the E2C or the MV-22SDL - If you mean SH60, I don't believe so. They would have been compared to Lynx / Merlin, but those systems were built with UK Forces in mind, and are bespoke designs. A lot of it comes down to force doctrine. Besides which, do we really want our armed forces to be a clone of the US armed forces?!! No offence to our friends across the pond...!
Yeah I know... That'll teach me to read all the posts before replying to one!
CJ,I must admit that I posted that article rather tongue in cheek,as I said in my post #1641 :-
"Everyone and their dog are having a go at the F35 programme,the point is that if it was to go '**** up' it would cripple LM and the US Government is not going to let that happen."
I like the 'unhindered' bit, in other words having to beg to be able to base aircraft in Italy,and being unceremoniously kicked out of them at the first opportunity.
So much for our NATO allies,to much politics and not enough action.
The end game is 'We need both carriers'
Posting Permissions
