The first flight for the U.K.’s first F-35, known as BK-1, took place on April 13, 2012. BK-1 is also the first international F-35.
The timing of course, could not have been more interesting!
F-35 BK-1 First Flight
F-35 BK-1 First Flight
F-35 BK-1 First Flight
F-35 BK-1 First Flight
F-35 BK-1 First Flight
And here is another interesting picture…
MoD 'reconsidering aircraft carrier changes'
Take your bets…
Re X
Absolutely spot on, don’t forget the Aussies will have the Canberra class and the US the America class. This will be where the true interoperability will be , not with CdeG or a Nimitz.
FBOT Do not shoot the messenger. The decision has been made to build the first carrier without Cats and Traps so we have to wait for POW. The US do not have enough hulls to give us one to play with and if they did we could not man it as it has a ships company measuring in the thousands.
where do you suggest we get enough FJ pilots to be Flying FA18s and training on F35C?
There is no good solution but 2 F35B carriers in service by end of the decade is the least bad one from an operational view point.
@ Waddi
That is why I think we missed a trick with CVF not being a Mega Cavour. We have good well practised amphibious capability. We do heliborne ASW well. We do flying STOVL well. We haven’t done strike carrier what in well over thirty years? We can’t bring lots of platforms so why not two big fast flexible platforms.
All we need to do now is convince the GS staff to scrap the Army’s procurement programmes and just buy what the USMC buys…….
@APATS: nothing wrong with Lusty if it’s still operating helicopters. They haven’t removed the ski jump. And the QE already has a ski jump
wf, no there is nothing wrong with her but it would be a u turn too far for even this Govt.
@ FBOT
Manning the likes of Eagle and Ark were major head ache for the RN even when the service was well over twice the size it is today. No way we could we just borrow a USN vessel and use it.
Well:
1) there is a requirement for 2 CVs; having 1 is a complete waste of money and given we seem to be building 2 and they offer 60 years of service, induct both and EMAL them.
2) Whatever any given agenda-based budget forecast might be, this country can afford 2 CVs if it is based on a common fighter type for RAF / RN (F-35C) with shared costing coupled with ongoing contracting out of non-critical military functions (let’s not start on the waste less public money on everything else aspect).
3) There seems little prospect of an F-35B wing being operational much before one composed of Cs, though this is always stated as a point of fact. I suspect given the lower complexity of the C and the contiguous development, IOC for either is likely to be close.
4) Interoperability extends beyond the aircraft; a proper carrier allows far better flexible and multi-national operations using fighters, fixed wing support fixed wing UAVs and greater vertical lift. Right now, I would not e terribly confident about Spain or Italy, Australia was not really interested in B models and it still does not solve the problem of the B not actually being able to do terribly much by itself.
I have to a agree about interoperability of CATOBAR carriers. Interoperable CATOBAR carriers be they French or American always sounded like a fantasy. It seems much more likely that STOVL aircraft would be interoperable and there are a far greater number of platforms both in US and other allies hands that could operate them.
We have to commit to F35 in one way or another for two reasons. Firstly it’s a massively important project for British industry. Secondly it really will be the only game in town for some time to replace the aircraft we have today. UCAS show great potential especially in COIN and A symmetric threat environments. However I think we are a very long way off from replacing deep strike missions against advanced adversaries.
Satellite communications will always be vulnerable to jamming or even anti satellite weaponary. At what point will we truly be able to rely on AI to conduct a bombing mission without a man in the loop somewhere? Would it even be legal? The Tornado is not going to fly for ever it will need replaced at some point and Typhoon is far from ideal.
We are broke today but we can’t keep waiting for the Jam. If service chiefs are saying 2025 for F35C with CATOBAR then clearly that is too long. A limited buy of F35B now seems the best course of action. We should follow the US lead and simply stretch out our procurement. Buying 40 B’s today in FAA hands lets us get back in the game of naval aviation with more capability than we ever had before. The RAF can then get 40 – 80 F35 C in the post 2020 period as a replacement for Tornado. The choice between 40 and 80 should be based on an assessment of the capability at the time of UCAS to replace some or all of the mission .The C seems to make far more sense than the A, prices are similar but the C has the greater range and drogue system of AAR. This way we maintain a credible air force, regenerate carrier strike earlier and meet most of our commitment to the F35 program. It’s okay to kick the can down the road a little when your broke as long as you don’t keep kicking more cans after it.
As a country we have never deployed more than a handful of fast jets. Even Libya where we were supposedly one of the “lead” nations our commitment would not have equalled half a CATOBAR flight wing. We are not going head to head with Iran on our own but we might tag along with the USA if they want to have a go. If that is the case we could fly our contribution, typically 6 fast jets off a Wasp/America as well as a QEC or indeed Argus/Bay/assorted RFA’s, would an F35B fit into a T45 hanger? Much as a full blown strike carrier would be nice to have again, sadly it isn’t actually needed.
All PATS @ 2.43
Not getting at you just the timeline you introduced.
USN – Rent the flight deck not the carrier.
F35* – Where are the pilots going to come for any version?
We have a Harrier cohort twiddling their thumbs / stacking shelves at Tesco.
We have a 10 year gap opening up in front of our eyes.
The MOD / RN need to start learning how to move fast.
What was once counted in years is now counted in decades.
Renting F/A 18s offers the quickest way forward.
@ FBOT
‘USN – Rent the flight deck not the carrier.’
That along with the F-18 how do you know we could convince them to rent them? Looking at the demands they have it seems unlikely to me.
‘We have a Harrier cohort twiddling their thumbs / stacking shelves at Tesco.’
Scattered to the four winds now.
Is Bluenose Sharkey?
1. The Govt have said we only get 1 Cats and Traps. (we can moan about it or we can get on with it).
2. See my point 1. The decision has been made, we have no more money!
3. Excuse me, Queen Elizabeth will be physically able to accept F35b as soon as she is worked up, so before we even have POW in the water. we have experience in VSTOL ops but none in conventional ops and you think the inservice date for each air wing will be the same?
4. How can a conventional carrier offer greater multi national ops, we cannot fly c of CDG but they could fly Rafale off POW. Other than that we have the USN. Of course writing off Italy and Spain suits your purpose and well lets wait and see about the Ozzies. i have had a few interesting conversations. Greater vertical lift?
As for not able to do terribly much by itself? Please. it sacrifices range but look at ranges we have operated carrier aircraft out to and where we are likely to have to. it gives us a massive capability boost that we can actually almost afford.
I would love to have 2 conventional carriers to play with, both with 40 F35cs and attached support aircraft but it is not going to happen.
Stick with F35C, tell BAE to just finish the bloody thing and we don’t care what shape deck it has, get the ship working and sail it to Virginia, and get Newport News to carry out the conversion. They will do it cheaper so we can ignore BAE’s staggeringly idiotic billion-plus price tag for changing the design. Then EMALS gets installed by the people who will be doing it for the Ford class, Americans are happy, we’re happy.
Bluenose, I read your figures for landing weights and I agree with you.
Wonder if we’ll get our money back for EMALS Set 1 since we’ve paid for it already.
F35B will get canned later this year. The USMC’s days of being its own private expeditionary force are rapidly running out.
I’ve had enough of F35 anyway. Buy Rafale.
Anyway, why are we all getting so upset? All you have to go on is the chuffing media leaking stories!! Reliable sources? Hah!!
The choice of AWACS platform doesn’t seem to have been discussed here, surely changing from C to B means we’ll definitely be stuck with the helicopters, giving us less choice etc.
All PATS @ 3.23
What is the build schedule for the F35?
When do the B’s come off the line and in what numbers?
When do the C’s come off the line and in what numbers?
Where would we fit in?
No, I’m not Sharkey Ward but this seems a ridiculous half-plan for something which will be in service for 50 to 60 year. ‘The Govt’ says argument is not exactly conclusive, is it? The Govt says lots of things and changes its mind (quod erat demonstrandum), this is a debate about what should be done:
- We have less money, yet this is a 30 p-40 year aircraft purchase and the B is more expensive
- The QE will be able to accept Bs when she is ready (timeframe not exactly clear) and when the aircraft is ready (also not exactly clear). What IOC does that give you? Pick a figure out of the ether.
-We have experience with Harrier, a very different aircraft, and some experience with USN exchange pilots. It may take longer for the SOPs but the B is not a Harrier and the operation will be different in any case. Is learning the lesson to operate the C not worth the investment of time over 60 years?
- Multinational operations are about more than the fighter I pointed this out; about AEW, ISTAR, UAVS; all are better serviced from a larger carrier.
- Italy and Spain looking healthy to you at present, procurement and sustainment-wise? No, me neither
- Australia may or may not buy Bs. You might as well add Japan to your list
- The ‘capability’ boost is that it is better than a Harrier, but it is far less good than its own C model which would also suit the RAF better at a Tornado replacement. Just because we’ve buggered through in the past does not mean it is a good idea.
Somewhat said “The USMC’s days of being its own private expeditionary force are rapidly running out.”
As one of our defence professionals on what do you base that opinion? What do you see that I don’t? I would say it is the US Army post-A-Stan that is struggling to find its way? Ditto USAF. Of course then there is Sol’s favourite devil SOCOM…..
If F35B can drop some bombs, provide an outer AD layer, and God forbid carry some form of anti-ship missile what more do we need? The days of deep strike by manned platforms is over. Forget the F35C………
@ APATS
Bluenose was the name of a famous yacht. Perhaps Bluenose is Yachts and Yachting’s defence correspondent. The alias is to high brow for Practical Boat Owner……
A ridiculous half plan for something that will be in service for 50 or 60 years, exactly! With 2 we can rotate and convert later if we need to. the F35B will still be useful and the c if purchased for the RAF later can be incorporated.
you know as well as I do that lifetime costs are of no interest to a body that has to stand for re election every 5 years.
The IOC for QE will be before that for POW and C and conventional carrier ops being learnt i will tell you that much.
We are not planning on buying E2 anyway so AEW will remain rotary or tilt wing.
UAVs yes, they are fab, the Canadians are operating one of a FF in the Med just now god forbid we could not manage on a 65K tonne Carrier without cats and traps.
Italy and Spain are not looking healthy just now but neither are we and you ant us to continue down the spend spend spend it will be ok in the end route.
I am sorry but whilst it is a debate and I have admitted that i would love to see 2 conventional carriers with f35C operating it is also a debate tinged with realistic financial and operational parameters. at least it is for me.
some weird things going on with the US Navy – apparently the F-35C is NOT replacing the SuperHornet, but deployed alongside it. The F/A 18 will be replaced by the F/A XX and an rfi has just gone out
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/04/super-hornet-jsf/#more-78458
http://defensetech.org/2012/04/16/the-navy-kicks-off-the-search-for-its-next-fighter/
Perhaps the best solution would be to get CATOBAR and F/A 18 and tag on to the new project.
Primary missions for the F/A XX will “include, but are not limited to, air warfare (AW), strike warfare (STW), surface warfare (SUW), and close air support (CAS).” This seems suspiciously like the mission set for the F-35.
@ Andyw
If we go down the F 35 C route then we need F18 EF along side it. The US navy is not going to develop an AAR capability for its $120 million dollar stealth aircraft when it has F18 to do the job. Estimates for us to develop this capability on our own are around 1.8 billion basically meaning we can buy a squadron of F18′s for the same price.
Also as far as I am aware we have not yet bought the EMLAS 1 system yet. If we have which given the current government I would not be suprised then we may as well go CATOBAR with F18 initally and purchase F35C in the 2020′s
One question not asked..is the F35C too heavy for QEC? If it’s too heavy for CdeG and given that the French Thales was the lead designer for QEC it may be that’s where the £2bn extra cost is i.e. welding a load of rsj’s under the flight deck. Pure speculation but it may be that the QEC design is simply not strong enough to land anything bigger than a Harrier, Rafale or F35B and not an F18 or F35C.
Waddi – do you work for the same company as Think Defence … i.e. RAF info ops?
Waddi, you would seriously hope not! The C is a beast though her max take off weight only very slightly lighter than an F14 was.
Nope, personally I would love to have seen two British CATOBAR strike carriers with Sea Typhoons and T45 escorts with ASM and land attack cruise missiles just like the Froggies have, hate to be second best. But have to be realistic as well would love an Aston Martin but can only afford and actually only need a mini.
@ Waddi
“Nope, personally I would love to have seen two British CATOBAR strike carriers with Sea Typhoons and T45 escorts with ASM and land attack cruise missiles just like the Froggies have”
A dream that nearly was. If only we could have found a few more quid down the back of that magic sofa in the MOD.
Martin @ 4.52
£ / € / $ – 1.8bill to sort out a AAR capability?
That is what is wrong with MOD cost control.
A ridiculous number is put forward and nobody blinks.
You could develop a whole new aircraft for that sort of money.
Spending other people’s money comes far too easy to some people.
He doesn’t mean a single plane bloke. He means a fleet of tankers.
As usual, you seem to be complaining about everything under the sun.
Looks like decision for B has been made. Let’s hope the QE is not called upon to generate sorties in high temp, low-wind conditions or in an adverse sea state, especially if the aircraft are expected to be armed or fly more than 100 nm, all things the B model can’t really do.
Still, good thing we didn’t waste any money building a CV capable of using a genuine multi-role aircraft or a future mixed manned / UCAV fleet. Learned nothing and forgotten nothing, once again.
X @ 1531Z,
This. The USMC has been boxed in on a few fronts (some salutary — the EFV program was becoming an almost FRES-worthy mess) but it’s managed greater threats to its rationale. The USN has gained two hugely important portfolios — BMD and the branch of the American deterrent least likely to see cuts — but will end up paying with at least two CVNs (one because the pre-Ford “holiday” down to ten will become permanent, the other because of budgetary pressures and the fact USN supply chains are scraped bare trying to provide air wings for the extant decks.) The Army and USAF really are in a fix, the latter most of all which is why their moments of sanity in trying to develop a more expeditionary model of logistics basing (to keep a jet-speed global taxi/lorry service running even if its not sexy) and the drive for a new bomber to project firepower over strategic distances (recognsing the other three services have been steadily eating more and more of their lunch on combined-arms use of smaller aircraft, A-10 aside, since the end of the Gulf War in ’91.) The Army, which to be fair is still very deeply bogged down in the Stan till late next year, seems just to be in denial. That won’t last; get past this next election cycle and there will be hard reckonings.
Andyw,
Last year I would indeed have said Dave B was for the chop. But now, if A does in fact go ahead (instead of “Phantomising” C back into USAF as we’ve seen advocated for the UK often round here) looks like the runt of the litter now, mostly due to continued USN distaste for the sheer ugliness of the JSF program’s development cycle. The Boeing offering is supposed to be “sixth generation” whatever that is, probably cleaning up the coding mess and improving overall rcs reduction. And there’s a long working relationship there thanks to SuperBug, a long USN/Boeing relationship that is, where their recent LM experience is chiefly delays and farragos.
A general remark,
If there is in fact one operational carrier at a time w the other in reserve for a national crisis (not one carrier heads for port, the other makes to get underway, but one working up and down at a time) some of this angst about uniform colour and will to serve at sea (I have genuine questions and concerns re the latter) can resolve itself. If you have 2×12 sdns of B on line, don’t piddle them out a bit at a time — build two sdns of wafus and all 24 work up and down with the carrier as carrier air wings ought. Then if need be you can split one to each QE on a big-crisis mission and flesh out each sqdn w extra bods and spare airframes as done thirty years ago this month. That’s your baseline carrier air sorted until the 2030s. And it concentrates carrier air where it should be 1) combined arms for sea control in fleet action (how long has that been? Did we fight the Third Shock Army outside Hanover? Was it foolish, if you mean to have a military, to be prepared?) And 2) combined arms to seize a lodgement on shore away from enemy defences and (in the age of flashmobbed civil resistance and IEDs) urban port facilities so the khaki folk can be delivered by LOTS to go do their work. Making the RN again into a weapon that can, practically, fire the “projectile” Britain-based Army would be a huge step forward in the surface fleet’s rationale. And as a navalist I’m all in favour.
Martin (or was it Mark),
There was money down the sofa. They just used it on a piss-up in the sandbox instead. In my Shoulawouldacoulda land I would have two CATOBAR carriers, each with 1×15 navalised Typhoon (Tempest?) Flown by FAA and 1×15 Dave C flown, like the lumbering light bombers they are, by RAF. Still room to get TLAM and ship-killers on the T45s. The trick is to not be as madly in love with their own frigate-navy youth as Their Lordships. In the three key oceanic choke regions the UK can actuall effect (Bab al Mandeb area, Arctic near the soon-to-emergre Svalbard-Finnmark passage, South Atlantic) would post a T45/Astute combo and have done with it, and TLAM on each for regional striking power. Yes that means you need Dubious and Doubtful to make up task force numbers. Frigates to guard task forces through ASW and NGS 3yes of course they need PDMS.) The light stuff, and not too much of it ’cause the UK cannot and should not be everywhere, to light sloops.
I can see three likely options on this (no partiuclar order of likelihood)
Option 1 “Son of Harrier”
JFH all over again with Dave B and its build rate. Plenty of acrimony for Her Majesty’s Treasury to divide and conquer.
Option 2 “JCA? What JCA? Ooh, Look… Shiny!”
45-50 B variant to rebuild FAA, more Tiffs for RAF as T1 replacement, lots of pretty distractions about regional bombers, UCAVs, satellite platforms, and magical unicorn sparkle ponies that drink from angels’ teats and piss rainbows.”
Option 3 “JCA is Dead, Long Live JCA, or, The Italian Job”
B for FAA, A for RAF, talk of going back to a buy of 135 over time, cats and dogs living together.
What I’ve got, anyway.
@FBOT
The £1.8bn to develop aerial refuelling capability for F-35C was put forwards by Sharkey Ward and most likely plucked out of his arse to suit his agenda (which is maximising Boeing’s profit)
If the option is one carrier or two, there is no option. Get on with STOBAR and sort out what we need / can afford long term. We are in the territory of “least worse option” let’s stop digging…
@jackstaff
The rfi also says “Also consider the ability of your concept to provide other capabilities currently provided by strike fighter aircraft, such as organic air-to-air refueling (AAR), Tactical Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition (RSTA), and airborne electronic attack (AEA).”
If the F/A XX can do all this, then what is the point of the F35C? Also they will probably have x47 on board by then. At this rate they’ll be bankrupt before any F35 gets in service.
re 6th generation – I think this is a 5th gen but with a tailless design and optional manned or unmanned flight.
That should be “sea control *and* fleet action” in my above, and C as the runt of the litter. Blackberries and their tiny keypads, I dunno….
And yes, on all fronts, if future governments see some sense and start investing in a pair of flat-top phibs and angled decks for the QEs ahead of MLU, *fabulous*. If not, the phrase from my editing days was “don’t get it right; get it written.” The, I think, very real efforts by the top bods in the current government to kill the whole carrier enterpise (chiefly to bag quick savings and shank Gordon the Toad) make that approach a real and necessary consideration.
Blue Nose, Nothing like being bitter. I will wait for the report but if it is a choice of 2 carriers with VSTOl F35 and getting that capability by 2020 or 1 carrier in 2025 with F35C and spending extra money we do not have well, I agree with 1SL. We will have 2 65k tonne hulls as I often like to point out the original T23 did not have a command system yet they will leave service with merlin, 2087, 997 and sea Ceptor making it one of if not the most capable multi mission Frigates in the world.
If the decision has been made then so be it and perhaps we can now concentrate on ensuring we it operational on time without more goal post changing. Of course unless like you, you already know the performance of an unbuilt carrier for an aircraft that has never been onboard or done any trials onboard.
How do the russians manage the Su33K with a max TOW of 33,000kg from Kusnetsov and as for the USMC well they are absolutely wasting their time with F35B from the 257M America class and no ski ramp.
@ Jackstaff
Not sure if you are agreeing or not or just continuing on another of mad points.
Even the US Army with Pax Americana, pre-positioning fleets, and arms dumps world wide still is dependent on the sea to deploy. The problem isn’t just getting there but getting your equipment into play.
I have said here at least once that the USAF actually proves the separate air service model is flawed in that it does nothing but support the US Army with a limited strategic role (hello Bx bombers!), has its main combat power residing in holes in the ground in the Mid-West (that don’t need pilots are more akin to artillery), and seems to be constantly on the search for new areas to exploit to justify its existence (space and cyberspace.) The other US armed services all have considerable air assets of their own which directly support their main missions. US Army helicopters move US Army soldiers about or provide fire support. US Navy aircraft defend the fleet and strike land targets. USMC aircraft defend the fleet, provide top cover for marines, and provide CAS. USCG aircraft support SAR, law and order, and protect the US sea margins. etc. etc. Air power used as a tool not as a reason to be…..
oooh did someone mention RAF Info Ops…..
Exlcusive to the Finanical Times of Yorkshire – transcrip of Air Chief Marshal’s speech is leaked.
Dateline: Tuesday 17th April, Hull, Peoples Republic Of East Yorkshire.
Today the FToY got it’s hands on a secret transcript of the the Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Douglas Vader’s speech to the Royal Society of Rocketry on the future of air power:
“We have to accept the future of air power is not going to look like Dan Dare ! Nor is it going to look like Terminator, however much we think we are rushing towards the ‘singularity’ there is as yet no chance of fitting an Artificial Intelligence (AI) to an unmanned combat aircraft. This provides us with a problem, as communications bandwidth is not infinite, and the enemy has a input to the equation, by jamming our comms and datalinks.
Therefore we are very pleased to announce the Cybernetic Ucav Pilot (CUP) programme. Through the advanced technology provided by the Tryell Corporation, we can now fit a human brain into in the BAe Taranis UCAV ! This is a world beating, revolutionary development. Luckily for the RAF, there was a group of young, single and unemployed RN Harrier pilots, who were happy to sign up to have their brains implanted into RAF aircraft, if it meant an additional unlimited number of years of flying.”
Sir Douglas was also said to have mentioned that he now did not care if Argentina purchased Russia’s best possible S300 based integrated air defence systems, as his new CUP enabled Taranis had the top secret “Red Eye” EW system.
However Sir Douglas was apparently challenged by ex-FAA fight pilot Capt. Nobby Clarke (RN, Retd.) who stated that even if a Taranis with it’s CUP did look like a Cylon Heavy Raider, it’s not actually space ship, and therefore would have a problem reaching Argentina if not flown from an RN carrier. Apparently Sir Douglas became highly agitated, demanding the Capt Clarke take an immediate blood test to prove that was in fact human….
Hi, x. “The days of deep strike by manned platforms is over. Forget the F35C”.
But the options for carrier borne deep strike from NG and Boeing involve cats’n'flaps. I would guess that the independent development of stealthy, automated, long-range STOVL aircraft capable of carrying a couple of thousand pounders would make the catapults look like small change. And the American possibilities have quite a head start on anything done this side of the water.
The F35C opens the door to other existing programmes, whether you want the C for deep strike or not.
The spec’s of V22 oddly match those of the Fairey Gannet. Go figure.
Info ops? … if moving Australia 600 miles west on a map in a staff paper worked in the 1960s to help kill CVA01 why wouldn’t the same techniques pay dividends again?
After all they had to hone their propaganda skills to a high pitch after WWII to explain away their carpet bombing war crimes.
The real cyborgs are the recent and current leadership of the Navy though … generally bamboozled by the superior intelligence of the light blue crew
Lewis Page said today that Stanhope ought to resign rather than support the RAF/BAE stitch-up:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/17/f35_carriers_plot_by_bae_and_raf/
Let’s hope he can pull something off …
andyw,
Thanks kindly for the update, that’s very useful. Definitely makes you go “hm.” Whether that “hm” is about Dave C or X-47B I’m not sure. I’m sure they want a Tomcat replacement in time: some of the Air-Sea wags have likely done the math that, if you mean to bollock A Redfor That Looks Suspiciously Like China with stand-off missile batteries, those need to be defended by a spectrum of capabilities against counter-saturation, including a “fighter” that actually is. But yes, I would bet on quite a bit of hedging wrt both JSF and X-47 going on.
x,
Oh, agreeing — just while perambulating as usual
But at least, at least, the Zoomers are making a semblance of effort to fulfill the “we cover the globe” business rather than chuffing along across your own continent, sweating like a Pioneer doing his multiplication tables, while topped up by tankers soon to be replaced by the Worst. PFI. Ever. No. Really. As for the rest, that was my point wrt combined arms: much more sense, unless you come up with a genuinely unique mission, for a substantial military (and even now the UK’s is substantial compared to most) to combine arms for best effect. Less’n you dispatch War Rocket Ajax to bring back his body, that means there’s actually less cause for a separate air arm than in a small military, where the fairly tiny number of fixed-wing airframes (plus a CSAR heli or two — really, or two) can be put in a singular air arm for efficient management. But efficient management and woolly bits of Douhet aren’t reasons to turn away from creating effective structures to win wars, even little ones. And Gates’ admonishment (it was, flat out, an admonishment) to the wild blue yonders a year or two ago is a sign even senior admin may have noticed.
Jed,
Is ACM Vader working on the new remote-sensory-muscle-control technology codenamed “FORCE CHOKE” ? (Scifi nerds always need a mashup ….) Are we going to be recruiting feisty blonde birds from the Pacific Northwest for the FAA then? Because, bloody hell, I might be on the next flight back and damn the age restriction….
Speaking of Yorkshire and money management, does that mean I get to do my bass-baritone version of “The Yorkshire Couple” at last orders?
x,
Ah, the Gannet, an ugly bird but reliable. (Mind out of the gutter….) Love to see if the deck on the QEs is long enough for some mad OAP from Eagle/Ark days to run one to takeoff from them.
Jed,
Ref: FAA blondes
Yes, yes, I know, you’re more interested in their Korean oppos — just means there’s more to go round
Jackstaff – you may want to sit down for this, but I work with a small asian girl who looks like Boomer, and fair haired girl who is actually called Kara !
Where do I sign for the Viper pilots course….
In real defence news – the UCAV versus manned is now moot for the USN – they have released plans to get a naval UCAV operating earlier than previously planned AND released and RFI for their next manned aircraft – the so called “generation 6″ F/A-XX
http://defensetech.org/2012/04/16/the-navy-kicks-off-the-search-for-its-next-fighter/
@Ichabod ‘generally bamboozled by the superior intelligence of the light blue crew’
Thanks for that, I was always to modest to say it myself.
Not being bitter, being depressed. The Russian Navy manage by flying their Su-33s with almost no weapons or fuel (and certainly not on actual operations). The USMC undertakes CAS with a support element the UK could only dream of (including, of course, Super Hornets from Nimitz class).
If you think I’m merely making up F-35 B model shortcomings then good for you, but please have a look at the weight, thrust, wing-loading, fuel fraction, payload and what this means for effective operations and bring-back if things are less than perfect.
So at some point – maybe before 2030 – the RN will have a small number of short range aircraft with limited payload and significant operational restrictions that have next to know no long term future capability evolution owing to inherent design limitations. And the carriers will never be able to host any other form of fixed wing aircraft, even after 2020 when UK finances are likely to be back on an even keel.
Bluenose,
An aircraft with a combat radius of 300+nm cannot fly more than 100nm? Would you care to explain that one to me?
While you are at it, would you kindly expand on your other comments, especially the one about adverse sea states. The received wisdom is that STOVL carriers can generally operate in higher sea states than CATOBAR carriers, and that is comparing a 20k tonne CVS to a 100k tonne CVN.
Ichabod, Please not Lewis page, I can almost stomach Sharkey due to his achievements but Lewis was a whinging MCD who never even qualified as a PWO.
x @ April 17, 11:26
We don’t choose to have military capabilities or not through the democratic system. We don’t live in a democracy, we live in a one party state; where the differences between the party’s factions can be boiled down to bickering about pasties.
There is no real choice. The only semblance of democracy we have is the right to vote in tv talent shows.
That’s some choice there; Lewis or Nigel.