Royal Navy

[Bruv119]

I was under the impression that the US will just do everything for us so why bother paying for it   

[MachFly]

I was under the impression that the US will just do everything for us so why bother paying for it  

You have a point
 

[RTHolmes]

Right, so now home come they are getting F-35C (not B)? It will require larger ships which I believe the Navy does not have.

the new QE class carriers are pretty big and can be reconfigured for CATOBAR (not sure if this is a happy coincedence or cunning planning.) we were originally buying F35Bs because ... we're very used to operating STOVL is the only reason I can think of. means we can save money by using F35Cs, plus other NATO aircraft can now operate from them too.


btw the GR9 was not really a replacement for sea harriers as its a bomb truck, not a fighter.

[MachFly]

the new QE class carriers are pretty big and can be reconfigured for CATOBAR (not sure if this is a happy coincedence or cunning planning.) we were originally buying F35Bs because ... we're very used to operating STOVL is the only reason I can think of. means we can save money by using F35Cs, plus other NATO aircraft can now operate from them too.


btw the GR9 was not really a replacement for sea harriers as its a bomb truck, not a fighter.

Makes sense.

[MachFly]

Now that it's clear that the Harrier is indeed retired and there is no other fighter, I do not understand why would you want to retire a plane (even if it's old) if there is nothing to replace it? It's not like fighters are not needed.
(I doubt FAA is seriously thinking that US will do the job for them, lol)

[Wobbly]

Is been retired as part of cost cutting to get the NAtional Debt down, which has gone from about £40billion to £170billion. "They" reckon the Tornado can cover what we need and that the only foriegn soil that might be at risk, The Falklands, can be covered by other means (I think thay have some old Spitfires based there  )

[Bruv119]

(I think thay have some old Spitfires based there  )

thank god for that.   Should be SAFE as houses.   

[MachFly]

Is been retired as part of cost cutting to get the NAtional Debt down, which has gone from about £40billion to £170billion. "They" reckon the Tornado can cover what we need and that the only foriegn soil that might be at risk, The Falklands, can be covered by other means (I think thay have some old Spitfires based there  )

cc


At least we know Spitfire can out turn every modern fighter. 

[RTHolmes]

Now that it's clear that the Harrier is indeed retired and there is no other fighter, I do not understand why would you want to retire a plane (even if it's old) if there is nothing to replace it? It's not like fighters are not needed.

retired because the airframes were all old and shot. the choices were (in ascending order of capability/cost):

 order a new batch of basically obsolete aircraft just for the 6-8yrs until the F35 turned up,
 develop a less obsolete version of the harrier and be stuck with it for another 20yrs, or
 accept there will be a 6-8 years gap in capability and wait for the F35 to replace it.

given that a fleet defence scenario which couldnt be handled by missile destroyers is very unlikely, and that we already spend more than anyone except US and China, so dont really have any more cash to throw at mil budget, #3 was the best option.

[AKH]

Which is, of course, based on the assumption that we won't need that capability during that period.

Aircraft carriers were deemed surplus to requirements because the RAF could fulfil all the air tasking allotted to the FAA.  We saw just how sound that concept was in the Falklands.  Nothing leads me to believe that recent and current governments are any better in terms of the application of 'common sense' to defence policy.

[RTHolmes]

more a balance of probabilities than an assumption. put it this way - we've been pretty busy since the falklands, but have there been any situations where we needed FAA fighters and didnt have them?

[AKH]

As the saying goes: "I'd rather have them and not need them than need them and not have them."

Coincidentally,  that is exactly what would have happened in the Falklands if the defence review had it's way - no fixed wing aircraft for the FAA.

[Babalonian]

I'm not saying it can't fly, I'm saying it's performance did not meat the requirements therefore it is still in development.


Just out of curiosity, where did you see it fly?

LM has been flying it around Landcaster/Palmdale (das skunk-works) for a while now, either out of their plant or Edwards itself.  They usually have one or two at Edwards for the air shows in the past few years too, but just to display - it's not ready to show-off yet and likely still for a while to come.

[Rob52240]

As far as my avionics comment, I was referring only to the export models.

[MachFly]

cc

Still can't believe FAA decided to go 8 years without a fighter