Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: MachFly on March 20, 2011, 11:00:34 PM
-
I'm trying to find out which aircraft does the Royal Navy use these days? I did some research and it seems that all versions of the Harrier (besides that ones that US uses) are retired, so what do they use?
Most sources I find online do not seem to be reliable.
Thanks
-
from what I found it seems that they have sort of moved on from fighter jets and are now more of a helicopter force, retaining the fixed wing A/c for drills and training+ recon
-
Yes, although the Helicopter always was a huge part of the FAA in recent years it has become the only part. I grew up on RNAS Heron in Yeovilton and remember the Harrier well if not fondly as the constant VTOLs were louder than hell. It was retired at the end of last year during the Strategic Defence and Security Review.
http://www.bfbs.com/news/afghanistan/sdsr-2010-british-forces-news-special-40353.html
Now it's all Augusta Westland stuff, built locally to Heron in Yeovil. The fighter stuff is now left to the RAF
-
I believe they're going to be operating the F-23 from their carriers.
-
did the YF-23 not get canceled? and was it even capable of taking of from a ship?
-
The F-35 maybe?
-
choppers, F-35's VTOL version are in order to replace the harriers. I don't believe the royal navy has an active carrier now does it? The Ark Royal was decommissioned last year so it seems the RN only has small helicopter tenders active atm.
-
So the Royal Navy does not have any fighters?? :headscratch:
This just does not make sense, any fighter is better than none...............
..........for example............
(http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/080713-F-5422F-183.jpg)
-
I believe they're going to be operating the F-23 from their carriers.
What's an F-23?
Perhaps you mean YF-23? That plane did not pass the prototype stage, and even if it would have US does not sell stealth aircraft.
-
Sorry the F-35 Lightning 2
There is a vstol design for the marine corps.
Here's one taking off vertically on full afterburner, whoops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLUBLzVgbXQ
-
So the Royal Navy does not have any fighters?? :headscratch:
This just does not make sense, any fighter is better than none...............
that is the way it seems unfortunatly, for what it is used for though the lynx is a very capable helicopter
..........for example............
(http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/080713-F-5422F-183.jpg)
-
Sorry the F-35 Lightning 2
There is a vstol design for the marine corps.
Here's one taking off vertically on full afterburner, whoops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLUBLzVgbXQ
That did not pass the prototype stage either, I know brits are planing to buy it but it wont be ready any time soon.
-
no navy fighters since the sea harrier was retired in 2006, we were supposed to get F35s in 2012. looks closer to 2018 now :rolleyes:
-
looks closer to 2018 now :rolleyes:
Yeah :(
Can't say i'm surprised though, take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kssZua8MVc&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kssZua8MVc&feature=related)
-
So what's the point of retiring the Harrier of there is nothing to replace it? It's not like they don't need a fighter.
-
Wikipedia says that the F-35 project was placed on probation for 2 years in january 2010 due to cost.
I want to say that I've read somewhere that there were issues with Japanese and English variants not getting good enough avionics in the ones they wanted to order.
-
Wikipedia says that the F-35 project was placed on probation for 2 years in january 2010 due to cost.
I want to say that I've read somewhere that there were issues with Japanese and English variants not getting good enough avionics in the ones they wanted to order.
DoD wants better performance from the F-35, it also ended up being 3 times more expensive than planned. DoD gave Lockheed 2 years to make it better and cheaper (which I don't see happening).
Take a look at the 2 links in my previous post.
I want to say that I've read somewhere that there were issues with Japanese and English variants not getting good enough avionics in the ones they wanted to order.
As far as I know avionics is one thing they got right in the F-35.
-
the issue was that lockheed refused to let us have the source code, which effectively turns the deal into a lease rather than a purchase (or co-development project in fact). now resolved I believe, so we can fix things ourself if required. we've had similar issues with the upgraded chinooks. we are getting the F-35C btw, not the B any more.
Ive always wondered what the deal is with Trident source code, if the US has its own control code in the Tridents we lease it doesnt really make it an independent deterrent. we have other delivery options for nooks but its the Trident ICBM that makes it a real MAD deterrent. :headscratch:
-
we are getting the F-35C btw, not the B any more.
How come?
-
greater range and payload means we need fewer for the same effectiveness (since air warfare these days is all about moving mud, not fighter supremacy). simpler, cheaper propulsion systems too. all adds up to 25% less cost for the same capability, including the catobar mods to the QE carriers :aok
-
Poms want these :D
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1368/898107107_aae9354099.jpg)
-
greater range and payload means we need fewer for the same effectiveness (since air warfare these days is all about moving mud, not fighter supremacy). simpler, cheaper propulsion systems too. all adds up to 25% less cost for the same capability, including the catobar mods to the QE carriers :aok
Why did FAA originally order a V/STOL aircraft (Harrier)? I their priority was to have fighters use minimum space for T/O, therefore not requiring larger carriers. How will they manage with a non-V/STOL aircraft now without getting larger ships?
-
Poms want these :D
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1368/898107107_aae9354099.jpg)
Really?
That's French, not saying that it's bad but since when do Brits buy French planes?
-
choppers, F-35's VTOL version are in order to replace the harriers. I don't believe the royal navy has an active carrier now does it? The Ark Royal was decommissioned last year so it seems the RN only has small helicopter tenders active atm.
Someone tell Germany. You know what they say about third time :rofl
-
no navy fighters since the sea harrier was retired in 2006, we were supposed to get F35s in 2012. looks closer to 2018 now :rolleyes:
The Harrier itself was not retired until 2010.
In 2004 The Sea Harrier was retired and replaced by the Harrier GR9 and the squadrons of the FAA were re-designated to the Naval Strike Wing.
-
Why did FAA originally order a V/STOL aircraft (Harrier)? I their priority was to have fighters use minimum space for T/O, therefore not requiring larger carriers. How will they manage with a non-V/STOL aircraft now without getting larger ships?
Because the government decided that the navy didn't need aircraft carriers. This led to the use of the 'through-deck cruiser' which was incapable of launching and recovering any fixed wing aircraft other than VTOL and then STOVL when the 'ski-jump' was added.
-
That did not pass the prototype stage either, I know brits are planing to buy it but it wont be ready any time soon.
I was watching the vtol version flying around last week.
-
I was watching the vtol version flying around last week.
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?
-
Because the government decided that the navy didn't need aircraft carriers. This led to the use of the 'through-deck cruiser' which was incapable of launching and recovering any fixed wing aircraft other than VTOL and then STOVL when the 'ski-jump' was added.
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.
-
What Navy...
-
I was under the impression that the US will just do everything for us so why bother paying for it :t
-
I was under the impression that the US will just do everything for us so why bother paying for it :t
You have a point
:rofl
-
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. :aok
btw the GR9 was not really a replacement for sea harriers as its a bomb truck, not a fighter.
-
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. :aok
btw the GR9 was not really a replacement for sea harriers as its a bomb truck, not a fighter.
Makes sense.
-
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)
-
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 :lol)
-
(I think thay have some old Spitfires based there :lol)
thank god for that. Should be SAFE as houses. :aok
-
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 :lol)
cc
At least we know Spitfire can out turn every modern fighter. :lol
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
As far as my avionics comment, I was referring only to the export models.
-
cc
Still can't believe FAA decided to go 8 years without a fighter