[Closed] On an aircraft carrier..

The original SA80 was another classic British cock up, one of the most accurate assault rifles but jammed everywhere it went, useless in the desert, until the Belgians fixed the design fault for us.

And, unlike most other bullpup rifles which can adjusted by the user, can only be fired right-handed.

😐

Rich_s - Member

"If the Navy wanted a cat, it would buy a dog and modify it."

Discuss

Almost forgot, loading stores into an Astute is like "coming home with your shopping and taking it into the house via the upstairs back window"

Gunz - Member
Seadog has it ( but 'on board' is two words if I'm being pedantic).

To be pedantically pedantic, Admirals and their staff are 'embarked' on the flagship.

The Navy (or rather the DE&S branch of the MOD) are their own worst enemy.

Worth noting that a lot of the more senior positions in the DE&S are held by the Armed Forces, including the RN!

Oh I'm well aware of that - "by the Navy for the Navy" that is the worst thing about it.

I've read numerous conflicting reports as to why the QE and PoW don't have cats and traps. Apparently BAe got rather upset about the carriers being equipped thusly and decided that we might buy F-18s or Rafales instead of F-35s (the latter in part built by BAe), so they fudged the whole project to ensure that fitment of EMALS cats proved prohibitively expensive.

The other issue that no one seems to have considered is that we won't now be buying any carrier based airborne early warning aircraft as the go to default option (Grumman Hawkeye) requires cats and traps. If we go down the route of bolting an existing radar set to the side of a helicopter, then size constraints will mean that our carriers will be much less capable of projecting air power at long range and F-35s operating away from the carrier battle group won't have the advantage of AWACS cover.

Still, at least we can put the money saved into a battle group of missile armed surface ships to screen our carriers from attack, eh?

If we go down the route of bolting an existing radar set to the side of a helicopter, then size constraints will mean that our carriers will be much less capable of projecting air power at long range and F-35s operating away from the carrier battle group won't have the advantage of AWACS cover.

That will be the option taken, doubt its even an 'if' as the baggies have been doing that job for ages. OTOH, unless we're operating independantly or can't get an E-3 near there will likely be other options available.

Are we also allowed to talk about our world-class SSKs that we sold off?

Not sure why you couldnt bolt an early warning radar to a v-22....

Not sure why you couldnt bolt an early warning radar to a v-22..

because it's even a worse airplane than the F35

[url= https://medium.com/war-is-boring/your-periodic-reminder-that-the-v-22-is-a-piece-of-junk-db72a8a23ccf ]War Is Boring[/url]

Although it would seem actual pilots are stating the opposite Zokes eg - see link.

It's slower than most other frontline fighters. It's probably visible to new Russian and Chinese radar, and it's not that manouverable. I don't think that any of these points are contested

The power aspect won't be fixed as there's not room for a second engine. The visibility bit can't be fixed because new radars can be developed much faster than new planes. And the can't fight bit probably won't be fixed because it's just not that manouverable. None of these things are being particularly contested. The fix for all but the stealthy bit is easy: make it an F22.

And according to the bloke who in recent times has downed more enemy fighters than most in the RNAS/RAF, yes, the harrier was a supreme dogfighter. Small, agile, could pretty much stop on the spot, and had a remarkably small radar and heat signature. No, it's probably not up to it by modern standards, but it used to knock spots off elite F15s in training, and apparently they're still ok.

Zokes, you're criticising the F-35 for being too slow while at the same time singing the praises of the subsonic Harrier.

Some of the criticisms of the F-35 seem to be based on the perspective of comparing them point-to-point with a current gen fighter's capabilities. If (and it's a big if, let's be clear here) it lives up to the claims made by its proponents then doing that misses the point. It intends to add so many new capabilities that it will have already stacked the decks before it enters into a traditional engagement.

As an analogy, compare a landline to a smartphone. Compared to a landline, smartphones are crap and slow at making calls. You have to unlock the screen, find the phone app and faff around with touchscreen keys. With a landline you just pick up the receiver, press the buttons and you're done. Plus the call quality is usually better.

So are smartphones a retrograde step from landlines? Only if you compare them only against the limited capabilities of a landline. If you want to make a call when you're not at home, or if you want to browse STW, or play Angry Birds, the smartphone is the only one that can do these things.

It's a massive big defence project so in the end there's a good chance that all the sensor fusion, networking, control, etc improvements in an F-35 won't live up to the hype, but if enough of them do pan out as hoped, then it will be able to operate in ways just not available to other fighters.

Well that link is contesting the fact that many see it as less manuverable than than an F-16. It has good energy retention characteristics, can pull more AoA than all but an F-22 or a Flanker, has off boresight capabiluty which makes that a moot point anyway.

The fact is that its going to be harder to hit with actively guided missiles, harder to track unless you have a networked air defence system (which will be the first target of cruise missiles). The power issue can be improved - of course you can develop uprated engines and they are - but its a strike fighter not a Flanker killer.

Then there is avionics, which will help deal with the biggest killer of pilots in a battlefield where a ything within 100 miles can kill you - situational/battlefield awareness.

Again, Harriers knocking the spots off F-15s during training is usually down to lopsided rules of engagement for aggressor training. See Skyhawks doing the same thing etc etc.

Think of it this way, given the same fangled new Chinese/Russian/Whatever radar - the aircraft with the highest RCS is still going to get smoked first in a BVR fight unless you can push the detection and targetting range well beyond your opponents missile range.

TBF Tom, that link is to the "offical blog of the Norwegian F35 program", hardly an unbiased viewpoint.

Also, as I understand it we're not building enough carriers to effectively run them with cats and traps. For that you need 3 if you want one always available - one available, one in refit and one being used for training. It's apparently much easier to train up pilots for STOVL flying from a carrier than it is to train them for cat and trap operations, so for STOVL operations only 2 carriers are needed.

Someone needs to tell the , 1 carrier, French that (not that the CdG is much of a success either)

Zokes, you're criticising the F-35 for being too slow while at the same time singing the praises of the subsonic Harrier.

Nope, not really. The beauty of posts is you can choose to read to the end of them, which is where I admit the Harrier is probably past it. However, it did rinse the F15 in exercise missions on the basis of its manouverability: something the F35 lacks

As an analogy, compare a landline to a smartphone. Compared to a landline, smartphones are crap and slow at making calls. You have to unlock the screen, find the phone app and faff around with touchscreen keys. With a landline you just pick up the receiver, press the buttons and you're done. Plus the call quality is usually better.

Yeh. But to use your analogy, while you figure out how to unlock your F35 and find its missiles app, the MiG has already killed you.

However, it did rinse the F15 in exercise missions on the basis of its manouverability: something the F35 lacks

The Harrier has a high wing loading & has never been bestowed with great agility.

zokes - Still not a customer
Nope, not really. The beauty of posts is you can choose to read to the end of them, which is where I admit the Harrier is probably past it. However, it did rinse the F15 in exercise missions on the basis of its manouverability: something the F35 lacks

Fair enough, I had mis-attributed to you some of the less qualified Harrier love on the previous page, and that with your "OK, it's past it, but it's still great!" attitude made me assume you had a less nuanced view of the Harrier than you might. 🙂

As others have said, any exercise has rules and when two aircraft are pitted against each other those rules may favour one against the other. During the development of the F-15, it could only fight the lighter and cheaper F-5 to a draw in some exercises. But as these were WVR dogfight tests they didn't account for the F-15's advantages in radar and its larger and longer ranged armaments.

I expect that it would be simple to set up an exercise that lets the F-35 play to its strengths and in such an exercise it would do very well indeed. Just as it would fare less well in a WVR dogfight exercise. However the significant question is which scenario best reflects reality?

Yeh. But to use your analogy, while you figure out how to unlock your F35 and find its missiles app, the MiG has already killed you.

Actually, one of the big improvements apparently made for the F-35 is that it's very easy to fly. This frees up time for things like situational awareness. Along with all the improved sensors this hopefully allows its pilots to keep away from messy and unpredictable situations like dogfights.

The Harrier has a high wing loading & has never been bestowed with great agility.

Yep, that's what the Argentinians thought too in actual open war. It's also what the F15 pilots thought in exercises. Both were somewhat surprised.

I should point out that I'm talking about the SHAR here for the purposes of AtA proficiency, not the GR marks.

I should also point out that thanks to its vectorable thrust, the usual rules about wing loading we're somewhat modified. The thing could fly backwards if you really wanted it to. Certainly being able to rapidly decelerate in a stable way won it a number of its kills in combat.

Actually, one of the big improvements apparently made for the F-35 is that it's very easy to fly. This frees up time for things like situational awareness.

That being the case, then it's a real plus in a war where you need more than just your absolute elite on the front line. But, it'll never be as good as a more difficult but more powerful/manoeuvreble plane in the right hands.

And as for the rules in the simulation fights, for the most part I though (though I could be wrong), that the trials were for the benefit of the US forces, and were staged in America. That being the case, I would have thought that the rules would be stacked against the Harrier.

If were talking about an actual fight with guns then yes vectored thrust might help - although its still shit - its a total myth that the harrier did well because it could suddenly stop - this was used to its advantage on very few occasions. You suddenly apply the brakes at the wrong moment and a decent opponent is just going to go into the vertical and come back down on you.

What matters in a gun fight is energy retention - a lost and dying art in air combat that few pilots actually get - let alone punters on the net.

Aggressor training isnt soley for the benefit of Americans feeling good about themselves - dissimilar air combat training is used to put pilots at a disadvantage so they can develop techniques to alleviate potential defficiencies versus their adversaries.

Could someone explain what "cats and traps" mean in this context please? (I'm assuming it's not because they have mice.)

Catapults and arrestor gear. Requires lots of room on the ship to fit all the gear on and under the deck. You also need to strengthen said deck as your landings have just been turned into controlled crashes.

Previously steam catapults, but ours would've been new electric ones...... so you can guess how well that would've gone!

What matters in a gun fight is energy retention - a lost and dying art in air combat that few pilots actually get

now I know you're talking pish, this is lesson one on day one for any baby fighter pilot 😆

Sorry should've explained Cats n traps but legends right. Steam catapult is proven tech, the septics are trying out electromagnetic catapults but you have horrendous current requirements (not so much a problem on their nuclear powered carriers. I'm not convinced about it as the rail gun project (similar idea) suffering horrendous issues of wear and tear so will require big metallurgy advances.

Current Russian and Chinese doctrine is to develop AWAC and Tanker killer long range missiles. This puts the whole F-35 sensor fusion thing in trouble as your big active radar gets splashed early on and then they have to start radiating, giving away positions. The F-35 doesn't have good over water range compared to the old Tomcat and the new Chinese jets. Coupled with that the Russians are developing IR missiles and sighting and the F-35 hasn't got much thermal damping unlike the F-117.

The other thing was the USAF want to use it to replace the A-10 in ground support,(until Congress sensibly kyboshed that). They are now looking at developing a new cheap to fly and maintain a-10 replacement.

Total waste of money to use expensive jets to bomb brown people who open eggs differently to us. Drones and cheaper A-10 equivalents. Use the F-35 for SAM sites or heavily defended stuff. Though tbh a stealthed tomahawk would be a better bet.

Nock - I mean pilots in general 😛

Ita dying though because each decade there are fewer and fewer fast jet pilots.

Ita dying though because each decade there are fewer and fewer fast jet pilots.

aye, fair point.

zokes - Still not a customer

Actually, one of the big improvements apparently made for the F-35 is that it's very easy to fly. This frees up time for things like situational awareness.

That being the case, then it's a real plus in a war where you need more than just your absolute elite on the front line. But, it'll never be as good as a more difficult but more powerful/manoeuvreble plane in the right hands.

It's as useful for expert pilots as it is for anyone. By freeing up time from the mechanical tasks involved in flying a plane, a pilot gets more time to asses the situation, co-ordinate with allies, plan ahead and and ensure that they engage the enemy in the manner most advantageous to them. On strike missions I bet it's really nice not having to spend all your time just trying not to crash into the ground.

A more powerful/manoeuvrable plane can still be at a disadvantage if they don't even know that they've been engaged, or if its pilot is spending much more time controlling the plane, or interpreting the display of its less advanced radar or whatever.

I think critics of the F-35 should focus on whether the expanded capabilities of 5th generation fighters are going to be as useful as they are claimed to be. Ignoring them entirely and concentrating on a Top Trumps like comparison against the capabilities of existing aircraft is silly and may in retrospect be analogous to the way that biplane proponents criticised monoplane fighters for their lack of manoeuvrability - while monoplanes were indeed less manoeuvrable, their additional capabilities made it irrelevant.

Ming the Merciless above is making the sort of criticisms that seem valid in my opinion. Though the whole A-10 thing is another massive can of worms that I know can explode into a huge debate of its own...

QEC was designed as an all electric ship with no steam plant for cats and traps - the ship design was complete and in construction before the politicians / senior brass decided it was a good idea to change plans after delaying the build for years to "save money". Electro-magnetic launch was evaluated for nearly a year before before being rejected for a whole host of reasons like putting lots of heavy stuff on top of a ship not designed to take it. Half the problem with the Navy ships is due to customer meddling in the design or specification without understanding the cost and time impacts, not actually having the money in the first place or unrealistic delivery expectations. Wait until they start fitting the new power and propulsion in the destroyers.....

You've also got to remember that they always want the latest kit. The problem there is that the latest kit when you start these projects is quite different to the latest kit available when they're nearing completion. So if something of particular interest appears mid-build then there's an inevitable delay + cost increase to accommodate it.

The problem with that argument ming is that we're already developing new counters to IR missiles eg DIRCM - so even if those pesky Ruskies do hit our AWACs theyre still going to have to try to paint the F35 with radar.

Everythings got a counter 😀 except lasers....sharks with lasers is where were going.

Oh, goes off to google/to look at DIRCM.....missed this!

Just a big flashy torch that you point at the missile's eye to blind it (give or take)

Home on jam at that point.......

Am enjoying this discussion, hopefully we'll never see how well or badly all this paraphenalia performs.

Rail guns too - chucking a big lump of metal 100miles...

By freeing up time from the mechanical tasks involved in flying a plane, a pilot gets more time to asses the situation

Catapults and arrestor gear.

Ah, thank you. I thought it might be relating to the launch system but had no idea really. Ta.

I have a fascination with flying things but little knowledge so this thread is great reading.

Interesting thread...

...But Zokes is coming across as the love child of Sharkey Ward and Lewis Page!

Seems they're already working on integrating DIRCM into the F-35 fuselage, not just bolting it onto some pods taking up valuable hardpoints.....

http://aviationweek.com/defense/northrop-develops-laser-missile-jammer-f-35

That's some Star Wars type stuff, right there...

...But Zokes is coming across as the love child of Sharkey Ward and Lewis Page!

Guilty as charged (at least for Sharkey) 😆

However, on a topic that none of us have any first hand experience, it's as good an "appeal to authority" as any other

BigEaredBiker - Member
...But Zokes is coming across as the love child of Sharkey Ward and Lewis Page!

That was an actual LOL comment - bravo!

Lewis Page's Register articles were interesting but after a while his tendency to turn every defence story into an excuse to bash BAE Systems and the RAF got a bit boring.

Yeah Lewis Page reminds me of the kind of bloke you hear at the back of a pub nursing a pint of Newcastle Brown...mumbling drunken outbursts of "Harriers....Thatchahhhrr what a woman....Falklands.....the SLR was an elephant gun.....back in my day we didn't have Kevlar....." etc etc 😀

The Sharkey comment was quite funny...

Its best we never have to use these carriers. Chock full of design flaws. Surprised they dont sink upon launching.