1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Does the UK realy need LM F-35?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Katanga, Jan 18, 2017.

  1. El Pew

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Sep 1, 2009

    Posts: 1,053

    No they didn't. They produced a proposal, which is not the same as a design. A proposal which included outline capabilities and restrictions which made it clear that it was pointless to continue with a design process, because - for the reasons I've already outlined - the aircraft would be deeply flawed. An actual design would have been allocated some initial funding by the government, and produced by BAE following this initial investment. Designing aircraft costs millions and you don't do it without some idea of funding or another commitment

    And on the MiG-29K (an aircraft over 30 years old by this point) the Indians chose it over the Eurofighter for the same reasons - it was clear from the initial proposal that the whole idea of conversion was flawed.
     
  2. ubersonic

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 26, 2009

    Posts: 20,575

    They created a design for their UK bid and even built a full scale model of it for their Indian bid to demonstrate the modifications to the base Eurofighter design.

    Like I said, BAE knew what they were doing with the design.

    Tell that to the MiG-1.44, SU-47, YF-23 and.... oh yeah the Harrier Jump Jet! >.>

    First test flight in 1988 and introduced in 2010 (the long delay caused by Russia going bankrupt in the interim, the design was intensively improved post 2000).

    So, they thought that BAE's design for a navalised Typhoon was flawed because you can't navalise a land based plane without ruining it, and instead they opted for a navalised versions of the new MiG-29M land fighter? O.o
     
  3. El Pew

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Sep 1, 2009

    Posts: 1,053

    No, it was a proposal in response to a request for proposals. If you don't understand the difference between this and a design then I don't know what to tell you.

    Are you dense? The MiG-1.44 was produced by a design bureau that was, at the time, owned and funded by the Soviet Union. The Su-47 designs and prototypes were designed and produced after the Russian government funded the initial concept. The YF-23 design and prototype was paid for by the US government. The initial Harrier designs (and the Kestrel before it) were funded by the British government.

    Nobody has designed a naval Eurofighter because nobody has funded that design, because the initial proposals were so unsatisfactory. How are you not getting this.

    The MiG-29 first flew in the late 1970s, not 1988. I don't know the exact details of why the Indians picked the -29K, but I can think of a few reasons - the Russians were already procuring them, so the expensive design process required for a navalised Eurofighter had already been completed for the MiG (paid for by the Russians); the Indians are using an ancient refurbed Russian carrier, which better suits Russian designs; the MiG was cheaper than the Eurofighter, or Putin gave them a steal of a deal; maybe they really wanted the F-35 but it was too expensive; maybe other geopolitical factors.
     
  4. ubersonic

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 26, 2009

    Posts: 20,575

    Lol, they didn't just turn round and say "hey guys, we could like, make our Typhoon work off ships maybe, let us know if your interested and we'll take a look at it k?", they looked into it, determined it was feasible, worked out what needed to be changed from the existing design and produced a modified design for a navalised variant. They even produced a 3D printed model of the design for India so the changes between the original and navalised design could be visually observed by the prospective buyers.

    You are correct there, I forgot that MiG and Sukhoi were nationalised in those days.

    Nope, the YF-23 and YF-22 were funded by their respective manufacturers, they were designs that competed to become the USA's 5th gen fighter. The YF-22 won and became the F-22 (at which point the USA ordered loads and thats where the money came from, it wasn't paid in advance).

    Nope, Hawker recieved no funding from the UK government to design/build the prototypes (though the Bristol Engine Company did get a grant from NATO for engine development).

    BAE have, sadly neither the UK nor Indian governments chose to order any :(

    The MiG-29K is the naval variant of the MiG-29M not the MiG-29 (which had no naval variant as the navalised Su-27 had that role). The names are similar but the MiG-29M was a revised design that first flew in 1988 then (after the collapse of the USSR and the resulting Russian bankruptcy) recived further revisions before entering production in 2009. A simple way to think of it is that the MiG-29 and MiG-29M have a similar relationship to the F/A-18 Hornet (1978) and F/A-18E Super Hornet (1995).

    The Russians weren't producing them they had merely designed them, India was actually MiG's first customer for the new design ordering/recieving them before Russia.

    The Vikrant-class aircraft carrier is a brand new STOBAR carrier built from scratch by India (and in many ways superior to our new QE class). The one you are thinking off is the INS Vikramaditya, a STOBAR carrier which was built on the base of a 1980's Kiev class STOVL aircraft cruiser.

    Well the MiG/Su/SAAB options were cheaper than the Rafale but that was selected as the new land based fighter /shrug.

    IIRC the planes were ordered in 2009 and delivery commenced in 2010, this was when Dmitry Medvedev's was Russia's president (before the return of the Vlad-i).
     
  5. El Pew

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Sep 1, 2009

    Posts: 1,053

    No, that's not how it works. The USAF pays for the initial designs and prototypes of the aircraft that go into their selection processes. Northrop did not build the YF-23 prototype off their own back, they did so after receiving a contract - the USAF paid both Lockheed and Northrop $691million each for the design and 2 prototypes. Lockheed then won the competition and received a production contract which resulted in the F-22.

    The days of aircraft manufacturers designing and attempting to sell an aircraft purely on their own initiative ended in the 1930s.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2017
  6. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 9,680

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    I forgot to post up but I had the awesome experience of being under the flight path of the F35s when they arrived in the uk, well practically, i was just off to the side, amd had a lovely fly past for a few minutes as they came over in 2s and 3s
    I should have run to grab a camera, but i was so stunned I didnt think till I had watched them go over.

    One thing that got me was the noise, Im guessing height at 400-600feet but thats not with any skill so could be loads out, but they are were sooooooo noisy. I know jets aren't particularly effective at slow speed and these were dam slow but I live near a lot of US air traffic, in fact its daily late afternoon, and I haven't heard anything even approaching this noise level.
     
  7. Roar87

    Soldato

    Joined: May 10, 2012

    Posts: 5,543

    Location: Leeds

    It's alright having stealth, but if the enemy can just hear them coming...
     
  8. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 9,680

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    Well yes but ;)

    As they were coming in they were almost on me before I could hear them, so not really any diff to a normal jet. And i suspect they were going 10 times slower than they would be in a combat situation.

    Not seen them since, but as I am rarely at home at the time they tend to do the main fly ins of the smaller planes thats no surprise. I mainly just get to suffer the larger ones which tend to be 9-10pm
     
  9. h4rm0ny

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 25, 2011

    Posts: 5,475

    Location: Yorkshire and proud of it!

    This isn't fully on-topic, but overlaps and will likely be of interest to the same people participating in this thread.

    https://rusi.org/publication/occasi...k-responding-risks-identified-us-third-offset

    Royal United Services Institute just dropped a very critical report on UK defence. It must be a very insightful report because it says what I think! ;) But hey, opinions!

    Anyway, it states rather baldly that our new air craft carrier can be sunk for a small fraction of the cost to us of building it. Explicitly it states that a carrier costs over £3bn and can be disabled by a salvo of missiles costing $5m.

    It references other examples of cost asymmetries such as using missiles that cost $70,000 fired from an aircraft that costs $30,000 an hour to fly, to destroy a pick-up truck that optimistically might cost $10,000.

    We seem to be pricing ourselves out of military effectiveness.
     
  10. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 64,270

    Yet another reason that makes the decision to cut Type 45 numbers utterly insane - given they can track like 100s potential even 1000+ objects even missile sized ones and destroy them from range - a couple of them in fleet with the carrier would give great protection from such threats leaving surface craft (which we do have fairly effective subs to deal with them to be fair) as the other threat we aren't as prepared for as we could be - though less of an issue with a proper compliment of aircraft.

    We don't have the numbers game on our side in this country even assuming a higher level of enthusiasm for military service for any option but smaller and more focused but more expense military options.
     
  11. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 21,512

    Well thats hardly news, i'm sure if someone was prepared enough, they could get someone to do it for free... ol' spanner in the engine.

    Also no doubt the likes of blackwater are edging to get action that states usually deal with, after all PMC's were used heavily in Iraq for "less important" assets, like protecting Iraqi ministers.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2017
  12. Alex_6n2

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 24, 2007

    Posts: 2,660

    Location: Bristol

    5th Generation stealth aircraft purpose built for Naval operations with some of the most advanced weapon systems in the world, or a 4th gen aircraft sent through a chop shop to make it work on an aircraft carrier?

    I know which one is more appealing..

    Then you look at how much work and new technology has been created throughout the UK, not just in the supply chain to date but going forward in Norfolk (Marham/Lakenheath) too. The arguments in favour of the UK acquiring the F35 are pretty strong in my opinion. Both from a combat effectiveness stand point and from an economic view.
     
  13. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 21,512

    Economic? Wouldnt it have been nicer to just make our own craft? Surely that'd beat the economic argument easily and help keep engineers up to spec in the country, instead we end up paying for the massive industry in the US to continue to destroy ours as usual.

    France did it with the Rafale. We're just making it harder and harder to do things ourselves.
     
  14. Alex_6n2

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 24, 2007

    Posts: 2,660

    Location: Bristol

    Most of your post is inaccurate and I'm not sure what your sources are. Have you been drinking the negative press coolade?

    The Programme has not cost a Trillion dollars to date. It will be ~$1.5T by 2070, which includes operations. Development cost is circa $400B across all three aircraft. Let's not forget this is the cost of THREE airframes. Not one. It might be the most expensive single acquisition defence programme in history. But it also the largest.

    The F35-B has declared IOC for two US based customers, so it is in fact operational. Same story with the F35-A, but this isn't applicable to the thread because the UK isn't (Currently) buying any.

    At a recent Red Flag the F35 ran up a 20-1 kill ratio, flying in limited numbers with restricted weapons. Most other weapon systems couldn't get close enough to shoot them down and if a full up squadron was in the air it would have been even worse for the other participants. The F35 has the biggest no escape zone of any aircraft ever and this is only growing as weapon manufactures refine their development (e.g. MBDA Meteor + SPEAR)

    UK RAF F35-B's arrive at RAF Marham in July 2018 (on target), with land based IOC touted for December 2018 (17 aircraft). The aircraft carriers won't declare IOC until 2020, whilst full QE Carrier Strike operation won't be until 2023! By which time the UK will have ~42 aircraft across 2 squadrons and an OCU! The boats are the hold up, not the aircraft.

    You reckon the RAF will just sit on these assets whilst they wait for the boats to be ready? No, they won't. Same story with the Merlin MK2's for CROWSNEST.

    More costs might be incurred to develop the F35, but this will be for further development of aircraft capability (e.g. increase allowable weapon payload beyond original spec). Once these things are flying around in larger numbers and running the full weapon compliment people will begin to understand the air superiority available.

    Not your fault though, the press absolutely love a bad news story and the F35 has been clubbed since it's inception. It has most certainly had its problems, but the end product is not ineffective.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2017
  15. Alex_6n2

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 24, 2007

    Posts: 2,660

    Location: Bristol

    We don't have the economy or the budget to support an indigenous 5th gen fighter aircraft development programme. A large amount of the F35 has been designed and developed in the UK, so we have benefitted from it massively without the UK Government having to foot the bill like the USA.
     
  16. ubersonic

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 26, 2009

    Posts: 20,575

    We actually had the option of using the Eurofighter naval variant that was designed, however Labour chose to go with the F-35B to save money on the carriers. The Tories then considered switching to the F-35C (the actual carrier variant) and upgrading the carrier(s) to carry them, which would also have enabled Rafales to use our carrier(s) as well as US F-35Cs.

    Typical UK government, cheap out on the carriers, use less capable planes, then pray you don't actually have to engage in any carrier based warfare. Hopefully this time it won't backfire as spectacularly as last.
     
  17. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 21,512

    Perhaps, but government expenditure should be self rewarding, why do we use the likes of Raytheon for cruise missiles or French weapons teams for things we can and should do ourselves?

    Sure the outlay is high, but we would end up with something worthwhile to market, instead we just take the easy option where we aren't responsible for anything and companies can't fail, because there aren't any in the first place. This isn't about the F35 really, it is a more broad failure to care about our infrastructure as a country and seeing little value out of British products that aren't the product of a dead animal or fermenting booze.
     
  18. Alex_6n2

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 24, 2007

    Posts: 2,660

    Location: Bristol

    That's fair, we could and should do more in the UK. But don't underestimate how much we do at present for an enormous programme like the JSF. We are responsible for plenty.

    MBDA in Bristol/Stevenage is doing the weapons for the RAF F35-B's. The LiftSystem is Rolls-Royce UK and utilises UK Intellectual property. The list is pretty big for UK Based companies, even though some of the parent companies are USA llcs

    [​IMG]

    BAE are doing all of the infrastructure at Marham too. Which is massive!
     
  19. mattcrane

    Hitman

    Joined: Jul 29, 2014

    Posts: 578

    Location: Truro, Cornwall, UK

    Would need it as when I served there it was a right dive.......
     
  20. lunarwolf

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 27, 2006

    Posts: 3,092

    Location: Dark Forest

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...g-hundreds-millions-hidden-costs-new-fighter/

    costs keep rising. bit ridiculous to spend so much on US planes to blow up cheap second hand pick up trucks in the desert. in fact, the munitions costs much more than those trucks.

    guess it's better value for money to engage in pointless and endless wars than providing affordable education to taxpayers :rolleyes:

    in the very unlikely case of a real war with a modern army, it would be unsustainable to field such expensive hardware because war is about attrition and not a couple of battles won.

    there is such a thing as stop loss in economics. at this point eat the loss and produce a navalized typhoon. this also makes sense for spare parts and maintenance. (BTW spare parts for the F35 is another major issue which will be a major problem until Lockheed actually fulfil existing orders across the globe). even if the pure air performance would slightly suffer compared to the land version it would be more than capable, and a big leap compared to Jaguar and Harrier jets. furthermore, it's not like the f35 and f22 excel at dogfighting anyway. if we are going to spend all this money on military it may as well be on UK industry, and keep this industry and know how alive and viable for the future, instead of being dependent on foreign built planes in generations to come because there is no native industry left to fulfil future demands.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2017