Geen JSF voor de RN?

[jreijmer]

Volgens de grootste krant van Nederland ziet de Royal Navy misschien af van de JSF en schaft daarvoor in de plaats de Super Hornet aan (wel vet!).

http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/7309 ... buitenland" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Coati]

I don't think this is true, since the carriers the UK has on order are not designed to accommodate Super Hornets (No catapults etc). Maybe it was mentioned during one of the discussions, but it seems the normal "anonymous defence official" who is quoted and this makes me believe it is more about the never ending battle between FAA en RAF over budget and fixed wing a/c.

[Stratofreighter]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/ ... -cuts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chief among the list of victims is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which comes with a price tag of £70m per plane.
The MoD had planned to buy around 150 for service in both the RAF and the Navy but that number could be cut by half.

The Royal Navy's aircraft carrier programme is also vulnerable and could be reduced from two vessels to one.
The highly advanced but hugely costly Type 45 Destroyers, where the cost for just six ships has soared to £6bn, is also vulnerable.
Other projects which could be cancelled include the A400M transport aircraft, and elements of the RAF in-flight refuelling tanker fleet.

[Redskin]

the source is the televaag, hollands largest daily gossip paper

[Thermal]

I don't think this is true, since the carriers the UK has on order are not designed to accommodate Super Hornets

Exactly, journalists should first check their sources before they make stupid claims like this. UK carriers are not capable of launching Super Hornets. They are far too small and don't have catapults.

[Coati]

Well, they are not too small, they only lack a catapult, but the aircraft carriers are designed to be "future proof" and they can be modified with a catapult etc. to launch and recover conventional aircraft. However, this will cost some extra money of course and some extra time (and the ship deliveries are already delayed). Besides, I think the strike package on board will be smaller with Super Hornets due to their size (compared to F-35Bs).

So in theory it is possible, but at a price.

[BartMan]

The discussion whether or not to purchase the F-35B for the Royal Navy has been going on for a while now.
Some months ago Airforces Monthly had an article on the new carriers and the F-35B. I don't have that issue anymore, but it sure was a good discussion. One of the key arguments of the opposition of the F-35B was that it would cost much more than the Harrier, while it can carry less ordnance and has a smaller range.

[SquAdmin]

Instead of Super Hornets, the RN could also opt for the F-35C. This version is cheaper and able to carry more ammo.

[ehusmann]

The discussion whether or not to purchase the F-35B for the Royal Navy has been going on for a while now.
Some months ago Airforces Monthly had an article on the new carriers and the F-35B. I don't have that issue anymore, but it sure was a good discussion. One of the key arguments of the opposition of the F-35B was that it would cost much more than the Harrier, while it can carry less ordnance and has a smaller range.

Of course it is always nice to compare the F-35B to the Harrier, but what good does that do? Better or worse, the Harrier is no longer an option. They can probably stay in the air for a few years longer, but not very much longer. New build Harriers are not available either. So the opposition can argue the Harrier is better, but they will also need to come up with an alternative to the F-35B. The C version (as Squadmin mentions) might be an option, but then they will also need to adapt the carriers.
For the land based F-35 there are alternatives (as discussed to death in the other topic), for the carrier based version the options are very limited.

Erwin

[BartMan]

For the land based F-35 there are alternatives (as discussed to death in the other topic), for the carrier based version the options are very limited.

That was exactely the point the opposition of the F-35B was trying to make! The F-35B performs worse than the Harrier while it costs more and no real alternative is available. So the conclusion was to stop with carrier based aviation at all and spend the money on other assets.

[ehusmann]

Ok, right. Since I didn´t read the article, it wasn´t clear that that was what the opposition argued. Well, wonder what is coming out of it then....

Erwin

[Coati]

"The F-35B performs worse than the Harrier while it costs more and no real alternative is available."

Strange conclusion...a 5th Gen state of the art aircraft performs worse than an outdated, underpowered subsonic groundattack aircraft, with very limited A-A capablilities and which aircraft can be very easily beaten by an F-16 (but was a great match for F-5, Mirages etc).

However, carriers are notorious expensive and are only really effective when a large quantity of strike and CAP aircraft can be operated. But with a carrier you have the big advantage of flexibility and you don't need diplomatic clearance (and pay huge amounts of money to foreign governments) when you have conflicts to solve somewhere in the world. Since the British still have some possesions around the world, a carrier will be a valuable and maybe vital strike weapon.

[BartMan]

Strange conclusion...a 5th Gen state of the art aircraft performs worse than an outdated, underpowered subsonic groundattack aircraft, with very limited A-A capablilities and which aircraft can be very easily beaten by an F-16 (but was a great match for F-5, Mirages etc).

First of all: it are not my words, it was stated in the article in Airforces Monthly. And with performance I mean on the aspects of weapon-carriage ability and range. According to the article the F-35B was a more expensive version of the Harrier that could carry less weapons over less distance.

However, carriers are notorious expensive and are only really effective when a large quantity of strike and CAP aircraft can be operated. But with a carrier you have the big advantage of flexibility and you don't need diplomatic clearance (and pay huge amounts of money to foreign governments) when you have conflicts to solve somewhere in the world. Since the British still have some possesions around the world, a carrier will be a valuable and maybe vital strike weapon.

Agree. This was the main argument of the naval aviation party in the article. However the opposing party argued that in the latest conflicts there has always been a coalition partner somewhere near the area of conflict.
I think it is an interesting discussion, even for our own government. If, and I clearly say IF the Brits pull out of the F-35B program, this means again less aircraft in total and that will not be a positive thing for the price per aircraft.

[ehusmann]

Strange conclusion...a 5th Gen state of the art aircraft performs worse than an outdated, underpowered subsonic groundattack aircraft, with very limited A-A capablilities and which aircraft can be very easily beaten by an F-16 (but was a great match for F-5, Mirages etc).

Strange conclusion, so every 5th generation fighter is better than every 4th generation fighter? I totally agree that 5th generation fighters designed for a certain task should be performing better than 4th generation fighters designed for the same task, in general. However, that does not have to mean they perform better at every single comparison. In this case, apparantly, the F-35B does not carry as much over the same distance as the good ol' Harrier. That doesn't make the Harrier better, certainly not taking everything into account, but it can mean the F-35B is not up to the task.

Erwin

[Coati]

Strange conclusion, so every 5th generation fighter is better than every 4th generation fighter? I totally agree that 5th generation fighters designed for a certain task should be performing better than 4th generation fighters designed for the same task, in general. However, that does not have to mean they perform better at every single comparison. In this case, apparantly, the F-35B does not carry as much over the same distance as the good ol' Harrier. That doesn't make the Harrier better, certainly not taking everything into account, but it can mean the F-35B is not up to the task

Actually as far as I know the strike range with payload of a F-35B should be 499 NM, the strike range of an AV-8B should be 400 NM. I doubt if the comparison is a complete comparison between performance under operational combat circumstances. Since the F-35B design criteria are based on the development of a successor of the Harrier/AV-8B, the overall performance should indeed be better, otherwise the manufacturer has a big problem. Max payload should be 4990 kg for the F-35B, 4900 for the GR7 and 6000 for the AV-8B, So less payload for the F-35, but better strike range as far as I can find.

As of course a 3th or 4th Gen aircraft can outperform a 5th Gen at a specific point (payload or whatever) this is totally irrelevant, as a fighter will perform due to the aircraft overall performance combined with pilot skills, tactics and teamwork in a flight, augmented by mutual support of other assets (AWACS, FDO skills etc).