Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.

[Mobhack]

(rant follows)

We should simply have gone for the CTOL version of the carriers, with leased F-18s (or rafaeles!) with a view to replacing those with bought F-35s as and when (if?) they ever materialised, IMHO. Those conventional plane types are perfectly serviceable for the immediate future.

And of course the catapult equipped version would have operated hawkeyes. Probably the most important plane type to have at sea!. Stuff the fighter mafia - the AEW capability is priceless.

We should never have bought into the F-35 programme early-on, especially with the reluctance of the USA to release key code so we can integrate our own weapons etc. Let the US contractors fix the bugs first and carry the development costs.

As for the jump-jet version, and the Tories scrapping the harriers and the Invincibles well before there was a replacement to hand - the less said the better!

Too many politicians poking their fingers into the carrier and plane projects...

MOD - likely stands for "Made Of Dumbness"

cheers
Andy

[Suhiir]

What?
Politicians doing stupid stuff to get an extra couple votes?
You mean that happens in the UK too?

Yeah, I've never understood why the UK doesn't operate "real" carriers anymore.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This past Friday the SECNAV visited our base and talked about the issues that the USN was dealing with in benefits and pay, the Littoral Combat Ship program and what will be our newest SSBN building program that is estimated would run as high as a 1/3 of the USN budget. The concern is what happens after the FY 2016 Budget does sequestration come back? No one knows yet. Our three bases here seem safe with infrastructure projects to come but, how to pay for some of this? Well briefly look at Post #139 and I can say after having recorded tonight's program and watched it when I got home, they had an update of last months story on the F-35 and it's not good for the USN; they announced at the end of the week they will be cutting their order for the F-35C in half. I would think the USAF and USMC might in the coming weeks also see further reductions also. Well for the CORPS the AV-8B HARRIER was already slated to be around until 2025 and lord knows we have more than enough spare parts thanks to the UK. For the USAF well they made the F-22 better fleet wide in upgrading to the electronics suite carried on the F-35 as posted in this thread months ago. So there are some trade offs and there are the issues the Russians and Chinese are having with their advanced fighters as well. How it'll affect the game? Best case we open up some slots and that's never a bad thing now is it? Anyway I'll be watching it as I have from the start.

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

Kinda reminds me of the Carter years.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Been busy rebuilding my databases but to Suhiir, at the rate we're going now we'll look upon the Carter years fondly as "...the good ole days..." pre-WWII levels in manning and equipment doesn't bode well for the future. For the USA the GVC Program is dead again I see a BRADLEY A4 and A5 within 6-8 years maybe ten for both unless things turn around.
Anyway India not very happy with Russia at the moment and according to the respected Russian source quoted for the below article the PAK-FA/T-50 will not be operational until 2017/2018 time frame and if Russia pursues for their jet the more advanced radar India plans to have installed for their version (The FGFA) and other upgrades India is seeking; we might not have to worry about these jets being in the game at all. And since it's a fighter it won't break my heart at all if that happens in the Russian OOB. Anyway here's the read...
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2014/...eneration.html

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

As always they come home. To TDR and GUD thank you (And others over the last couple of years.) but this type of work really brings me great pleasure when equipment requests are made in the manner these have been-they break up my work nicely and at times help me refocus. These are in the game.

PM5. UNITED KINGDOM/ADD/FEB 1946 – JUN 1955/HORNET F.Mk.1/C1/SPD 472mph/4 HISPANO MK V 20mm Cannons w/190 RPG SAPI or HEI Rds/2 1000lb Bombs OR 8 RP-3 60lb Rockets/Optional Weapons Configuration 1 1000 lb or 2 500lb Bombs with 4 RP-3 60lb Rockets// The HORNET F.Mk.1 was a further improvement upon the famed MOSQUITO. These planes actually flew before the end of WWII but not in numbers to be assigned in combat squadrons. Shared by all versions they had a bullet proof laminated canopy, armored cockpit, nose section and gun panel section underneath. Aerodynamically the HORNET was superior to the MOSQUITO which along with the improved RR Merlin engines made this the fastest prop fighter. It to in combat in Malay; would prove to be as accurate or more so in getting weapons on the target for which the MOSQUITO was legendary in doing so during WWII. The HORNET F1.MK.1 would have “shorter legs” than it’s successors but was still superior as compared to the SPITFIRE, P-51 and early jets with or without drop tanks. Interestedly the F.Mk.1 would only end up operating out of the UK.

PM6. UNITED KINGDOM/ADD/FEB 1946 – JUN 1956/HORNET F.Mk.3/C1/SPD 472mph/4 HISPANO MK V 20mm Cannons w/190 RPG SAPI or HEI Rds/2 1000lb Bombs OR 8 RP-3 60lb Rockets/Optional Weapons Configuration 1 1000 lb or 2 500lb Bombs with 4 RP-3 60lb Rockets//
The HORNET F.Mk.3 would represent the pinnacle in design and performance of the type upon which all further types would be based. The range would be increased to 3000 mi. and maneuverability further improved upon with the introduction of a dorsal fin to the tail section. These planes would validate the type in combat (May 1951-May 1955) during the Malay Crisis of 1950 - 1960. These planes replaced the latest and last versions of the SPITFIRE and TEMPEST Squadrons already stationed there at the start of the conflict.

PM7. UNITED KINGDOM/ADD/FEB 1947 – FEB 1957/SEA HORNET F.Mk.20/C1/SPD 468mph/4 HISPANO MK V 20mm Cannons w/190 RPG SAPI or HEI Rds/2 1000lb Bombs OR 8 RP-3 60lb Rockets/Optional Weapons Configuration 1 1000 lb or 2 500lb Bombs with 4 RP-3 60lb Rockets//
The SEA HORNET F.Mk.20 actually was derived from the F.1 but would be improved to the F.3 modifications as that plane was coming to fruitarian. As the name would indicate this plane was built for the RN. The big differences from the RAF types was that it had folding wings, arresting equipment and wing modifications to slow the plane down for carrier landings. The speed decrease is due to the fact that the RN required the type to carry 3 cameras; in the case of the F.20 and NF.21 below, located 1 centerline and 2 angled side looking in the tail this added about 500lbs to the overall weight of the aircraft. However it’s interesting to note that except for the loss of some speed, these modifications had apparently little to no effect on the SEA HORNET overall performance. The first ref below has comments made by the military test pilot Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown that flew the SEA HORNET during the evaluation process. Captain Brown apparently still holds the record for flying the greatest number of different aircraft types.

PM8. UNITED KINGDOM/ADD/JAN 1949 – FEB 1957/SEA HORNET NF.Mk.21/C2/SPD 457mph/4 HISPANO MK V 20mm Cannons w/190 RPG SAPI or HEI Rds/2 1000lb Bombs OR 8 RP-3 60lb Rockets/Optional Weapons Configuration 1 1000 lb or 2 500lb Bombs with 4 RP-3 60lb Rockets//
The SEA HORNET NF.Mk.21 was modified to carry the ASH radar system. This version was considered an “all weather” fighter due to its status as a night fighter. Even though it had an elongated nose to house the radar and carried a radar operator; it seems from the refs and blogs I visited online, again the only issue this brought about was a further reduction in speed only as noted above for the SEA HORNET F.Mk.20. The radar operator faced aft with a small canopy “bubble” that could be ejected to allow the operator to parachute out of his “cockpit”. His was located about midway in the fuselage.
http://www.livingwarbirds.com/de-havilland-hornet.php
http://dhhornet50.net/
http://www.vicflintham.co.uk/post-wa...et/hornet.html
http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/...and_hornet.php
http://www.classicwarbirds.co.uk/bri...and-hornet.php
http://www.airpowerworld.info/other-...and-hornet.htm
http://britains-smallwars.com/malaya/reg.html#raf
Refer to the British OOB Thread by IMP for further info if desired in Posts 6 - 12 as brought to light by Gud. The last ref might be VERY useful for you designer types.

Just a part of my tidying up. Thank you again GUD and TDR and of course Don for getting ahead on this until I could get the data to him. Gotta go after all Jack is back and on now!

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well now for something different...an update on my favorite fighter...the vaunted F-35. These from DID...
1. The "Black Hole" becomes more infinite...
"It’s always commendable to act on front-line advice, and it can be very useful to reduce costs. The Pentagon is doing so for the F-35, and hoping to reach 10-20% savings, but most costs are set in the design stage. The F-35 is estimated to be 40-60% more expensive to operate and maintain than the aircraft it’s replacing."
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=122477

2. Leaking oil at this stage of development...
"The temporary grounding of the US’ entire F-35 fleet because of an oil leak is a minor glitch, in the larger scheme of things, but it is also a warning regarding the consequences of a tri-service, single-engine future fighter fleet. Most planes have already been cleared external link to resume flight operations."
http://www.brecorder.com/world/north...hter-jets.html

3. Those golden memories from about three to four years ago; ah those were the days my friend (Sounds like a song!?! )...
Remember what I told you about and posted from AUSA concerning the T-50/PAK-FA, F-35 and F-22? Well that well respected think tank on aviation, missile and space issues ranked the F-35 as the worst of the three. For you F-35 supports you might not want to read this next and further ask yourselves why the DOD has/is upgrading the whole fleet of F-22 fighters with a new advanced electronics suite based on the F-35 one.
http://theaviationist.com/2014/02/04...f-22-acc-says/
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article...older-aircraft
The good general should go back a few years and reread those selling points that this was going to be the main frontline fighter. Just saying.

Regards,
Pat


Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

Ahh the joys of adopting a new aircraft.
Maybe we should send the naysayers a historical list of the F-4's teething problems. Nawww, why upset their "how things should be" view of the world with trivial things like reality.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The Congress has been putting on the heat on certain weapons systems over the last couple of years. Notably telling the Army you will like your ABRAMS and will make it better and you'll keep the tank plant open as well. Now there's been blowback from Congress (Also over the last couple of years.) on the Air Forces attempt to retire the A-10 THUNDERBOLT II. It might be retired down the road, however, not by the timeline the Air Force thinks. This started with strong support of the combat veterans and groups, parental groups supporting their sons and daughters and the troops and Congress themselves protecting jobs in their districts and the troops serving in combat. Even the Army and Marines have expressed reservations concerning the A-10s' retirement as was projected. So from DID and as brought to you by the DOD I offer the following a week after General Hostages comments from last week as posted above by me then as well.

Who Posted This?
Has the House of Representatives taken over the Pentagon’s official Youtube channel? You might think so looking at the description of the video below: “After much debate, the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II is not yet going to be retired.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wdPtzm7w1w

Also...
http://azstarnet.com/business/local/...a15f71fa2.html

Fly on old mighty WARBIRD!! It is after all the biggest election cycle for Congressional and Senate seats this Fall!!

I have an upgrade in the can that Don and I discussed in here about three years ago. I just had to support it now, I (And shortly after...) can.

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

Yeah the Air Force didn't really want the A-10 to start with and has been trying to get rind of it forever.

I recall after Gulf I they pointed out how many A-10s were damaged/shot down as "proof" the aircraft was useless and obsolete, while of course neglecting to mention the number of sorties flown or the amount of confirmed damage done.