serge750 wrote:Is there not a Anti-radar missile for the A already which would be good to have on the first day of conflict, I understand the A model also can have a probe refueling system aswell?
Ron5 wrote:RAF types are fainting all over Whitehall at the very thought.
By the way, F-35A's cannot be refueled by RAF's rented tankers.
RichardIC wrote:Ron5 wrote:RAF types are fainting all over Whitehall at the very thought.
By the way, F-35A's cannot be refueled by RAF's rented tankers.
I know this sounds perverse but that's just the way my mind works. But if there were ever to be a split buy it would almost make more sense for the RAF to get a squadron of Charlies.... Hang on, hear me out.
That way you instantly solve the refuelling issue. And you get the big wing with more fuel and added range for strike. The penalty is you have to haul around a tailhook and landing gear that's spent too much time in the gym. And it costs a bit more, but hopefully the difference will reduce.
I suspect most senior commanders in the RAF would love to abort Tempest ASAP as they know it will never happen but the longer it drags on the more resources it will eat up.
As a bonus an F-35C buy means the RAF could also deploy on a USN carrier if need arose! I'll get my coat.
SW1 wrote:Singapore to acquire up to 12 F35b for $2.75b dollars
https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/s ... l-aircraft
Ron5 wrote:RichardIC wrote:Ron5 wrote:RAF types are fainting all over Whitehall at the very thought.
By the way, F-35A's cannot be refueled by RAF's rented tankers.
I know this sounds perverse but that's just the way my mind works. But if there were ever to be a split buy it would almost make more sense for the RAF to get a squadron of Charlies.... Hang on, hear me out.
That way you instantly solve the refuelling issue. And you get the big wing with more fuel and added range for strike. The penalty is you have to haul around a tailhook and landing gear that's spent too much time in the gym. And it costs a bit more, but hopefully the difference will reduce.
I suspect most senior commanders in the RAF would love to abort Tempest ASAP as they know it will never happen but the longer it drags on the more resources it will eat up.
As a bonus an F-35C buy means the RAF could also deploy on a USN carrier if need arose! I'll get my coat.
Of the 3 variants, Charlie (I like the name, I will try to remember to call it that from now on), has the lowest RCS and can carry the most bombs, the furthest distance at the lowest stealthiness!!
I often wondered who exactly was behind the Cameron decision to switch CVF horses from Dave to Charlie, I suppose most assume it was the Admirals. Myself, I've always thought it was the RAF. They would be more than happy if the carriers got too expensive to either buy or run and were therefore binned leaving them (the RAF) with some lovely pub-based, oops sorry, land-based TSR3's. Luckily the Admirals were smarter than your average RAF man (not hard) and "encouraged" Bae to inflate the cost of switching to cat & traps to the point that even thicko Cameron got the message. Who U turned backed to Dave's.
Hey, it's my theory and I'm sticking with it. With a thumbs up to @Richard.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:If the cost was not in Singies, that would make 8 and a half bn in our money for 48, so £600 mln would be going twrds 'bespokeness' and 'extras @base' in our case
- it has been mentioned that a lot has been invested into giving them (ours) a cosy home, but have not seen a figure for it
Lord Jim wrote:Seems like they are having the same issues we had with LITS back in the day.
topman wrote:Lord Jim wrote:Seems like they are having the same issues we had with LITS back in the day.
It also combined T/H/Tyamp and MJDI plus LITS, all brand new software on a brand new a/c.
What could possibly go wrong?
I note though it's still going to be used on board boats and Ops but not at your normal unit. That'll be fun...
Users browsing this forum: Repulse and 8 guests