Well it seems the Royal Navy might not be stupid after all. It appears that they are considering cancelling their order for the F-35 JSF and instead ordering the F-18F Silent Hornet.

The Harriers are apparently "shagged" which basically means the airframes are in a bad state. The purchase of the F-18 stands to save atleast £3bn depending on if they order the same number of aircraft or order less.

It's no tomcat but it's the closest we are gonna get.




vs




really I wish we could have

i wish we would too... they say the cf18's are crap, but they've served us well for this long... and it's not like we're going to need a new fleet of fighters, unless the ruskies decide to keep encroaching on canadian airspace.

Quote from bunder9999 :

i wish we would too... they say the cf18's are crap, but they've served us well for this long... and it's not like we're going to need a new fleet of fighters, unless the ruskies decide to keep encroaching on canadian airspace.

apparently the RAF said they would give up the Tornados for the F-35 (twats) Buy those

Yeeehah

And who exactly do you want to kill with these ?

Just checking incase we're ( NZ ) the next up for one of the west's holy wars.

Cuz we'll need some warning to fuel up the Fletchers ( http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/fu24.html ) and get our SAS back from your current wars.

oh yeah btw apparently it was in the sunday times page 2 right hand side

and don't worry as long as our flag is the main part of yours we are happy

Sad to see all the Harriers finally go, but progress must be made.

Only thing is buying Hornets would surely mean all our current aircraft carriers will have to be scrapped and our planned ones enlarged or redesigned, so overall will it work out cheaper than the JSF?

The RAF/Fleet Air Arm has a history of cancelling projects in favour of a poorer substitue, such as when they replaced the TSR2 with the Phantom and Buccaneer.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Yeeehah

And who exactly do you want to kill with these ?

Just checking incase we're ( NZ ) the next up for one of the west's holy wars.

They are for self defence of the homeland! Of course the most effective way of defending Britain is by policing the desert half a world away.

THE ABOVE TEXT CONTAINS IRONY

Ha - Looks like it's Aussi up next then ......

No deserts here

Yes, luckily after Vietnam everyone had enough of fighting in rainforests.

Britain has already messed up some Aussie desert with atom bombs anyway.

apparently all the new ones need is the steam catapults and arresting gear and they are good to go.


o0 and found the article

ironic really that for less than what the cost of silent hornets they could have produced a marinised version of the EF2000 and if the decision had been taken early enough all the salt resistent materials could have been designed into all varients of the EF2000 from the start which would have left the RAF and the RN with a standardised fighter

having said that, in the mid 90's the RAF were offered a nice deal on secondhand low milage F15Cs at a price which would have meant a squadron for the eventual price of 1 EF2000

the JSF is a classic case of what happens when you design an airframe to be adaptable to differing specifications for such different requirements that there has to be a large amount of over specification of the base airframe in any varient and at the same time a large amount of derrivative specific components, all of which end up costing as much (if not more) than if two entirely seperate machines had been designed.

the US should have known better after the idea of a single cheap(er) fighter plane resulted in the USAF adopting one proposal that became the F16 and the US navy adopted the other which became the F18 and they were fairly similar in their requirements, far closer than the need for a V/STOl and a conventional jet in the same airframe

Quote from tinvek :

ironic really that for less than what the cost of silent hornets they could have produced a marinised version of the EF2000 and if the decision had been taken early enough all the salt resistent materials could have been designed into all varients of the EF2000 from the start which would have left the RAF and the RN with a standardised fighter

having said that, in the mid 90's the RAF were offered a nice deal on secondhand low milage F15Cs at a price which would have meant a squadron for the eventual price of 1 EF2000

the JSF is a classic case of what happens when you design an airframe to be adaptable to differing specifications for such different requirements that there has to be a large amount of over specification of the base airframe in any varient and at the same time a large amount of derrivative specific components, all of which end up costing as much (if not more) than if two entirely seperate machines had been designed.

the US should have known better after the idea of a single cheap(er) fighter plane resulted in the USAF adopting one proposal that became the F16 and the US navy adopted the other which became the F18 and they were fairly similar in their requirements, far closer than the need for a V/STOl and a conventional jet in the same airframe

Agreed. As an Engineer from Grumman once said, very differing and diametrically opposed requirements require different and highly specialized airframes to suit.

When will they ever learn that the laws of physics cannot be cheated?

wish my son still did karate, the grandfather of one of his mates there was a lead project engineer on the F14, be nice to see what he made of it

FYI, the F-14 is more an interceptor, not really a (dog)fighter like most of the others (F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-22).

Anyone else think the F35 is a an fat ugly son of a bitch?

Quote from piggy501 :

Anyone else think the F35 is a an fat ugly son of a bitch?

yes.

bring back the spitfire!!

Quote from dadge :

bring back the spitfire!!

+1

Wouldn't care if a Messerschmitt (obv. wouldn't be a Spitfire) got shot down in my back garden, it'd look so good up in the sky.

Modern Jets are dull. But I must say its funny watching drivers crap themselves then almost crash when they do low fly-bys

Quote from piggy501 :

But I must say its funny watching drivers crap themselves then almost crash when they do low fly-bys

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDoEtb7s9gY

Rest in peace Jaguar.

Wars are shit, but they do create some fantastic machinery, and some horrible too.

Quote from 5haz :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDoEtb7s9gY

Rest in peace Jaguar.

Wars are shit, but they do create some fantastic machinery, and some horrible too.

JIMP

Okay, Jets like the Jaguar have an exception. They come before the technically advanced era where these planes can practically fly themselves and the pilot is there 'just in case.'

Its easy to see why fighting aircraft fly themselves these days, because the amount of work a pilot/navigatior has to do instead has grown, back at the beginning of WW2 it was a case of pointing your sight at the enemy and pressing the red button or putting the correct height and speed parameters into a simple bombsight, of course you had to have gunnery skills are the aircraft were often unforgiving to fly. Now pilots have to know how to operate an endless amount of computer weapons systems and checklists all under intense pressure, the total workload hasn't decreased and may have even increased, its just shifted from flying the aircraft to operating the avionics and weapons systems. Anyone who has played simulators such as LOMAC on full difficulty settings knows this is true.

I'm not detracting from the skill of past military pilots, overall the aircraft and its systems have definately become easier to operate, weapons have become fire and forget and HUD displays can show a pilot where to lay their guns to score a hit before their very eyes. But the number of systems have grown so much. An Early spitfire had eight Brownings and one button, a modern fighter bomber could have infra red, radar, TV or laser guided missiles of close medium or far range, canon, guided or dumb bombs of all shapes and sizes, all of which have different characteristics and all may have completely different ways to operate them, a large range of which will have to be mastered by the pilot of such an aircraft.

tl;dr?

Quote from Forbin :

FYI, the F-14 is more an interceptor, not really a (dog)fighter like most of the others (F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-22).

yeah i know that, just meant it would be interesting to hear his take on the whole F35 scenario, pity they never green lighted the "bombcat" version of the tomcat, could have kept the F14 in service a lot longer.

thankfully with the amount of computer controlled slats, flaps etc available today the military have moved away from swing wings for fighters, nothing like seeing a planes wings swing into a forward position to give the game away that he's getting short of manuvering energy.

of course for low level high speed penetration they still have a lot going for them with good low speed lift when swept forward and a high wingloading when swept back giving a smooth, stable ride at low level

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezCnWEuVSf8


Personally, being a huge aviation enthusiast, and a son of a marine, my whole life I've been pretty much in love with the FA/18. So I think it's a great choice. And the US navy is replacing their EA-6B prowlers with EA-18s, which makes it alot easier maintenance-wise.

Quote from tinvek :

yeah i know that, just meant it would be interesting to hear his take on the whole F35 scenario, pity they never green lighted the "bombcat" version of the tomcat, could have kept the F14 in service a lot longer.

thankfully with the amount of computer controlled slats, flaps etc available today the military have moved away from swing wings for fighters, nothing like seeing a planes wings swing into a forward position to give the game away that he's getting short of manuvering energy.

of course for low level high speed penetration they still have a lot going for them with good low speed lift when swept forward and a high wingloading when swept back giving a smooth, stable ride at low level

yeah but remember there is always a counter to the swing wings argument. It also gives the aircraft a lower stall speed and a higher top speed. Spread the wings when you want to go slow then retract them when you want to turn and burn.

oh and the Tomcat was safe if one wing got stuck retracted and the other was at least partially spread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... mJP4E&feature=related

now this is ****ing awsome must have been a right sight if you were there

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... Ozfmk&feature=related

Would be better buying the Eurofighter than the F-18... Better range, Speed and Tech...

i was sad when they killed off the F-14, Has always been my favourite plane.. Seen loads flying when on holidays nr TOPGUN in USA back in th day... Was even in the bar in the film n played th piano lol...

Made some bloody noise with 2 o these engines going flat out... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcFWP_TvNjM

I'm lucky I'm not responsible for buying airplanes. Either you buy a 30 year old proven machine or some vaporware with unknown production date and a price that you know is a lie.
Luckily the vintage models has lots of room to fit lots of modern electronics (since the old electronics was huge)