RAF to get Tranche 3 Typhoon. Is this the death of CVF/JCA?

Discussion in 'The Fleet Air Arm' started by off_les_aura, May 14, 2009.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Just read on Defence Intranet that Brooooon has said the Crabs will get Tranche 3 Typhoon after all. With limited cash in the coffers, do the Crabs really need two types of Ground Attack aircraft, and if we don't need JCA, where does that leave CVF?
  2. As the 'Phoon is likely to be the only serious fast jet the Air Force gets for the next 50 years, they will probably need every one of them to last that long. Besides, why pay penalty payments to receive no aircraft?

    Also note that we are no longer to refer to CVF; it's QUEEN ELIZABETH and PRINCE OF WALES. Ask the IPT.
  3. Re: RAF to get Tranche 3 Typhoon. Is this the death of CVF/J

    Just being pedantic but we dont have IPT's it is now just PT's :lol: :lol:
  4. I think you might have misunderstood me Loggie. I can see that the Crabs need as many aircraft as possible, but it doesn't make any sense to operate two types of aircraft i.e Typhoon and JCA, in the same Multi-Combat role. Think of the cost of supporting both aircraft types - flying training, engineering training, support, tooling, ASSE, spares, E&AM Systems etc would be different for each type. And as you rightly say, we are already contractually obliged to buy more Typhoon. SO, if they don't need JCA, you've got to ask yourself what's the point in having a Carrier if there are are no aircraft to put on it? It has already been proven that Sea Typhoon is unfeasable due to the structural fatigue on the airframe caused by deck operations, so navalising Tranche 3 is a non-starter.

    It's like 1966 all over again (and I don't mean England winning the World Cup). Looks like the Crabs are about to put the wool over the Governments' eyes.
  5. Re: RAF to get Tranche 3 Typhoon. Is this the death of CVF/J

    At least they've finally admitted that they were never integrated haha!
  6. Re: RAF to get Tranche 3 Typhoon. Is this the death of CVF/J

    Oh yes!!! :lol:

    Bit like Cu Mer TSC :p
  7. Got a mate on the Typhoon IPT and they are talking about ruggadised undercarriage's for shorter take off and landing!

    Remember where you heard it first!!!!

    Joint Force Typhooon! Oh no not again?
  8. Re: RAF to get Tranche 3 Typhoon. Is this the death of CVF/J

    Ouch that hurt :wink: You meant Mer PT, surely?
  9. Re: RAF to get Tranche 3 Typhoon. Is this the death of CVF/J

    cant keep up with name changes getting old. Lost to many brains in
    :lol: 1 Bravo
  10. Isn't the reason something like Typhoon has better air to air capability than the F35, which is more of a mud mover with more limited A2A capability? Something like that, anyway. The Air defence of the fleet is in the main the job of theT45's, not carrier aircraft - ships defend the fleet while the F35's bugger orf and blow sh!t up on the land.
  11. The scary thing though we will only get 6 T45's to defend the fleet. If the F35 isn't an A2A fighter what is it's point really. I would hate to depend on a couple of T45's for a whole fleet.

    On a previous thread we saw the amount of subs being built over the world. sink the T45's who defends the fleet.?? :roll:
  12. The Typhoon will certainly be a more capable air superiority fighter than the F-35 in most respects, notably altitude, supercruise, weapons and endurance. Equally, the F-35 has greater potential as an ISR asset and the advantage of Low Observability (although this latter point is arguably overstated by many).

    I disagree. Naval forces require layered defences. Fighters are far more flexible than SAMs in most circumstances and would ordinarily form the outer layer of AAW defence with SAM generally inside that. Equally, SAMs have some advantages over aircraft such as the ability to dominate greater areas for far less effort. Swings and roundabouts.

  13. MM, I note with interest that you sing the praises of Typhoon and have dodged the main subject of this thread - are you a politician? :) Admit it - the RAF do not want F-35 and this ultimately puts the Carrier in jeopardy.
  14. Air Chief Marshall Jock Stirrup in disguise????????
  15. Well the carrier steel has been ordered and they will get built, and when they are built, they will get F35 or something at least, because the government would look to stupid politically, both to the home voters and to other states, to have two 60000 ton carriers with no aircraft. At the end of the day, they'll find the money from somewhere, they always do. That's what'll happen, no matter how cynical you are about these things.
  16. Ola,

    I haven’t dodged anything ola. I responded to a query regarding Typhoon. You may also note that my post supports the need for organic AD. A glance through my posts on this and other forums will confirm I am a strong proponent of retaining an organic naval aviation capability. My only reservations regarding CVF are that the RN has prostituted itself on getting CVF above all else at the expense of a more balanced fleet; I increasingly worry if that is worth it.

    However, let me be quite blunt. The continual RN whingeing paranoia regarding a global Crustacean conspiracy to kill off CVF is seen as a complete joke by many in my Service.

    F-35B is being procured as much for the RAF as it is for the RN. If you think that my Service wants to kill it off, may I suggest you go and read FAS. Alternatively, go and visit AWC or some of the locations such as Tyndal and Edwards where the RAF have people and facilities established to maintain the UK voice in the Project. The RN have been singularly less willing to pay for the establishment of such posts and facilities. Likewise, I've heard several RN flag officers state 'we don't care who flies F-35, as long as we get the carriers!' If F-35 is binned, the RAF will lose sqns which means fewer flying posts, fewer command slots and less people. So exactly why would we wish to kill F-35?

    Before people raise CVA01, the 1960s and apocryphal stories about Gan/Australia/Diego Garcia being moved, let us remember that Mountbatten as CDS also managed to kill off TSR2 and numerous other RAF projects. Likewise, even he acknowledged that the cost of Polaris was a greater factor in the demise of the RN.

    In short, get over your paranoia!

  17. I wouldn't be quite so naive I if were you. Lets not forget that the 1966 Defence White Paper cancelled TSR2 when millions had already been spent and 2 had been built and flown (F-35, anyone?). Also, the CVA01 Carrier was cancelled at the same time, at an advanced stage of design, and the Carrier Fleet was run down. And all this was done whilst we were at the very zenith of our Carrier Strike capability, with no regard whatsover to the UK looking weak or stupid to either home voters or the rest of the world at large.

    It's happened before, so it couldn't happen again, especially in these difficult financial times.
  18. You know what I meant :oops:
  19. Once bitten, twice shy!

    The loss of TSR2 was a tragedy I agree. But you did change the map! :lol:

    To be honest, I don't think there is a conspiracy, but you've got to admit that UK plc can't afford Carriers, Typhoon Tranche 3 and F-35. Whilst I agree that we need all three, somethings got to give.

    For what it's worth, I agree that we have prostituted ourselves over the new Carrier, which I fear may become a bit of a white elephant.
  20. It's been said over and over - why does something have to give? Only in terms of the current, comparatively (as a % of GDP) small defense budget. Even with those three, the military is at a fraction of the strength that it was, or should be at.

    If service personnel begin to admit that we can't afford it, then the penny pinching [email protected] in their ivory towers have won. WHat's really needed is for all three services to stand together than tell the govt, whoever they may be, to stop cutting and make some hard choices.

    If they can afford to bail out the [email protected] banks, who have nothing to do with the government and are private firms, then they can afford to stump up the payments for one of the critial government areas.

Share This Page