US Marines embark Harriers onto HMS Illustrious

[Happy Times]

US Marines embark Harriers onto HMS Illustrious

Fourteen United States AV8B Harrier Jets have joined up with the UK aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious ahead of a major joint exercise in the United States.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/TrainingAndAdventure/UsMarinesEmbarkHarriersOntoHmsIllustriousvideo.htm

[Letum]

Americans requrire British carrier to land their British planes on? :hmm:


Actualy I'm a little suprised Harrier Jets are still frontline planes!

[Happy Times]

Americans requrire British carrier to land their British planes on? :hmm:


Actualy I'm a little suprised Harrier Jets are still frontline planes!

Why not, its not like they have to dogfight someone and VSTOL is a neat ability.

[SmokinTep]

She was in port here in Norfolk for a while along with the Trenchant.

We only use Harriers on our Amphip ships, not the main carriers.

[swifty]

Actualy I'm a little suprised Harrier Jets are still frontline planes!

They are being replaced with the F-35B Lighting 2 when it becomes operational.

Does this mean the leathernecks can have a pint on board?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/F-l3_lift_fan.jpg/749px-F-l3_lift_fan.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/F-l3_lift_fan.jpg)

[Heibges]

Americans requrire British carrier to land their British planes on? :hmm:


Actualy I'm a little suprised Harrier Jets are still frontline planes!

Why not, its not like they have to dogfight someone and VSTOL is a neat ability.

How much technology do you need to drop bombs on someone living in a mud hut?

I still can't understand who they are building the F-22 and F-35 to fight?

F-16 & F-18 are the probably what we should have stayed with. Even building new Tomcats would be cheaper than some of this stuff.

[swifty]

They come in handy if ever there is a war with North Korea. And especially China.

The existing jets are pushing 30 years of service. And although they have seen electronics and engine up grades they are not stealthy and lack the range and speed of the newer ones. Since the planes are nearing their service life do you replace them with the same thing or a new model.

F-16 - 29 Years
F-15 - 31 Years
F-18 - 24 Years
AV-8A Harrier - 38 Years

[Sailor Steve]

Boeing B-52 Stratofortress: 55 years, and still going strong.

[bookworm_020]

You also have to remember that most of the early build F-16, F-18 and AV-8's have been replaced with newer models, had massive upgrades or have been retired.

[Yahoshua]

You can only upgrade something so much (like a computer for exaple) before you have to start over with a better motherboard and CPU to handle more complicated electronics. And just like Hard drives, aircraft have a service life as well, in fact they have performed remarkably considering that they have outlived their service life by almost twice as long as the manufacturers specs.

One must also consider the fact that our military is using rapidly deteriorating equipment that was built in the 70s' based on 1960s' technology. In light of the fact that the equipment is now at least 30 to 35 years old (as swifty pointed out), it hurts nothing to purge our old and outdated aircraft and rebuild our military with better and more modern technology. The Philipinos, the Israelis, and perhaps the Iraqi airforce would be more than happy to pony up the money to buy this equipment off of us.

[Heibges]

I'm just saying you can build 4 F-16's for hte price of 1 F-22.

Perhaps more importantly, you only have to manufacture 4 engines instead of 8.

The lesson that both Russia and the United States learned from WWII was that quantity goes a long way in overcoming quality. :D

[Chock]

They are being replaced with the F-35B Lighting 2 when it becomes operational

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen:rotfl:

The F-35 has run into a lot of problems with its development programme, and at the moment it is barely capable of hauling a small hand grenade to the other end of an airfield, owing to the fact that it is massively underpowered and getting heavier with each test flight and modification. The Bush Government have also said that they are not keen to let the British be able to repair it themselves, as they want to keep much of the technology in the aircraft to themselves.

This probably has more to do with lucrative servicing deals and support for domestic aviation industries than the need to protect secrets, but it is a stance which has seen Britain threaten to pull out of the programme on more than one occasion, since it is a requirement for British fighters to be serviced indigenously. Supposedly all this disagreement has been smoothed out recently, but it is hardly an auspicious start to things, and the situation is not likely to improve now that Tony Blair has gone.

:D Chock

[Yahoshua]

I'm just saying you can build 4 F-16's for hte price of 1 F-22.

Perhaps more importantly, you only have to manufacture 4 engines instead of 8.

The lesson that both Russia and the United States learned from WWII was that quantity goes a long way in overcoming quality. :D

A greater lesson that has been learned many times is that it isn't how MUCH one has, it is HOW they are utilized that makes their service important.

[Heibges]

I'm just saying you can build 4 F-16's for hte price of 1 F-22.

Perhaps more importantly, you only have to manufacture 4 engines instead of 8.

The lesson that both Russia and the United States learned from WWII was that quantity goes a long way in overcoming quality. :D

A greater lesson that has been learned many times is that it isn't how MUCH one has, it is HOW they are utilized that makes their service important.

I agree, but that statement could be used to justify upgrading and not upgrading.:D

The Airforce has tended to like

1. Planes with one pilot (you just need to train 1)

2. Planes with one engine (you just need to make 1)

The development of the F-15 is interesting in this regard. I guess the program was on the brink of total failure when it was taken over by John Boyd.

He then went on to create his perfect vision of a fighter: the F-16.

[TLAM Strike]

I still can't understand who they are building the F-22 and F-35 to fight?
Take your pick...
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/1324/800pxcylonraiderny3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/7325/alkeshgk6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/1901/cvryq4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Heibges]

I'm rather partial to the TIE Interceptorhttp://swg.stratics.com/content/gallery/images/751_TIE_interceptor.jpg

[Sailor Steve]

I'm just saying you can build 4 F-16's for hte price of 1 F-22.

Perhaps more importantly, you only have to manufacture 4 engines instead of 8.

The lesson that both Russia and the United States learned from WWII was that quantity goes a long way in overcoming quality. :D
And you could build 4 F-5s for the price of an F-16. And the F-17 Cobra was arguably a better design than the F-16, for a similar price.

But Northrop was never very good at wineing and dining generals.

[Heibges]

Was the F-17 renamed the F-20?

[SUBMAN1]

Who is smoking crack thinking we don't need F-22's?

Also, the F-35 just passed for low rate initial production, so who thinks it can't carry anything more than a hand grenade?

If you think these things are being built for a fight against mud huts, you got your head buried in the sand in the middle east. Your fighters need to be upgrade because of China. RIght now, Chinese pilots are getting similar training to US pilots, and they are flying more advanced aircraft than anything but F-22 in our inventory - they are buying from Russia like mad, and we still don't know the true budget! Their SU-30's in the hands of a competent pilot will beat anything the US has flying outsode of F-22, and I would have to say that this is a MAJOR problem!

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Some info on F-35:
http://www.dcmilitary.com/stories/071907/tester_27967.shtml

[SUBMAN1]

I forgot to point out one more thing - how many fourth generation fighters are being sold like hotcakes around the world right now to anyone that wants to buy them? To name a few - You have the SAAB Gripen, the EF-2000, Rafale, even SU-37 is probably for sale. Hmm, now the US is stuck with 3rd gen aircraft if we don't build something to catch up to these rivals?

So what is the American pilot supposed to do when going up against these aircraft? Use the MiG-21 philosophy and try to overwhelm them with numbers? Last time I checked, the American public thinks 3,000 soldiers dead in Iraq is an unacceptable number. Lets see how they handle aircraft loses in the 4 digit range??!! And our pilot survivors being paraded across the TV screen and then beheaded?

F-22 is money well spent. F-35 is money well spent. F/A-18E is money well spent. All of it is long overdue since our day is coming when an F-15 is a death sentence to its pilot.

For those that think differently, load up Falcon 4 AF and play in the late 1990's in N Korea. You will feel pretty good I bet! Change that day to 2010, and see what happens. You will pray F-22's are in the air because if they are not, you're already dead. China will make sure of that.

-S

[Heibges]

That is interesting. I am trying to find info that supports the Chinese military being as intimidating in real life as in your video game, but I can't find any.:rotfl:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB32/index1.html

http://www.cfr.org/publication/5984/chinese_military_at_least_two_decades_away_from_ri valing_us_forces_concludes_newly_released_council_ task_force_report.html

http://www.comw.org/cmp/fulltext/iddschina.html

http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/884/documentid/1832/history/3,2360,884,1832

Let's not lament the death of the F-15 until one single enemy pilot shoots one down.:rotfl::rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[swifty]

It's not just matching plane for plane but also being able to surpass air defense systems. Ground and Naval forces stand little chance with out air superiority.

Weapons and munitions continue to evolve. Like Yahoshua pointed out a system can only be upgraded so much.

The F-22 F-35 may be the last maned fighter. The Pentagon continues to push for unmanned systems and already are arming UAVs.

[SUBMAN1]

That is interesting. I am trying to find info that supports the Chinese military being as intimidating in real life as in your video game, but I can't find any.:rotfl:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB32/index1.html

1995 report. 12 years old.


http://www.cfr.org/publication/5984/chinese_military_at_least_two_decades_away_from_ri valing_us_forces_concludes_newly_released_council_ task_force_report.html

Also almost 5 years old, and based on incorrect Chineese budget data as reported by the Chineese themselves.


http://www.comw.org/cmp/fulltext/iddschina.html


Also old. From 2000. Global security .org may be a better place for you to read up on this kind of stuff. Also, the US Congressional reports are more accurate and



http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/884/documentid/1832/history/3,2360,884,1832


This one is getting better, but woefully out of date.


Let's not lament the death of the F-15 until one single enemy pilot shoots one down.:rotfl::rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Load a sim of Falcon 4 AF. It may change your opinion of our antiquated fighter. The Soviets built the SU-27 to counter it back in the 80's and it made it on par with it. Since that time, the SU-27 has evolved with forward canards, and thrust vectoring. The F-15 didn't. In a dogfight, the F-15, while impressive to watch at an airshow, is not the top dog.

Next is China's wealth in the last decade - it is increasing at a phenomonal rate of growth, and these reports that are so old, didn't account for their current state of wealth. But even back then, there was an issue, and our commanders knew about it.

If you are interested, start your search on the Chinese J-11 :know:, and tell me your different opinion when you get back.

I will then further educate you on the sleeping giant. I have a ton of reading material for you.

-S

PS. Let me give you a link to help out - Hmm - SU-30 34 and 27 appear in here. Imagine that? http://www.softwar.net/plaaf.html

[Chock]

Also, the F-35 just passed for low rate initial production, so who thinks it can't carry anything more than a hand grenade?

Here's who (or 'here's whom', if you want to be terribly British about it):

'The UK's stake in the programme gave it an input into the selection.
The F-35B STOVL variant was formally selected to meet the FJCA requirement in September 2002, having been chosen because it promised a smaller training burden and carrier deck, as well as higher sortie rates and greater safety. It was estimated that 24 STOVL JSF aircraft could do the work of 36 CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery) aircraft for sorties in the 200 to 400-mile range.
The Future Joint Strike Aircraft was then redesignated as the Joint Combat Aircraft in 2003.
The JSF programme was put back by one year in 2004 because of weight issues, leading to the initial operating capability of the STOVL version slipping from 2010 to 2012. The UK MoD was given the option of keeping to its planned timescale with an initial operational capability in 2012, but would receive the less capable block 2 variant instead of the Block 3.
In the event, the UK opted to accept the two-year delay, with a revised in-service date, and an initial operational capability to be achieved by 2014.
Two instrumental test aircraft will be completed in 2011 (these will eventually be upgraded to production standards), and the first production F-35Bs for the UK will be delivered in 2012. The formal ISD (with eight operational aircraft) will be achieved in December 2014, allowing the formation of a JCA Intensive Flying Trials Unit, which will become the Operational Evaluation Unit Squadron in 2015. Carrier compatibility trials are expected to take place on the first of the new carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth, in the second half of 2014. The operational Conversion Unit is expected to form in 2015, with the first front-line unit starting conversion to the F-35B in 2016 and becoming operational in 2017. The three remaining squadrons are expected to follow at roughly one year intervals, though the last Harriers will be retired in 2017-18, leaving them without aircraft for between one and three years!
Reports that the US Congress was considering delaying the production phase of the JSF programme emerged in September 2006, and there were fears that this might lead to a price increase of 25-35 percent. This caused some concern as Lockheed Martin has yet to provide a guaranteed price for the aircraft, and the unit price quoted by the Departrment of Defense's Selected Acquisition Report has already reached 94.8 million Dollars per aircraft, which is more than double the price quoted by the industry.
A UK withdrawal from the JSF programme remains possible, though this would leave the RN's planned CVF aircraft carriers without an aircraft, unless a navalised Eurofighter is developed, or another aircraft is procured. Savings would be relatively modest if JSF is replaced.
It is believed that the RN's most senior admirals have been told that they can have a new aircraft carrier, or a replacement for the Trident strategic deterrent, but not both.'

That is from the February 2007 issue of Air Forces Monthly.

:D Chock

[SUBMAN1]

Here's who (or 'here's whom', if you want to be terribly British about it):

'The UK's stake in the programme gave it an input into the selection.
The F-35B STOVL variant was formally selected to meet the FJCA requirement in September 2002, having been chosen because it promised a smaller training burden and carrier deck, as well as higher sortie rates and greater safety. It was estimated that 24 STOVL JSF aircraft could do the work of 36 CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery) aircraft for sorties in the 200 to 400-mile range.
The Future Joint Strike Aircraft was then redesignated as the Joint Combat Aircraft in 2003.
The JSF programme was put back by one year in 2004 because of weight issues, leading to the initial operating capability of the STOVL version slipping from 2010 to 2012. The UK MoD was given the option of keeping to its planned timescale with an initial operational capability in 2012, but would receive the less capable block 2 variant instead of the Block 3.
In the event, the UK opted to accept the two-year delay, with a revised in-service date, and an initial operational capability to be achieved by 2014.
Two instrumental test aircraft will be completed in 2011 (these will eventually be upgraded to production standards), and the first production F-35Bs for the UK will be delivered in 2012. The formal ISD (with eight operational aircraft) will be achieved in December 2014, allowing the formation of a JCA Intensive Flying Trials Unit, which will become the Operational Evaluation Unit Squadron in 2015. Carrier compatibility trials are expected to take place on the first of the new carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth, in the second half of 2014. The operational Conversion Unit is expected to form in 2015, with the first front-line unit starting conversion to the F-35B in 2016 and becoming operational in 2017. The three remaining squadrons are expected to follow at roughly one year intervals, though the last Harriers will be retired in 2017-18, leaving them without aircraft for between one and three years!
Reports that the US Congress was considering delaying the production phase of the JSF programme emerged in September 2006, and there were fears that this might lead to a price increase of 25-35 percent. This caused some concern as Lockheed Martin has yet to provide a guaranteed price for the aircraft, and the unit price quoted by the Departrment of Defense's Selected Acquisition Report has already reached 94.8 million Dollars per aircraft, which is more than double the price quoted by the industry.
A UK withdrawal from the JSF programme remains possible, though this would leave the RN's planned CVF aircraft carriers without an aircraft, unless a navalised Eurofighter is developed, or another aircraft is procured. Savings would be relatively modest if JSF is replaced.
It is believed that the RN's most senior admirals have been told that they can have a new aircraft carrier, or a replacement for the Trident strategic deterrent, but not both.'

That is from the February 2007 issue of Air Forces Monthly.

:D Chock
Oh my gosh! No wonder you're cranky about the plane - it is an eternity till you even get it! Wow! The US should have our first production aircraft flying next year, with an operational squadron before the turn of the decade. We will have them in numbers by 2012, and you won't even be on the drawing board yet! :down: The UK needs to be licensed to build them. That may be the only real solution.

At least the delays that is referenced in the above article have been dealt with. That is what happened in the last few days - the design was halted and approved for production which is a major milestone in military aircraft terms. THis means it is a go ahead for full rate production given the initial production batch irons out the bugs.

The US needs this aircraft as well, but I wish they would build more F-22's. The future threat from Russian made SAM's is becoming overwhelming, and you will need a stealth aircraft soon just to survive the threat environment. THe F-35 is a good plane, for a good price, but the F-22 is so much more capable. It is the plane of planes. I bet it will be the last piloted interceptor the US ever builds.

I could only imagine what would happen if there was found a way to defeat stealth technology completely. The air war would be over for pilots, and I think it would become a pure drone environment, with a high expected loss rate.

-S

[Weigh-Man]

There is some more on the OP's story here..

http://news.sky.com/skynews/picture_gallery/0,,70141-1276057,00.html

They broke a record for the most take offs and landings in 12 hours

[JALU3]

As for aircraft are concern, you are right we need to upgrade our present inventory. Furthermore, with our increase in operations, the estimated lifespan of these aircraft are being lessened due to the increased use. However, certain aircraft should be retained, or upgraded and their production lines started up again, namely those of the A-10 Thunderbolt IIs.

Furthermore, the F/A-18E/Fs are good bomb trucks, but due to their increase in size aren't as manuverable as the smaller F/A-18C/Ds. Therefore, as far as a Navalized Air Superiority Fighter goes, the Navy should start looking for a better candidate. But chances are due to increased cost in Surface Vessels, this is very unlikely to happen.

[AntEater]

Sometimes I wonder if the whole western arms industry is just a big ripoff scheme.
I mean a lot of people told be how bad the US is because it spends 55% of the worldwide defense budgets.
I told them: "and what do they get for it?"
Nobody believes me when I tell them the US is not in a drastic military expansion, but rather just in a costly "stabilization operation" as well as in the normal cycle of replacing and upgrading its military hardware.
In the "bang for buck" scheme, western/NATO defence policy today is ridiculous.
The Chinese are basically building up a military comparable to the US in technology and numerically superior at a fraction of the cost of the US.
The Russians are maintaining a huge force at a budget lower than Germany's.
Problem is, traditionally in capitalist economies, defense contracts were awarded after a competition.
Today, in most arms fields, except for small arms maybe, we have either two compeditors or simply one contractor. And even if there are two compeditors, state officials and military personell are often simply prey to the contract departments unleashed at them.

[swifty]

You should check out the documentary Why We Fight (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/). While I dont agree will all of it it has some good pionts.