Britain may ask the US to use its new aircraft carriers while it waits for F35s - Polidicks

[img]http://imgkk.com/i/v5dh.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30209960[/url] [quote]The Royal Navy may ask US squadrons to fly off its new aircraft carrier following delays to its new F35B fighters, BBC Newsnight has learned. MoD insiders said the US Marine Corps would be offered the use of HMS Queen Elizabeth for flight operations. The UK plans to have its first F35 squadron operational by 2018, but Newsnight has learned that there may be further delays. The MoD said it was not aware of any further delay to the timetable. The plan is for one squadron of British F35s to be ready for service at sea by 2021. But even if it is achieved, it will create a gap of years where the Queen Elizabeth is ready but British squadrons are not.[/quote]

Scrapping the harrier was the dumbest shit, we should have at least fucking kept it in service until we got the F35s.

Might as well put the ship to use, no point just having her sat there doing nothing for 3 - 6+ years.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46582729]So is the US Navy going to crew it? Or is the Royal Navy going to crew it, with US pilots flying from it? Because if it's the latter then this is a pretty cool international cooperation.[/QUOTE] From the wording it seems RN crew and Us pilots.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46582729]So is the US Navy going to crew it? Or is the Royal Navy going to crew it, with US pilots flying from it? Because if it's the latter then this is a pretty cool international cooperation.[/QUOTE] It's the latter. [quote]The Royal Navy may [b]ask US squadrons to fly off its new aircraft carrier[/b] following delays to its new F35B fighters[/quote]

Last time it happened, many laughs were had. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/0Q0Eki7.jpg[/IMG]

Seems likely since the US Marine Corps still uses the Harrier. Still have to wonder why the UK scrapped the Harrier before it had a replacement.

[QUOTE=darunner;46582816]Last time it happened, many laughs were had. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/0Q0Eki7.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v405/Aeroclub/Transparency0045.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=bravehat;46582720]Scrapping the harrier was the dumbest shit, we should have at least fucking kept it in service until we got the F35s.[/QUOTE] Harriers do not have the capability of going super sonic, and with ageing airframes coupled with long flight vs work hours a new platform was needed. They should have just built a dedicated VTOL instead of trying to mash 3 capabilities into one airframe, however logistically it should make up for it in the long run. That is of they can make it operational first. Bare in mind everyone thought the osprey was a huge money pit that was plagued with issues, and now it's one of the most bad ass aircraft in the air.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;46583185]Harriers do not have the capability of going super sonic, and with ageing airframes coupled with long flight vs work hours a new platform was needed. They should have just built a dedicated VTOL instead of trying to mash 3 capabilities into one airframe, however logistically it should make up for it in the long run. That is of they can make it operational first. Bare in mind everyone thought the osprey was a huge money pit that was plagued with issues, and now it's one of the most bad ass aircraft in the air.[/QUOTE] Is it? I mean the thing is a giant accident waiting to happen. It can't glide like a plane and it can't auto rotate like a helicopter, which means any damage it sustains is likely to be fatal for everyone on board. It seems fundamentally flawed.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;46583185]Harriers do not have the capability of going super sonic, and with ageing airframes coupled with long flight vs work hours a new platform was needed. They should have just built a dedicated VTOL instead of trying to mash 3 capabilities into one airframe, however logistically it should make up for it in the long run. That is of they can make it operational first. Bare in mind everyone thought the osprey was a huge money pit that was plagued with issues, and now it's one of the most bad ass aircraft in the air.[/QUOTE] Osprey is still a huge money pit plagued with issues. But it's the best thing we currently have to do what it does.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;46583185]They should have just built a dedicated VTOL instead of trying to mash 3 capabilities into one airframe.[/QUOTE] The Harrier was the only aircraft in NATO that actually [i]needed[/i] to be replaced. It's supposed to replace the F-16 for the air force, which is still humming along fine, and the F/A-18E for the Navy/Marines, which has only been in service since 1999.

I can't see why anyone is surprised, this makes absolute sense, gives the ship something to do, irons out teething issues with it, gives the deck handlers and all those RN personnel involved in carrier operations valuable experience with aircraft. Also while I love the harrier, it is getting long in the tooth, and there just wasn't room in the budget for retaining them and procuring the aircraft that should supersede it.

Besides, wasn't the Harrier's vertical takeoff a huge drain on engine life and fuel, to the point it was barely used outside of PR events?

The F35 will be the last manned fighter jet probably. We've gotten to a point where UAV's are much more effective

[QUOTE=Code3Response;46584109]The F35 will be the last manned fighter jet probably. We've gotten to a point where UAV's are much more effective[/QUOTE] I dunno, you can hit an aircraft with broad spectrum jamming and render a UAV useless. You also have latency issues and a reliance on satellites for navigation. We are a long ways away from replacing humans for a pretty good portion of sorties. [editline]26th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=T553412;46584005]Besides, wasn't the Harrier's vertical takeoff a huge drain on engine life and fuel, to the point it was barely used outside of PR events?[/QUOTE] I don't even understand why we need a fixed wing VTOL. The AV-8 had a similar combat radius to an apache gunship and was shittier at basically everything. I think the Apache might even carry more armaments, not to mention a helicopter is just plain better at deploying things against ground targets. The harrier was faster certainly, but is that really worth creating an entire aircraft for? Basically just a helicopter but faster and worse in every other category?

HMS Queen Elizabeth looks like one helluva ship though, can't wait to see it complete. Pretty interesting, the flight deck is just one big VTOL pad.

please mum please

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46584387]Well the harrier was originally developed by the brits to take off and land from extremely short runways and clearings, in the event of the use of tactical nuclear weapons against their airbases. They wanted something that could get in, get out, and get going, which is what the harrier did, exceptionally well. Plus the harrier was introduced a full 20 years before the Apache gunship. Helicopters at the time didn't have the range that the harrier had, and so the harrier's existence was justified.[/QUOTE] I understand why it was originally developed, my question is why make the F-35B?

The Americans should let the British fix the F35. The British invented the Harrier which lasted 40 years.

[QUOTE=RoboChimp2;46585020]The Americans should let the British fix the F35. The British invented the Harrier which lasted 40 years.[/QUOTE] The Americans invented powered flight as we know it.

[QUOTE=GunFox;46584643]I understand why it was originally developed, my question is why make the F-35B?[/QUOTE] "hey steve" "yeah dave" "we've got a few billion in tax payer dollars to blow and we need ideas" "lets make a more expensive jump jet version of the F-22" "great idea dave"

[QUOTE=Apache249;46585073]The Americans invented powered flight as we know it.[/QUOTE]But the Harrier is more relevant.

[QUOTE=GunFox;46584643]I understand why it was originally developed, my question is why make the F-35B?[/QUOTE] Because an AH64 isn't stealthy and can't do air to air work.

[QUOTE=RoboChimp2;46585098]But the Harrier is more relevant.[/QUOTE] Not really. The harrier is a 40+ year old platform. The only thing it has in common with the F35 is the VTOL/STOVL capability. The only platform in service comparable in technology to the F35 is the F22, which as you know is American.

[QUOTE=Apache249;46585110]Not really. The harrier is a 40+ year old platform. The only thing it has in common with the F35 is the VTOL/STOVL capability. The only platform in service comparable in technology to the F35 is the F22, which as you know is American.[/QUOTE]Ah yeah, perhaps you're right. But it wouldn't hurt if the British engineers took a bit a look at the problems with the F35.

[QUOTE=GunFox;46584242]I don't even understand why we need a fixed wing VTOL.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=GunFox]I understand why it was originally developed, my question is why make the F-35B?[/QUOTE] Because the Royal Navy and the USMC. The UK have been involved with the F-35 since its very conception and one of our main requirements was for a STOVL ability to be able to operate off of our carriers. It just so happens that the USMC also insists on retaining its own organic fixed-wing air power. They don't want to have to rely on the USN Carriers to fly their legacy Hornets off of, they want some of their air power based closer to the shore on the Wasps and Americas and that, again, calls for STOVL. Italian and Spanish exports also hinge on the B version. STOVL has also proved its worth in recent years. For years Harriers were the only planes operating out of Kandahar because the runway was too austere for any other fixed-wing aircraft.

[QUOTE=RoboChimp2;46585122]Ah yeah, perhaps you're right. But it wouldn't hurt if the British engineers took a bit a look at the problems with the F35.[/QUOTE] BAE Systems is one of the major contractors working on the F35, so I'd hazard a guess that there are already plenty of British engineers working on it.

[QUOTE=Apache249;46585150]BAE Systems is one of the major contractors working on the F35, so I'd hazard a guess that there are already plenty of British engineers working on it.[/QUOTE]Ah, that gives me hope :v: . Fucking love VTOLs :rock:

[QUOTE=Apache249;46585073]The Americans invented powered flight as we know it.[/QUOTE] Are you talking about the Wright brothers or what? Powered jet flight is pretty German, if I'm not mistaken.