aircraft carrier will be sold after three years (UK)- and never carry jets

[Deusxmachina]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8072041/Navy-aircraft-carrier-will-be-sold-after-three-years-and-never-carry-jets.html

One of the Navy’s new £3 billion aircraft carriers will never carry aircraft and will sail for only three years before being mothballed and possibly sold, ministers will announce on Tuesday.

The Government’s Strategic Defence and Security Review will also confirm that Britain will not have an effective “carrier strike” capability – a working aircraft carrier equipped with fighter jets – until 2020.

David Cameron had wanted to scrap one of the two carriers, the largest and most expensive vessels in British naval history, but the review found that contracts signed by the previous government meant that doing so would end up costing the taxpayer more than going ahead with both. As a result, the two carriers will enter service, but one will be mothballed as soon as possible.

Further angering Navy chiefs, the defence review will confirm that Harrier jump-jets will be abandoned next year but the RAF’s Tornado will be spared to operate in Afghanistan.
Scrapping the Harriers will create a “capability gap” of nine years, with Britain unable to fly fast jets from an aircraft carrier until 2020, when the new JSF enters service.

Until 2020, Britain is likely to rely heavily on allies with a carrier strike capability, most significantly France.

[MT Alex]

It's about time they dumped the Hawker Harrier. The thing is almost as worthless as the Yak-38. Tiny payload, small range, and a piss poor electronic suite. The Tornado, on the other hand, is a very capable aircraft.

Ah, how I miss the days of playing Harpoon. I doubt there will ever be a more comprehensive naval sim game.

[jmcslob]

Now that's just Fucked up...

So what's wrong?
Can't the mighty UK afford a Gadammed Navy?
And the Pound is supposed to be worth more than the Dollar....Bullshit

Funniest part is the whole of the British Navy is about the size of ONE US carrier group lol

[entropy13]

Aren't there plans of adapting the Typhoon for carrier use?

Anyway, they could even go ahead and buy Rafale's anyway instead of "heavily relying" on the ones that already have Rafale's (French Navy), some spending but removes the uncertainty of having to go through another country for air support based on a carrier.

[FordGT90Concept]

Sounds like the Pentagon scraping the F-22 Raptor. Invest so much money in something and scrap it just because it is convinent because they can't convince people to make cuts in far more costly areas of government (like welfare). You know that song "Video Killed the Radio Star?" There ought to be a remake: "Welfare Killed the Defense Budget." ...coming to a nation near you.

[DrPepper]

It's about time they dumped the Hawker Harrier. The thing is almost as worthless as the Yak-38. Tiny payload, small range, and a piss poor electronic suite. The Tornado, on the other hand, is a very capable aircraft.

Ah, how I miss the days of playing Harpoon. I doubt there will ever be a more comprehensive naval sim game.

Yeah I hate the damn thing. I said earlier I can't wait for the F35B but oh wait that might get fucking cancelled too. I voted for cameron and so far he's totally went off the rails and not done anything he promised in the campaign. He promised to increase funding for the military ? My arse, I might just move to the USA and join the marines now.

I mean seriously WHAT THE FUCK. Britains pride is our navy, small but elite.

[pepsi71ocean]

Sounds like the Pentagon scraping the F-22 Raptor. Invest so much money in something and scrap it just because it is convinent because they can't convince people to make cuts in far more costly areas of government (like welfare). You know that song "Video Killed the Radio Star?" There ought to be a remake: "Welfare Killed the Defense Budget." ...coming to a nation near you.

Reminds me of an old song where they said the British were coming, Johnny get your gun.

Remember once Obama kills our navy,(i read in a local newspaper we are cutting up ships built 10 years ago, and having them sold to forgeing scrap yards!?) and then our military you better be armed, i give us 5 years before were invaded by people who don't like us, like 3/4 of the world!

[FordGT90Concept]

Only the AGEIS cruisers and CVN-21 (under construction) are really modern ships in the fleet. The rest are rather old but have been retrofited with modern weaponry.

Zumwalt destroyer program, formerly DD(X), better not be scraped and they better deliver something unbelivable. The program was started in 2001 and the earliest we'll see a ship is still 3-5 years away.

The CG(X) (cruiser) program was scraped and the money, instead, went to retrofitting the old Arliegh-Burke destroyers with bigger guns.

Basically, our government has done everything wrong over the last 10 years as far as America's ability to project power is concerned. Instead of pushing hard to advance technology, they are aiming to maintain the status quo.

[Cuzza]

Welcome to my world, Britain. NZ mothballed it's last fighter jets 10 years ago. They've sat around looking for a buyer until this year, but no one wants them so they're being scrapped.

So we rely on Australia for air combat capability. And now Britain is relying on France for theirs? My God. What a shite state of affairs.

And what did I read the other day - Saudi Arabia is shelling out a casual $60bn on arms from America? Someone knows what they're doing.

I like to poke fun at America sometimes, but hell if it really came to war you guys are the only thing that would save our arses.

[Steevo]

The reason 3/4 of the world doesn't like the US is they poke their fingers into everybodys business. We wouldn't need such a big defense budget if we would stay the fuck home and fuck more and fight less.


But hey, some of you guys like to take hot sweaty showers with other men. Not that I am judging, cause, I won't ask and you don't tell. K?

[Cuzza]

This is somewhat off topic, but I don't think there is anything wrong with enjoying communal showers.

[FordGT90Concept]

Welcome to my world, Britain. NZ mothballed it's last fighter jets 10 years ago. They've sat around looking for a buyer until this year, but no one wants them so they're being scrapped.

So we rely on Australia for air combat capability. And now Britain is relying on France for theirs? My God. What a shite state of affairs.

And what did I read the other day - Saudi Arabia is shelling out a casual $60bn on arms from America? Someone knows what they're doing.

I like to poke fun at America sometimes, but hell if it really came to war you guys are the only thing that would save our arses.
I'm afraid to admit, that might be wishful thinking. The military strained against a country the size of Texas and required multiple redeployments of hundreds of thousands of troops. We currently have a tech edge but as pointed out in my last post, the focus on that is wanging/failing.


Jesus Christ, they are still spending $2.8 billion annually on the V-22 Osprey. Why weren't they moth balled?


No...I get it. America's military is moving away from the capability to fight other militaries to fighting non-government factions (like terrorists). We may pay dearly for that shift in the future.



The reason 3/4 of the world doesn't like the US is they poke their fingers into everybodys business. We wouldn't need such a big defense budget if we would stay the fuck home and fuck more and fight less.
We have a lot of territory to protect. Sticking our fingers in everyone else's cup of tea prevents them from questioning our authority. If we only stayed "home," we'd become like UK whom is getting shafted by the EU.

[Cuzza]

America could win in Afghanistan if they really wanted to. The whole country that is. If you were all willing to put regular life aside for a while and devote a few years to kicking the Taliban's butt, you could. But instead people want this war to tick over in the background while they get on with their prosperous comsumercentric lives. I tell you war doesn't work like that. War is fucking expensive and not just in terms of money.

[FordGT90Concept]

Afghanistan is a lot like the environment in Fallout New Vegas. You have a bunch of divided factions fighting for power. A central government might not be possible there. Moreover, you have the Pakistani problem (they are hurting more than helping and we are paying them to hurt us).

War can be very profitable, but not in a country like Afghanistan that would still be in the stone age if it weren't for the West aiding the Mujahideen in fending off the USSR back in the 80s. Now they are in the stone age with 1970s weapons.

Do I want to withdrawl from Afghanistan? No. Do I want to invade areas of Pakistan where Pakistan has proven incompetent? Yes. Had McCain been elected, I'm sure Afghanistan would be on the path to victory instead of defeat. He would have gotten strict with Pakistan and may have used India as leverage against Pakistan. But no, we have Obama whom has proven he leads America to places we don't want to go. His strategy is appeasement: "surge" in Afghanistan to make Republicans happy and put deadlines on everything to make Democrats happy. The result is stalemate: deadlines empower the enemy because they know the end is in sight; a surge only maintains the status quo when your enemy surges too. McChrystal witnessed this. The body count climbed and the progress halted because of an inept leader in Washington D.C. calling the shots. He speaks about it, on the record, with a Rollingstones journalist. What he said could be considered insubordination so he is removed and the face of Iraq replaces him, Pettras. Pettras will fall victim to the same problems that befell McChrystal. Just like Vietnam, the Afghanistan campaign will fail because Washington refuses to commit to finishing it.

That's the sad reality; thank the ignorant Americans (Democrats and the majority of Independents) for beliving in the "hopey changey" bullshit for it.

[entropy13]

Welcome to my world, Britain. NZ mothballed it's last fighter jets 10 years ago. They've sat around looking for a buyer until this year, but no one wants them so they're being scrapped.

So we rely on Australia for air combat capability. And now Britain is relying on France for theirs? My God. What a shite state of affairs.

And what did I read the other day - Saudi Arabia is shelling out a casual $60bn on arms from America? Someone knows what they're doing.

I like to poke fun at America sometimes, but hell if it really came to war you guys are the only thing that would save our arses.

10 years ago? 10 years ago, our last figther jets were already museum displays for 10 years then lol

[pepsi71ocean]

i still think that if we don't develope more manpower our nation is goign to be screwed, we are walking right inot world war 3, weren't we in this same situation is the 1920's

most of the world lacked a military, and obama is disabling ours, and will use the massive deflect as the excuse.

and when Iran North Korea and China rise up to conquer the world, the west will not be able to di shit.



i agree we COULD wil in iraq and afganistan, we should have started a draft in 2001, the mere threat of a 10 million man army would have ended the war.


the whole world watched, and listened, countries like north korea, iran and libera all came and got on their knee's, when we steam rolled afganistan and iraq, no if we had a 10 million man draftee army, and used it as the back up to the threat, i still think it would have been over by now


none of these piss ant dictators want to loose power, if the S government said surrender your terrorist or we will replace you, i don't think they would give us the finger, i think even the taliban would have said come and take alkida away from us.

[Steevo]

We have a lot of territory to protect. Sticking our fingers in everyone else's cup of tea prevents them from questioning our authority. If we only stayed "home," we'd become like UK whom is getting shafted by the EU.

Vietnam?
Iraq?
Afghanistan?
Pakistan?


Which of these could be better won by just cutting off the county, not using military force, not killing thousands? No food imports, exports, no products, no help for their sick, weak, or otherwise. The US fought for their independence against odds, and won. It is up to these countries to do the same if they want the benefits. Not through the life of my family, friends, and dollar.


Ahh yes, that perturbs the ratio of high fives and ass slapping in the hot sweaty man shower. I understand.

[FordGT90Concept]

Which of these could be better won by just cutting off the county, not using military force, not killing thousands? No food imports, exports, no products, no help for their sick, weak, or otherwise. The US fought for their independence against odds, and won. It is up to these countries to do the same if they want the benefits. Not through the life of my family, friends, and dollar.
In a word, none. As demonstrated by the Mexican/American border, it is nearly impossible to completely cut off a motivated enemy. "Where there is a will, there is a way."

The US only won it's independence because Britian was spread too thin and Franklin convinced the French to stage a distraction by attacking the British Empire. Britian couldn't afford to send ships of men and equipment to a country thousands of miles away when a very competent enemy stood across the English Channel.

[Steevo]

I suggest you understand that a 10 million man strong would allow a man less than a foot apart on the mexico border.. Soooooo.......


And I though you liked group showers!!!!!

[FordGT90Concept]

Then they dig under like the Vietcong did in Vietnam. Or they go around (boat) or over (aircraft). There's no stopping a determined enemy.

Moreover, where are you going to get the funds to equip, feed, and compensate a 7 fold increase in military manpower?

[Steevo]

From the lack of bombs, jetfuel, and other expenses we wouldn't have.


Park their asses 5 miles from the border on our side and shoot anything between them and the border.



I told a employee once he was going to dig me a hole, as tall as he was, as deep as he was tall, and twice as wide so i could get back out. He was a lazy fuck, I had no use for him and he quit so he couldn't collect unemployment. Nothing wrong with paying the military to do the work if the lazy assed welfare idiots can't do it. Hell, make them do it. You want welfare? You are going to work 3 10 hour days a week, and look for a job the other two. Those that don't work, don't eat.

[pepsi71ocean]

Which of these could be better won by just cutting off the county, not using military force, not killing thousands? No food imports, exports, no products, no help for their sick, weak, or otherwise. The US fought for their independence against odds, and won. It is up to these countries to do the same if they want the benefits. Not through the life of my family, friends, and dollar.


Your ideology works really well with Iran and North Korea, oh wait Iraq as well

Anyone remember the food for oil program?


I suggest you understand that a 10 million man strong would allow a man less than a foot apart on the mexico border.. Soooooo.......


And I though you liked group showers!!!!!


im talking about back in 2001, the mere idea of America with a 10million man army would allow us to control iraq and afgnistan without question of authority, and with it we could use it as leverage, with other piss ant nations saying "we don't want to piss america off shell send 250,000 solders to my country remove me and my 20 wives and my 500 foot mega yacht from power."


I told a employee once he was going to dig me a hole, as tall as he was, as deep as he was tall, and twice as wide so i could get back out. He was a lazy fuck, I had no use for him and he quit so he couldn't collect unemployment. Nothing wrong with paying the military to do the work if the lazy assed welfare idiots can't do it. Hell, make them do it. You want welfare? You are going to work 3 10 hour days a week, and look for a job the other two. Those that don't work, don't eat.

FYI, thanks to Obama you can collect if you get fired, you just have to wait another couple of weeks longer.

[yogurt_21]

Yeah I hate the damn thing. I said earlier I can't wait for the F35B but oh wait that might get fucking cancelled too. I voted for cameron and so far he's totally went off the rails and not done anything he promised in the campaign. He promised to increase funding for the military ? My arse, I might just move to the USA and join the marines now.

I mean seriously WHAT THE FUCK. Britains pride is our navy, small but elite.

thing is brittains navy used to be elite as well as the largest/most capable in the world seems odd that the biggest ever naval power now has such a small navy.

[FordGT90Concept]

Anyone remember the food for oil program?
It completely failed. What of it?


im talking about back in 2001, the mere idea of America with a 10million man army would allow us to control iraq and afgnistan without question of authority, and with it we could use it as leverage, with other piss ant nations saying "we don't want to piss america off shell send 250,000 solders to my country remove me and my 20 wives and my 500 foot mega yacht from power."
a) you are completely forgetting about logistics. In order to move even 2 million men half way around the world to Iraq would have taken years and half the craft making that voyage would have to have food and water because food and water is scarce in that region. They all also need equipment and supplies. It's also very difficult to "shock and awe" when the enemy can easily spot your armies and their strength.

b) The war would have been just as long and just as grusome. Terrorists are the equivilent to animals backed into a corner. They attack against all odds because they don't know what else they can do.

c) The reason the war lasted 7+ years instead of 1 (when it was declared "Mission Accomplished") is diplomatic, not militaristic. 2+ million troops would convince the iraqis they were being occupied by a foreign military. Diplomatic progress would halt because they would feel they are still being attacked/harrassed.

d) The wars would be far more costly because the USA doesn't even have 2 million troops right now.

e) There's a difference between "Big Stick" politics and "Big Dick" politics.


thing is brittains navy used to be elite as well as the largest/most capable in the world seems odd that the biggest ever naval power now has such a small navy.
They depend on our navy while they progress their state to "nannyism." :p

[DrPepper]

They depend on our navy while they progress their state to "nannyism." :p

Obviously missing out on the fact your entire navy is based on ours and our tactics and training :p

[WhiteLotus]

We are building two new aircraft carriers, and selling one keeping the other. I don't see the problem with that?

[DrPepper]

We are building two new aircraft carriers, and selling one keeping the other. I don't see the problem with that?

There's very few countries in the world that can afford a supercarrier. Problem is the few that can won't and it will go for less than it costs.

[WhiteLotus]

No it wont, it will most likely be made for a small profit, and besides it provides much needed jobs which are essential in this currant climate thanks to the certain banks being money grabbing whores and bringing the whole system to it's knees.

The money that will be given the workers in the form of pay will go through a multiplier effect bringing more money to the area.


I just wished they would get rid of Trident, having a nuclear deterrent is utterly pointless and will only ever be used when a country has already nuked/nuking you anyway. Utter waste of money just so we still look like a big boy with the Americans who are hell bent on having the best military in the world for no real reason what so ever, the false reason being in case those commies from all the way over there still have the mind set of wanting to crush you with the red army. WAKE THE FUCK UP, they are now using economics and raping the world quite happily.

[FordGT90Concept]

Obviously missing out on the fact your entire navy is based on ours and our tactics and training :p
Our carriers carry 75+ aircraft. The ones WhiteLotus talked about carry "up to 50."

All stealth technologies going into ships started with the Lockheed Martin "worthless diamond" which ultimately evolved into the F-117 Nighthawk. That's not based on UK anything and all modern navies are adapting that "faceted" edge stealth technology in new designs.

Remember, it was the USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia that shaped all ships that came after it (ironclad and turrets).

Even your new ships most likely use our AGEIS systems. USA was also the first to build a nuclear powered submarine (USS Nautilus - 1954) and aircraft carrier (USS Enterprise - 1961). The Enterprise is still the longest naval vessel in the world at 1,123 feet. All of our nuclear carriers (Enterprise, Nimitz, Ford) are approximately 100,000 tons of displacment compared to 65,600 tons of displacment in the Elizabeth class.

We also can't forget all the missile systems the USA pioneered.

As far as tactics are concerned, all modern tactics stem from the aircraft carrier. It was the Pacific campaign that demonstrated they are the future and battleships (what the UK mostly had) were becoming obsolete.

So no, your "facts" only reach up to the civil war. Ever since, the USA has been on the bleeding edge of naval warfare.

[DrPepper]

Our carriers carry 75+ aircraft. The ones WhiteLotus talked about carry "up to 50."

All stealth technologies going into ships started with the Lockheed Martin "worthless diamond" which ultimately evolved into the F-117 Nighthawk. That's not based on UK anything and all modern navies are adapting that "faceted" edge stealth technology in new designs.

Remember, it was the USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia that shaped all ships that came after it (ironclad and turrets).

Even your new ships most likely use our AGEIS systems. USA was also the first to build a nuclear powered submarine (USS Nautilus - 1954) and aircraft carrier (USS Enterprise - 1961). The Enterprise is still the longest naval vessel in the world at 1,123 feet. All of our nuclear carriers (Enterprise, Nimitz, Ford) are approximately 100,000 tons of displacment compared to 65,600 tons of displacment in the Elizabeth class.

We also can't forget all the missile systems the USA pioneered.

As far as tactics are concerned, all modern tactics stem from the aircraft carrier. It was the Pacific campaign that demonstrated they are the future and battleships (what the UK mostly had) were becoming obsolete.

So no, your "facts" only reach up to the civil war. Ever since, the USA has been on the bleeding edge of naval warfare.

I'm not going to argue I actually know more about the US Navy and the UK Navy than you having spoken to a US admiral who visited our training establishment and was impressed and then changed the US navy's training to reflect ours but hey you must know better right ?

The UK built the first aircraft carrier as well HMS Hermes. Also developed the VTOL harriers then joint developed them with the US.

Also we demonstrated how powerful the aircraft carrier was at the battle of taranto but of course you'll just ignore that aswell.

Let's not forget big battleship naval formation were developed by the RN and so was destroyer picketing.

An important development of the early 1950s was the British invention of the angled flight deck by Capt D.R.F. Campbell RN in conjunction with Lewis Boddington of the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough

The modern steam-powered catapult, powered by steam from the ship's boilers or reactors, was invented by Commander C.C. Mitchell of the Royal Naval Reserve.[19] It was widely adopted following trials on HMS Perseus between 1950 and 1952 which showed it to be more powerful and reliable than the hydraulic catapults which had been introduced in the 1940s

The first of the Optical Landing Systems was another British innovation, the Mirror Landing Aid invented by Lieutenant Commander H. C. N. Goodhart RN.

Another British innovation was the ski-jump ramp as an alternative to contemporary catapult systems.

The first jet landing on a carrier was made by Lt Cdr Eric "Winkle" Brown who landed on HMS Ocean in the specially modified de Havilland Vampire.

HMS Warrior was a ship so powerful that no-one dared challenge Britain.

Won the falklands conflict which was deemed an impossible victory.

Pretty much all the ASW techniques that are used today.

US Navy officer training is based on RN officer training as is the enlisted sailors training. Ranks and uniforms are almost the same, coincidence ?

[FordGT90Concept]

Both have made contributions. For example, the British may have used the first modern steam aircraft catapult but the CVN-21 Gerald Ford will be the first to use an electromagnetic launch system which the Elizabeth class Royal Navy ships may also adopt.

[DrPepper]

Both have made contributions. For example, the British may have used the first modern steam aircraft catapult but the CVN-21 Gerald Ford will be the first to use an electromagnetic launch system which the Elizabeth class Royal Navy ships may also adopt.

Right that's my point. The US has contributed technologically but the RN depends on tactics and discipline rather than technology. We swap our training for technology.

[Cuzza]

I think we can agree that between the Royal Navy and the US Navy pretty much every major advance in sea warfare from the last 500 years is covered.

The point is that one of these navies remains the most capable military strike force in the world. The other still thinks reminding the world about the Battle of Trafalgar is good enough to keep them in check. At least, that seems to be Whitehall's point of view.

[DrPepper]

I think we can agree that between the Royal Navy and the US Navy pretty much every major advance in sea warfare from the last 500 years is covered.

The point is that one of these navies remains the most capable military strike force in the world. The other still thinks reminding the world about the Battle of Trafalgar is good enough to keep them in check.

I actually we like to remind everyone of the Falklands.

[FordGT90Concept]

I don't know about that. You swap money for technology. XD

The last time the USA flexed it's naval muscles against another navy was in WWII where the US approach was mass-production, not technology. In recent history, the navy has only been used as a tool of intimidation and projecting power over Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea.

[Cuzza]

Ah yes, the Tin Pot Foreign General and the Old Iron Woman.

Oh btw they should never have scrapped the Vulcan. That plane is just too cool.

[DrPepper]

I don't know about that. You swap money for technology. XD

The last time the USA flexed it's naval muscles against another navy was in WWII where the US approach was mass-production, not technology. In recent history, the navy has only been used as a tool of intimidation and projecting power over Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea.

Money and training really but most countries send their officers here to learn FOST which is apparently the most demanding course for officers.


Ah yes, the Tin Pot Foreign General and the Old Iron Woman.

Don't mess with Maggie she will send the SAS after you.

[FordGT90Concept]

I think we can agree that between the Royal Navy and the US Navy pretty much every major advance in sea warfare from the last 500 years is covered.
Except German U-Boats and the Bismark. Also Germany had one of the first RADARs (although it did not detect range).

[DrPepper]

Except German U-Boats and the Bismark. Also Germany had one of the first RADARs (although it did not detect range).

The USS New York had the first Radar ASFAIK.

[Cuzza]

Except German U-Boats and the Bismark. Also Germany had one of the first RADARs (although it did not detect range).

It's true the Germans came up with a few ideas. Not enough to win the war, but very handy.



Don't mess with Maggie she will send the SAS after you.

As much as I respect Baroness Thatcher, don't bother bro we got the Maori Batallion, they will eat the sassies.

[Deusxmachina]

November 2, 2010 - ARMED FORCES ‘MADNESS’

The agreement that Britain should have a shared military and nuclear programme with France has been declared "utter madness".

"This is folly of the highest order. Quite simply British and French interests and foreign policies do not coincide," said Godfrey Bloom, Yorkshire & North Lincolnshire MEP for the UK Independence Party.

"When a conflict of interest arises between Britain and France is it wise to have French command of the SAS? The answer is clearly No.
"David Cameron has obviously forgotten that during the Falklands Conflict, France was supplying Exocet missiles to Argentina which sunk British ships.

"This agreement is to bind the Armed Forces of both nations for 50 years. We all know a week is a long time in politics. This can only be a receipe for disaster.
"It is a clear indication of the drive towards the creation of an EU Defence Force which would be another hole in the hull of British sovereignty.

"It has been dubbed the 'entente frugale' but It is ridiculous for Cameron to claim this is about saving money when just last week he agreed to give an additional £435 million per year to the EU.

"This compromises our military capability and defence strategy. It is totally unacceptable," said Mr Bloom..

[jmcslob]

All stealth technologies going into ships started with the Lockheed Martin "worthless diamond" which ultimately evolved into the F-117 Nighthawk. That's not based on UK anything and all modern navies are adapting that "faceted" edge stealth technology in new designs.



ERRRRRRRRR

Jack Northrop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Northrop)
with his YB-35 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-35) I think had as much to do with American Stealth Tecnologies as Lockheed Martin
Skunk Works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunk_works) A Lockheed Martin group put together under Kelly Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Johnson) had a signifiganr role as well

[FordGT90Concept]

The Lockheed Have Blue was the very first stealth jet (that was not mostly made of wood):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Have_Blue

"Worthless Diamond" -> Have Blue -> F-117 Nighthawk

All by Lockheed Martin Skunk Works. Preceeding the "worthless diamond" were the U-2 and SR-71, respectively. The U-2 was "stealth" due to its operational ceiling and the SR-71 was "stealth" due to an even higher operation ceiling and sheer speed.


If you did some reading, you'd discover that the YB-35 never got beyond prototyping because the aircraft was notoriously unstable. In fact, it claimed the life of at least one test pilot. Add in the fact that the B-52 served that role without committing suicide, the YB-35 project was scraped even though the flying wing design is known to have the best long-distance endurance.


Fast forward several decades and you see the success of Skunkworks' F-117 demonstrating the value of stealth but the F-117 in itself, is pretty impractical. They only carry two bombs each and are subsonic. In order to do a lot of damage, you need an entire flight of them. Question: how do you make stealth more combat effective? Answer: put a bid out like you always do.

Lockheed and Northrop-Grumman submitted proposals and Northrup's was approved (stealth interpretation of YB-35 with one component Jack Northrop didn't have 30 years prior: computers). The rest is history.

I think it is safe to say that without the "worthless diamond" and Have Blue, the B-2 most likely wouldn't have been stealthy. Skunk Works made many breakthroughs not only in stealth, but also engines and materials that are being implemented all over the world.


Note that the Have Blue first flew in 1977. The Advanced Technology Bomber project that eventually resulted in the B-2 was created in 1979. Have Blue and the "worthless diamond" were a technological landmark.

Kelly Johnson was the manager/director or the Skunk Works division. He was the driving force behind the success of the Skunk Works.

[WhiteLotus]

.

You obviously have no idea what that agreement entailed.

[DrPepper]

I think the UK needs to hand it's nuclear capability to the USA or scale it down to 2 Vanguard subs or find an alternative like a nuke intercept system.

Either way we need to focus on maritime equiptment because dominance at sea and air supremacy at sea pretty much governs how a war will go unless your up against a landlocked country.

[WhiteLotus]

I think the UK needs to hand it's nuclear capability to the USA or scale it down to 2 Vanguard subs or find an alternative like a nuke intercept system.

Either way we need to focus on maritime equiptment because dominance at sea and air supremacy at sea pretty much governs how a war will go unless your up against a landlocked country.

We don't need nuclear anything. Complete waste of money keeping it, fuck knows why we are. Launch a nuke at anyone and the rest of the world is going to condemn you for it no matter what they did first.

[DrPepper]

We don't need nuclear anything. Complete waste of money keeping it, fuck knows why we are. Launch a nuke at anyone and the rest of the world is going to condemn you for it no matter what they did first.

It's not that they are intended to ever be used it's to deter anyone else. Nukes need to be kept as long as other nations have them which means no-one wants to get rid of them.

[WhiteLotus]

It's not that they are intended to ever be used it's to deter anyone else. Nukes need to be kept as long as other nations have them which means no-one wants to get rid of them.

Bullshit, we only go them because USA wants us to. Warfare has moved away from nukes anyway. You nuke someone and you get castrated for causing mass civilian loss of life.

I see absolutely no need for the UK armed forces to have nukes.

[DrPepper]

Bullshit, we only go them because USA wants us to. Warfare has moved away from nukes anyway. You nuke someone and you get castrated for causing mass civilian loss of life.

I see absolutely no need for the UK armed forces to have nukes.

We still need them as a deterrance against those who may use them.

Imagine a brawl at a bar all the little guys have knifes of different sizes (conventional armies) but the nuclear powers all brought assault rifles (nuclear deployment capability) with bayonets (big armies)

What happens after a nuclear launch is irrelevant because generally the response is nuclear retaliation and destruction of both powers.

The fact that no-one wants that is proof that nuclear weapons work as a deterrent and a political leverage. Nuclear weapons are very poor in their usefulness. They have dire ramifications from using them so they aren't effective for occupying a country or preserving a countries natural resources for that powers advantage. Using nuclear weapons is a lose - lose situation but having them and not using them gives a massive amount of leverage.

[WhiteLotus]

We still need them as a deterrance against those who may use them.

Imagine a brawl at a bar all the little guys have knifes of different sizes (conventional armies) but the nuclear powers all brought assault rifles (nuclear deployment capability) with bayonets (big armies)

What happens after a nuclear launch is irrelevant because generally the response is nuclear retaliation and destruction of both powers.

The fact that no-one wants that is proof that nuclear weapons work as a deterrent and a political leverage. Nuclear weapons are very poor in their usefulness. They have dire ramifications from using them so they aren't effective for occupying a country or preserving a countries natural resources for that powers advantage. Using nuclear weapons is a lose - lose situation but having them and not using them gives a massive amount of leverage.


We wont EVER use the nukes, no matter the scenario. (ok maybe if aliens come and invade australia or something and the only way to win is to nuke them, then we may use them but by then USA and russia have already nuked it 10 times over between them).
The maintenance costs are too high.

[DrPepper]

We wont EVER use the nukes, no matter the scenario. (ok maybe if aliens come and invade australia or something and the only way to win is to nuke them, then we may use them but by then USA and russia have already nuked it 10 times over between them).
The maintenance costs are too high.

The purpose of the nukes are that they never be used though. Mostly as a big scary stick. That's why it should be brought down to two vanguard submarines that each have 2 crews that rotate. The problem is though if that one sub is being refitted it can take years so that's why we have 4 I believe.

We need an alternative method like land launched ICBM's which are probably cheaper to maintain.

[jmcslob]

The Lockheed Have Blue was the very first stealth jet (that was not mostly made of wood):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Have_Blue

"Worthless Diamond" -> Have Blue -> F-117 Nighthawk

All by Lockheed Martin Skunk Works. Preceeding the "worthless diamond" were the U-2 and SR-71, respectively. The U-2 was "stealth" due to its operational ceiling and the SR-71 was "stealth" due to an even higher operation ceiling and sheer speed.


If you did some reading, you'd discover that the YB-35 never got beyond prototyping because the aircraft was notoriously unstable. In fact, it claimed the life of at least one test pilot. Add in the fact that the B-52 served that role without committing suicide, the YB-35 project was scraped even though the flying wing design is known to have the best long-distance endurance.


Fast forward several decades and you see the success of Skunkworks' F-117 demonstrating the value of stealth but the F-117 in itself, is pretty impractical. They only carry two bombs each and are subsonic. In order to do a lot of damage, you need an entire flight of them. Question: how do you make stealth more combat effective? Answer: put a bid out like you always do.

Lockheed and Northrop-Grumman submitted proposals and Northrup's was approved (stealth interpretation of YB-35 with one component Jack Northrop didn't have 30 years prior: computers). The rest is history.

I think it is safe to say that without the "worthless diamond" and Have Blue, the B-2 most likely wouldn't have been stealthy. Skunk Works made many breakthroughs not only in stealth, but also engines and materials that are being implemented all over the world.


Note that the Have Blue first flew in 1977. The Advanced Technology Bomber project that eventually resulted in the B-2 was created in 1979. Have Blue and the "worthless diamond" were a technological landmark.

Kelly Johnson was the manager/director or the Skunk Works division. He was the driving force behind the success of the Skunk Works.
The whole idea of RADAR stealth was an accident...
It started when RADAR operators noticed when they had a hard time picking up a flying wing aircraft as without the fuselage it showed up like a flock of birds

Thus the idea of shaped aircraft, for Stealth abilities, which then lead to RADAR absorbing/deflecting/defusing skin materials.

But it all started with Jack Northrop's flying wing

[Deusxmachina]

You obviously have no idea what that agreement entailed.

Which might be why I obviously didn't comment on the agreement and instead quoted what UK MEP Godfrey Bloom said about it.

[FordGT90Concept]

The whole idea of RADAR stealth was an accident...
It started when RADAR operators noticed when they had a hard time picking up a flying wing aircraft as without the fuselage it showed up like a flock of birds

Thus the idea of shaped aircraft, for Stealth abilities, which then lead to RADAR absorbing/deflecting/defusing skin materials.

But it all started with Jack Northrop's flying wing
The YB-35 was in no way stealthy. Large flat surfaces produce a large RADAR cross section, as do its large exposed engines (which every variation of the YB-35 had).

The reason why the B-2 is stealthy is because of the composite material they use on the skin, tucking the engines inside the body, making the engine intakes faceted, making the underbelly of the aircraft a long continuous curve, masking the exhaust of engines by spreading it out, and making the trailing edges of the aircraft faceted. None of those features were on the original.

[DrPepper]

The YB-35 was in no way stealthy. Large flat surfaces produce a large RADAR cross section, as do its large exposed engines (which every variation of the YB-35 had).

The reason why the B-2 is stealthy is because of the composite material they use on the skin, tucking the engines inside the body, making the engine intakes faceted, making the underbelly of the aircraft a long continuous curve, masking the exhaust of engines by spreading it out, and making the trailing edges of the aircraft faceted. None of those features were on the original.

I can confirm ford is correct here. The YB-35 would only be effectively stealthy against the most advanced WW2 radars if it was travelling at low altitude and at 500kph which it wasn't capable of, unlike the Ho 229 which influenced it's design but differed in the fact it was a jet engine which allowed for the high speed.

[jmcslob]

The United States' first stealth development was totally accidental and quickly forgotten. Shortly after the war, Northrop Aircraft developed an experimental bomber called the YB-49 Flying Wing. As the name implies, the aircraft had no body or tail; it was simply a large flying wing. The aircraft was assigned to perform a normal test flight over the Pacific. When the test was completed, they turned and headed for home, pointing the slim wing edge directly at the base radar station. The radar crew was shocked to see the aircraft suddenly appear almost overhead because they had seen no evidence of it on the radar screen. Interest in the project quickly faded after the bomber crashed in the Mojave Desert in 1948. The plane was very unstable in flight and this stability problem was listed as the cause of the crash. Ironically, the new top-secret B-2 Stealth Bomber bares a striking resemblance to this aircraft designed and built in the 1940s.

Source (http://www.flightsimbooks.com/f19stealthfighter/01_3_Stealth_History.php)

[FordGT90Concept]

The first "stealth" aircraft were ones made of wood by the British air force back in WWII. Wood absorbs RADAR rather than reflecting it. The SR-71 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird#Stealth) was the first "stealthy" aircraft (the underbelly was a continuous curve, it had a RADAR absorbant coat of paint, and the tail fins were bent inward to reduce RADAR cross section) not made of wood. Speed was the SR-71's primary objective (which diminished its stealthiness greatly) but it ultimately caused the Skunk Works to create the "worthless diamond" by demonstrating a nearly invisible aircraft is possible. That, again, later evolved into slow (as opposed to SR-71's fast) almost invisible aircraft.

[btarunr]

Indian Navy is looking to buy that. We'll load it up with MiG-35K (upcoming carrier-variant of MiG-35).

[jmcslob]

India would be far better off putting JSF's on that carrier as well as updating it's Air Force..

Why retrofit and purchase more of a class of jet that will not give any type of advantage of it's biggest threat the F-16.

India can afford it now...They need to be a bigger threat in the area

[btarunr]

India would be far better off putting JSF's on that carrier as well as updating it's Air Force..

Why retrofit and purchase more of a class of jet that will not give any type of advantage of it's biggest threat the F-16.

India can afford it now...They need to be a bigger threat in the area

The reason we're staying away from US hardware is:

We're not NATO
US supplies hardware to Pakistan
US hardware is perceived to come with bugs (data-miners, not bugs as in defects), and killswitches
US doesn't give us access to source-codes (of the radar and targeting system software, a major put-off for all JSF partners)
US doesn't transfer technology so some/most trivial parts of the hardware can be made/assembled here in India, like Russians allow us to make most of our own Su-30 MKI and MiG-29 fighters' parts.


We're offered F-18 SuperHornets, F-16 Block-52, also with the offer that we'll get access to JSF a little later, but then we're also co-developing a 5th generation fighter with the Russians.

We are, however, buying some hardware, we placed an order of 14 SuperHercules transporters (without opting for "confidential" tracking and communications hardware, so we could use our own (and reduce scope for US bugs/killswitches)), we also bought over 100 GE F-414 engines for our Tejas LCA fighter.

[FordGT90Concept]

US supplies hardware to Pakistan
Only because we have current, direct interest in them right now (dealing with Al Queda and the Taliban).


US hardware is perceived to come with bugs (data-miners, not bugs as in defects), and killswitches
If USA military hardware does, there's a good chance Russian hardware does too. It's pretty common sense to put in a measure to prevent your hardware from being used against you.


US doesn't give us access to source-codes (of the radar and targeting system software, a major put-off for all JSF partners)
That's US intellectual property. Giving up the source code basically means anyone could manufacturer it (especially China) and no one would have the incentive to buy from the USA anymore. I highly doubt Russia offers source code for their more modern technologies either.


US doesn't transfer technology so some/most trivial parts of the hardware can be made/assembled here in India, like Russians allow us to make most of our own Su-30 MKI and MiG-29 fighters' parts.
Again, intellectual property coupled with strict controls on selling military hardware, no matter how incomplete. We deliever finished products, not parts for final assembly elsewhere.


We are, however, buying some hardware, we placed an order of 14 SuperHercules transporters (without opting for "confidential" tracking and communications hardware, so we could use our own (and reduce scope for US bugs/killswitches)), we also bought over 100 GE F-414 engines for our Tejas LCA fighter.
It is very, very unlike a C-130J would have a "kill switch." It is a transport vehicle and, by itself, not a direct military threat. If it were the Spooky or Spectre (gunships) variant, then yes, it most likely would have a killswitch.

[btarunr]

Only because we have current, direct interest in them right now (dealing with Al Queda and the Taliban).

You don't need F-16 Block52 with the latest AESA radars to fight the taliban.



If USA military hardware does, there's a good chance Russian hardware does too. It's pretty common sense to put in a measure to prevent your hardware from being used against you.

Russia gave us the source code, gave us the blue prints, most of the electronics are made by us, under a Transfer of Technology (ToT) agreement.

That's US intellectual property. Giving up the source code basically means anyone could manufacturer it (especially China) and no one would have the incentive to buy from the USA anymore. I highly doubt Russia offers source code for their more modern technologies either.

Not when your sharing the source codes are protected by treaties. Under JSF program, all partners jointly funded the program, hence JSF partners are feeling unequal.


It is very, very unlike a C-130J would have a "kill switch." It is a transport vehicle and, by itself, not a direct military threat. If it were the Spooky or Spectre (gunships) variant, then yes, it most likely would have a killswitch.

The C130-J in its compete package includes a communications suite and a confidential data-link that required us to sign on a ton of agreements which would mean US interference in our maintenance. Hence we agreed to buy those C130s, without that communications hardware.

[WhiteLotus]

The UK needs to become special "friends" with India and maybe China.

[yogurt_21]

The UK needs to become special "friends" with India and maybe China.

you can be special freinds with india, we've already called dibs on china and seriously I mean who walks up to our bed and tries to take one of our most loyal lovers?