Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

3 New Navy Vessels for Irish Naval Service

1171820222386

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,033 ✭✭✭Silvera


    sparky42 wrote: »
    As for the 35 yeah it's going to be an over priced stone on everyone's neck (what the hell was the UK thinking about going with the B) but the US has put HUGE diplomatic and organisational pressure on getting nations to buy it, some nations were made offers they couldn't refuse.

    I'm curious, what kind of offers were given, and to which countries?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,049 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Silvera wrote: »
    I'm curious, what kind of offers were given, and to which countries?

    From what came out from Wikileaks, Norway for example had the US Defence Secretary and several generals "visiting" and telling them if they didn't order the 35 then the US would "question" their commitment to NATO. Same hard sell they gave the Finns to buy the F18 when they wanted the cheaper SAAB option (though in that case it was the threat of restricting the Sidewinder models that the Finns could buy from them if they didn't).

    It's nowherenear the first time the US has pulled these type of tricks (or any of the other major defence nations), for example the F 104 sales to Western European countries that turned out to be based on bribes from the contractor.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    Ren2k7 wrote: »
    The F-35 is a massive overpriced lemon that will end up reducing the operational capabilities of those countries that have foolishly adopted it. Countries who have ordered them should cancel their orders and instead opt for de facto 5th Gen fighters like the Super Hornet.

    Not this meme again.

    The F35 suffered in the beginning from having to constantly redesign itself to fit each nation's needs. Hell, the USAF and USN couldn't even agree on what they wanted, nevermind the British, Norwegian, Canadians and Australians.

    That said, it has overcome those problems, and is performing well. Its thrust to weight ratio is high enough to allow the British to operate it from their catapult-less carriers, it can utilize VTOL to some extent, it is set to be ~$85m or so, cheaper than its competitors. Its stealth capabilities are second only to the F22, which isn't being manufactured, and makes sense seeing as how the F35 is a multirole fighter, compared to the stealth-fighter that is the F22.

    Its avionics and radar are top of the line, and it will have significant anti-ship capabilities once the Norwegian JSM is ready (the NSM is quite destructive considering its payload: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJuoqu62K-4).

    The F18 has greater range than the F35, but it's larger (meaning it will be more easily seen on radar). The F35 has over double the trust, and is around 1300kg lighter. It can carry slightly more in total payload (8100kg vs 8050kg) and just as wide a variety of choice. The operating cost is $31,000 p/hr for the F35 vs $24,500 p/hr for the F18.

    Its only real competitors are years from being produced. The Pak-Fa has suffered from sanctions against Russia so much, that the Indians decided to order from the French. The J20 suffers from the same handicap as most Chinese harware. Copy cat design without the metallurgical skill to compete.

    I must sound like a shill for Lockheed, but make no doubt. The F35 isn't a waste.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    sparky42 wrote: »
    As to the 35 yeah it's going to be an over priced stone on everyone's neck (what the hell was the UK thinking about going with the B) but the US has put HUGE diplomatic and organisational pressure on getting nations to buy it, some nations were made offers they couldn't refuse.

    They said the same thing about the F16 when that was coming out (which is why his comments about the F35 are deliciously ironic).

    They chose the F35B because their carriers won't have catapults. The F35C is a CATOBAR variant.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,049 ✭✭✭sparky42


    They said the same thing about the F16 when that was coming out (which is why his comments about the F35 are deliciously ironic).

    They chose the F35B because their carriers won't have catapults. The F35C is a CATOBAR variant.

    The project team has already admited that one of the many issues, is that they've had to redesign the bomb bay as the new bombs designed for the F 35 don't fit, making all the current IOC unit's even less capable (and that's after moving several of the design goals) That's outstanding Project managment right there.

    As for the Brits, the point is they have created true lemon's of carriers just to get BAE the B variant contract. The limits include having to build one off Merlins for AWACs that are always going to be inferior to the Hawkeye that even France manages to have on a smaller carrier, they've gone for the most expensive and limited variant of the 35 and there was no pressing need to do so. They could have built a CATOBAR QE without much greater expense/difficulty and shared the Fords new Cat design, instead they get a carrier that currently is planned only to have surge capacity, normally having less than 2 dozen 35's. And that is after gutting the rest of the RN to pay for it (not too mention that they have no idea how to pay for the SSBN program (though neither does the USN to be fair))


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,161 ✭✭✭Ren2k7


    Not this meme again.

    The F35 suffered in the beginning from having to constantly redesign itself to fit each nation's needs. Hell, the USAF and USN couldn't even agree on what they wanted, nevermind the British, Norwegian, Canadians and Australians.

    That said, it has overcome those problems, and is performing well. Its thrust to weight ratio is high enough to allow the British to operate it from their catapult-less carriers, it can utilize VTOL to some extent, it is set to be ~$85m or so, cheaper than its competitors. Its stealth capabilities are second only to the F22, which isn't being manufactured, and makes sense seeing as how the F35 is a multirole fighter, compared to the stealth-fighter that is the F22.

    Its avionics and radar are top of the line, and it will have significant anti-ship capabilities once the Norwegian JSM is ready (the NSM is quite destructive considering its payload: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJuoqu62K-4).

    The F18 has greater range than the F35, but it's larger (meaning it will be more easily seen on radar). The F35 has over double the trust, and is around 1300kg lighter. It can carry slightly more in total payload (8100kg vs 8050kg) and just as wide a variety of choice. The operating cost is $31,000 p/hr for the F35 vs $24,500 p/hr for the F18.

    Its only real competitors are years from being produced. The Pak-Fa has suffered from sanctions against Russia so much, that the Indians decided to order from the French. The J20 suffers from the same handicap as most Chinese harware. Copy cat design without the metallurgical skill to compete.

    I must sound like a shill for Lockheed, but make no doubt. The F35 isn't a waste.

    A meme?! Lol, no it's called reality. The F-35 programme is now envisaged to end up costing more than 1 TRILLION dollars. In war game simulations it has been shown that the F-35, in a hypothetical conflict in the Taiwan Straits, would be destroyed by current gen Chinese fighters. And I'm sure I don't have to point out that there's no such thing as "stealth", not unless LM have figured out a way to make the damn thing invisible........



    And let's hear from one of the chief designers of both the A-10 and F-16:



    The USAF are now looking at extending the lifespan of the extremely impressive A-10 because of delays and massive cost overruns with the F-35.

    It really has been a complete disaster, all involved really should cut their losses and go with the incremental design of the Advanced Super Hornet that offers much of what the F-35 claims to do. Had Obama any balls he would have cancelled this porktastic defence programme the moment he became President, like he did with Constellation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    sparky42 wrote: »
    The project team has already admited that one of the many issues, is that they've had to redesign the bomb bay as the new bombs designed for the F 35 don't fit, making all the current IOC unit's even less capable (and that's after moving several of the design goals) That's outstanding Project managment right there.

    As for the Brits, the point is they have created true lemon's of carriers just to get BAE the B variant contract. The limits include having to build one off Merlins for AWACs that are always going to be inferior to the Hawkeye that even France manages to have on a smaller carrier, they've gone for the most expensive and limited variant of the 35 and there was no pressing need to do so. They could have built a CATOBAR QE without much greater expense/difficulty and shared the Fords new Cat design, instead they get a carrier that currently is planned only to have surge capacity, normally having less than 2 dozen 35's. And that is after gutting the rest of the RN to pay for it (not too mention that they have no idea how to pay for the SSBN program (though neither does the USN to be fair))

    Like I said in my previous post, it was plagued by warring desires from the outset. Even having to redesign it, it will outperform its rivals.

    Yeah, I don't know what the British were thinking when they designed it with two towers. They didn't include catapults for the same reason they didn't include nuclear reactors. To do so would increase the cost of building the ships domestically. And, to be quite fair, the De Gaulle is hardly the best argument. It was too expensive for the French to buy two, so they are left without carrier capabilities for six months of the year.

    However, if the F35 was a colossal feck up, then you wouldn't have had the Canadians and Australians offering to buy them in bulk batches of 100. Say what you would about the US allegedly bullying Norway, but I don't believe they had to coerce the Canadians into refitting their rusting air force, or bully the Australians who have embarked on their own armament campaign with political linkings (Abbot wanted to offer the Japanese the Collins-replacement contract to strengthen ties, I believe).

    The UK has already plans to replace it with Successor, after their elections, no? I'm not sure if they've started investing yet, but didn't some US analyst say their decision to invest already was a bad idea?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    Ren2k7 wrote: »
    A meme?! Lol, no it's called reality. The F-35 programme is now envisaged to end up costing more than 1 TRILLION dollars. In war game simulations it has been shown that the F-35, in a hypothetical conflict in the Taiwan Straits, would be destroyed by current gen Chinese fighters. And I'm sure I don't have to point out that there's no such thing as "stealth", not unless LM have figured out a way to make the damn thing invisible........

    Are you really going to trust the Chinese? The same people who had software glitches in their war games, and claimed it was superior Chinese tactics? Or some dude using C/MANO as a basis for his argument?

    It's like when people shill for the Rafale and quote a Swiss comparison, saying the Rafale is better than the Eurofighter... Omitting the fact the Swiss use a trainer jet for the Eurofighter, and a combat jet for the Rafale.
    Ren2k7 wrote: »
    And let's here from one of the chief designers of both the A-10 and F-16:

    Like I said. It is entirely ironic that he criticises it as a flop, when people said the exact same thing about the F16.
    Ren2k7 wrote: »
    The USAF are now looking at extending the lifespan of the extremely impressive A-10 because of delays and massive cost overruns with the F-35.

    Yes. Delays and overruns from having to cater to several different nations, when the USAF and USN couldn't even agree on a role for it. The A-10 is easily a good choice for air support. Not so much for air-to-air combat.
    Ren2k7 wrote: »
    It really has been a complete disaster, all involved really should cut their losses and go with the incremental design of the Advanced Super Hornet that offers much of what the F-35 claims to do. Had Obama any balls he would have cancelled this porktastic defence programme the moment he became President, like he did with Constellation.

    "Cutting their losses". What sort of an investment is that? Just as it is reaching low-rate production, they cancel their orders? That doesn't seem entirely likely. The Canadians have Super Hornets, and they're buying 100 F35s, I believe. Do you know better than the Canadian Defence Forces? Or the British, the Norwegians, the Danish, the Australians?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,161 ✭✭✭Ren2k7


    Like I said in my previous post, it was plagued by warring desires from the outset. Even having to redesign it, it will outperform its rivals.

    Yeah, I don't know what the British were thinking when they designed it with two towers. They didn't include catapults for the same reason they didn't include nuclear reactors. To do so would increase the cost of building the ships domestically. And, to be quite fair, the De Gaulle is hardly the best argument. It was too expensive for the French to buy two, so they are left without carrier capabilities for six months of the year.

    However, if the F35 was a colossal feck up, then you wouldn't have had the Canadians and Australians offering to buy them in bulk batches of 100. Say what you would about the US allegedly bullying Norway, but I don't believe they had to coerce the Canadians into refitting their rusting air force, or bully the Australians who have embarked on their own armament campaign with political linkings (Abbot wanted to offer the Japanese the Collins-replacement contract to strengthen ties, I believe).

    The UK has already plans to replace it with Successor, after their elections, no? I'm not sure if they've started investing yet, but didn't some US analyst say their decision to invest already was a bad idea?

    The Canadians acquisition has been a total f**k up from day one. Not only were costs significantly understated but the Canadian Govt had already decided to back the F-35 before the tendering process had even begun! The aircraft is a dud but because of American pressure on its allies to adopt the plane, along with effective spin by LM we now have an aircraft that will result in air fleets going backwards in capabilities, not forward.
    Anxious to avoid having to put the purchase out to competitive bids, as is usually the practice, Defence officials hit upon the scheme of drafting the requirements in such a way that only the F-35 could meet them — needlessly, as I mentioned, as the government agreed to go ahead with the purchase a month before the requirements were delivered: that is, before they even knew what the planes were supposed to do, let alone whether they could do them.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-the-f-35-affair-is-a-fiasco-from-top-to-bottom

    Anyway, we're drifting off topic.....


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    Here's the criticism the F16 got.


    Ren2k7 wrote: »
    The Canadians acquisition has been a total f**k up from day one. Not only were costs significantly understated but the Canadian Govt had already decided to back the F-35 before the tendering process had even begun! The aircraft is a dud but because of American pressure on its allies to adopt the plane, along with effective spin by LM we now have an aircraft that will result in air fleets going backwards in capabilities, not forward.

    JTF2 was operating in Iraq without Parliamentary knowledge, can you blame that on the Americans too?

    The aircraft is not a dude. I just posted its capabilities compared with the F18, and the F35 blows it out of the water every time. What's the alternative, buy a bunch of F18s and wait for the Russians to develop the Pak-Fa and the Chinese to develop the J20, before rushing to play catch up?

    I do agree, the Canadians are terrible with procurements usually. I feel the only reason they invested was because they seen the Brits and Aussies doing so.
    Ren2k7 wrote: »
    Anyway, we're drifting off topic.....

    I hope the mods will allow this discussion, I find the F35 pretty interesting.

    It's thrust to weight ratio makes it more agile than every other competitor except for the F22 and Su-35S when carrying 4500kg of fuel.

    It's RCS is estimated to be around 0.001m^2, which is better than the B2.

    Hell, their countermeasures (the ASQ-239) is an upgraded version of the F22's, and its missile approach warning is on par with the F22 (if you believe some specifications, its better). The datalink between F35s is also more resistant to jams. It is absolutely phenomenal in SEAD/DEAD and CAS, and with a heavier payload than the F18 Super Hornet, it outperforms it in strike bombings.

    It's AAM's the Aim120D has 50% more range than previous ones, meaning it has an 85%+ chance of hitting a target at 180km, when the F35s RCS means most jets will only pick it up coming in close to 20km.

    The F35 will knock a plane out of the sky before they even see it coming.

    Yes, the F35 had problems, yes there was probably corruption (like there is in every arms deal since the dawn of time), but the F35 is a good fighter. A great fighter, actually, and it will boost the capabilities of those who have it, so long as they pay to maintain it and not let it waste away.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,161 ✭✭✭Ren2k7


    Are you really going to trust the Chinese? The same people who had software glitches in their war games, and claimed it was superior Chinese tactics? Or some dude using C/MANO as a basis for his argument?

    It was a Rand Corporation (a Pentagon think tank) that conducted simulations in 2008 that saw the F-35 get trounced by the PLA Air Force.
    It's like when people shill for the Rafale and quote a Swiss comparison, saying the Rafale is better than the Eurofighter... Omitting the fact the Swiss use a trainer jet for the Eurofighter, and a combat jet for the Rafale.

    It's not a matter of "shilling", it's merely pointing out the inherent defects and flaws in the aircraft. If it actually performed well I would argue in its favour. But as it stands no reasonable argument can be made for its adoption by countries.
    Like I said. It is entirely ironic that he criticises it as a flop, when people said the exact same thing about the F16.

    Really?
    Yes. Delays and overruns from having to cater to several different nations, when the USAF and USN couldn't even agree on a role for it. The A-10 is easily a good choice for air support. Not so much for air-to-air combat.

    The A-10 wasn't designed in an air-to-air role, just CAS. Attempting to make the F-35 a jack of all trades will just end up being a case of master of none. Having different aircraft for different mission roles is a lot more effective than one aircraft attempting to perform all roles.
    "Cutting their losses". What sort of an investment is that? Just as it is reaching low-rate production, they cancel their orders? That doesn't seem entirely likely. The Canadians have Super Hornets, and they're buying 100 F35s, I believe. Do you know better than the Canadian Defence Forces? Or the British, the Norwegians, the Danish, the Australians?

    Billions were also sunk into the pork laden Constellation space programme, initiated by the Shrub, until Obama came to power and promptly canned it and instead diverted funding towards private sector which is now bearing fruit with SpaceX.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    Ren2k7 wrote: »
    It was a Rand Corporation (a Pentagon think tank) that conducted simulations in 2008 that saw the F-35 get trounced by the PLA Air Force.

    Link? I'd like to read it.
    Ren2k7 wrote: »
    It's not a matter of "shilling", it's merely pointing out the inherent defects and flaws in the aircraft. If it actually performed well I would argue in its favour. But as it stands no reasonable argument can be made for its adoption by countries.

    Every plane has flaws, but the F35's value outweighs its cost to procure and run.
    Ren2k7 wrote: »
    Really?
    Yes, I posted the link above.
    Ren2k7 wrote: »
    The A-10 wasn't designed in an air-to-air role, just CAS. Attempting to make the F-35 a jack of all trades will just end up being a case of master of none. Having different aircraft for different mission roles is a lot more effective than one aircraft attempting to perform all roles.

    Absolutely. It just so happens that the F35 is better than the F18 in CAS, SEAD/DEAD, A2A. It's not as good as the F22 as a stealth fighter, but it is better than its rivals. The only reason to not use the F35 for SEAD/DEAD/CAS would be if you planned to use several Reaper drones to do that instead.
    Ren2k7 wrote: »
    Billions were also sunk into the pork laden Constellation space programme, initiated by the Shrub, until Obama came to power and promptly canned it and instead diverted funding towards private sector which is now bearing fruit with SpaceX.

    ... Didn't their rocket just malfunction?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Are we getting F35s?

    No?

    Then why bash them on this thread?

    Why defend them on this thread?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    Are we getting F35s?

    No?

    Then why bash them on this thread?

    Why defend them on this thread?

    Because someday we hope the Irish navy will have its own Ford-class carriers complete with F35s. :rolleyes:

    It's an exercise in futility, man, just simple discussion between posters about opinions.

    It's topic drift, but we're keeping it strictly military, and the F35 does have a carrier variant (two?) so it is still somewhat naval service related.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,161 ✭✭✭Ren2k7


    Link? I'd like to read it.

    Sure:
    In Stillion and Perdue’s August 2008 war simulation, a massive Chinese air and naval force bore down on Beijing’s longtime rival Taiwan amid rising tensions in the western Pacific. A sudden Chinese missile barrage wiped out the tiny, outdated Taiwanese air force, leaving American jet fighters based in Japan and Guam to do battle with Beijing’s own planes and, hopefully, forestall a bloody invasion.

    In the scenario, 72 Chinese jets patrolled the Taiwan Strait. Just 26 American warplanes — the survivors of a second missile barrage targeting their airfields — were able to intercept them, including 10 twin-engine F-22 stealth fighters that quickly fired off all their missiles.

    That left 16 of the smaller, single-engine F-35s to do battle with the Chinese. As they began exchanging fire with the enemy jets within the mathematical models of the mock conflict, the results were shocking.

    America’s newest stealth warplane and the planned mainstay of the future Air Force and the air arms of the Navy and Marine Corps, was no match for Chinese warplanes. Despite their vaunted ability to evade detection by radar, the JSFs were blown out of the sky. “The F-35 is double-inferior,” Stillion and Perdue moaned in their written summary of the war game, later leaked to the press.

    The analysts railed against the new plane, which to be fair played only a small role in the overall simulation. “Inferior acceleration, inferior climb [rate], inferior sustained turn capability,” they wrote. “Also has lower top speed. Can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run.” Once missiles and guns had been fired and avoiding detection was no longer an option — in all but the first few seconds of combat, in other words — the F-35 was unable to keep pace with rival planes.

    https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-allies-got-stuck-with-the-worlds-worst-new-warplane-5c95d45f86a5
    ... Didn't their rocket just malfunction?

    Quite the opposite in fact, it performed flawlessly. The payload was delivered successfully into its intended orbit. SpaceX made an attempt to perform a recovery of the first stage on an ocean landing pad as part of ongoing efforts to create an entirely recoverable space launch system. Unfortunately this attempt was unsuccessful, though given all the stages are destroyed anyway it made no difference to the actual mission. The recovery operations are a side mission.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    So a 7 year old 'model' that predicts defeat when outnumbered 3:1 against an aggressor.

    Who could have predicted that!
    That must have taken some work....

    Cancel everything!


  • Registered Users Posts: 92 ✭✭Boreas


    sparky42 wrote: »
    If they wanted to the could (though France has already commitments for the De Gaulle), they could base fast jets out of Malta if there's need for it but I'm betting it won't happen. Yes the fast jet fleets are much less than what they used to be, but they could easily deal with the bare dozen old gen fighters if they were an issue.

    Highly unlikely the government here would allow jets to be based in Malta, it would be massively unpopular with the public. I wouldn't be surprised if someone took legal action to try and block it on constitutional grounds.

    Unless there was a direct threat to Malta of course.

    After everyone else goes home Malta will still have to work with whoever ends up in charge of Libya and the Maltese value their reputation as a friendly neutral nation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,049 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Boreas wrote: »
    Highly unlikely the government here would allow jets to be based in Malta, it would be massively unpopular with the public. I wouldn't be surprised if someone took legal action to try and block it on constitutional grounds.

    Unless there was a direct threat to Malta of course.

    After everyone else goes home Malta will still have to work with whoever ends up in charge of Libya and the Maltese value their reputation as a friendly neutral nation.

    A very fair point, and certainly domestic views should be taken into account, if fighters were needed there are other bases (and I'm doubtful that they wouldbe needed).

    What's Malta's view on some of the extra ships being based from there, would that be an issue or an acceptable situation?


  • Registered Users Posts: 92 ✭✭Boreas


    sparky42 wrote: »
    What's Malta's view on some of the extra ships being based from there, would that be an issue or an acceptable situation?

    Irregular migration is a sensitive issue in Malta. Rightly or wrongly many Maltese feel there has been a lack of solidarity on the issue from the Northern European countries. His rhetoric has changed now but the Prime Minister Joseph Muscat used to advocate 'push back' of all migrant boats, until the EU pointed out it would be illegal.

    Ships being based in Malta would be acceptable to most people as long as those ships were landing the people they rescued in Italy or elsewhere. To be fair I would imagine the migrants themselves wouldn't want to end up in Malta either.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    Ren2k7 wrote: »
    In the scenario, 72 Chinese jets patrolled the Taiwan Strait. Just 26 American warplanes — the survivors of a second missile barrage targeting their airfields — were able to intercept them, including 10 twin-engine F-22 stealth fighters that quickly fired off all their missiles.

    Err.. The F22s and F35s were outnumbered 2.7:1 when the F22s were in play. Even I'd tell you that the odds are stacked against you if you play to engage in dog-fighting... Which wouldn't make sense considering that the F35 is rather likely to hit them from 180km away whilst only being seen at roughly 20km away.


    I also question the validity of those "inferior climb, inferior agility" comments, considering I've already posted the F35s agility stats and the only ones who can compare are Su35S and F22.

    Edit:
    RAND backed away from the report, claiming it was never about jet-to-jet comparisons, and Stillion and Perdue soon left the think tank. Stillion is now at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments think tank in Washington, D.C. Perdue currently works for Northrop Grumman.

    What I find most interesting is that RAND redacted the study, and Perdue is now working for Lockheed's competitor. Gee well, that was hardly biased.

    Edit again:

    I just love the banter here:
    Steve O’Bryan, a Lockheed vice president and former fighter pilot, targeted the war game analysis and its authors. “It was policy people who did that report, [people] with no airplane experience,” O’Bryan said, adding that many critics of the F-35 “are people who are self-proclaimed experts who live in their mom’s basement and wear slippers to work.”

    But Stillion and Perdue are both veteran aviators. Stillion flew in RF-4 recon planes and Perdue in F-15s during the Gulf War. “I don’t live in my mom’s basement,” Perdue said.

    Edit three:
    Where once mighty American warplanes soared over all others, giving Washington a distinct strategic advantage against any foe, in coming decades the U.S. air arsenal will likely be totally outclassed on a plane-by-plane basis by any country possessing the latest Russian and Chinese models — one of which, ironically, appears to be an improved copy of the JSF … minus all its worst design elements.

    Do they mean the Pak-Fa, which the Russians can't afford to build and forced the Indians to buy from he French? And the J20, which has little going for it other than the "china stronk" posters?
    If the unthinkable happens and sometime in the next 40 years a real war — as opposed to a simulation — breaks out over Taiwan or some other hot spot, a lot of U.S. jets could get shot down and a lot of American pilots killed. Battles could be lost. Wars could be forfeit.

    Err, they do know that if Taiwan was invaded by China, the US wouldn't be sending a little over two dozen planes, right? They'd be sending in the Fords with their full air wings.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    It may turn out that the USAF putting their hopes into the 1 model (F-35A) may be foolish.... time will tell.

    The most troublesome variant of the F35 (the 'B' variant) is also the biggest game changer, especially for European nations.

    For a similar price to 4th gen aircraft, mid size powers will have the ability to launch strike fighters from much smaller platforms.

    Within 10 years, the UK, Spain & Italy (and perhaps even Turkey) will have aircraft carrier strike capability utilising advanced stealth & avionics.

    There is a chance (a small one) that Korea, Australia & Japan could do similar.... Giving similar ability to CATOBAR carriers for much less cost.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,783 ✭✭✭BowWow


    Serious thread drift here.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭gallag


    BowWow wrote: »
    Serious thread drift here.

    But interesting non the less.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    It may turn out that the USAF putting their hopes into the 1 model (F-35A) may be foolish.... time will tell.

    The most troublesome variant of the F35 (the 'B' variant) is also the biggest game changer, especially for European nations.

    For a similar price to 4th gen aircraft, mid size powers will have the ability to launch strike fighters from much smaller platforms.

    Within 10 years, the UK, Spain & Italy (and perhaps even Turkey) will have aircraft carrier strike capability utilising advanced stealth & avionics.

    There is a chance (a small one) that Korea, Australia & Japan could do similar.... Giving similar ability to CATOBAR carriers for much less cost.

    I don't see Australia operating CATOBAR carriers, when the British themselves are buying ones with a ramp and conventional propulsion, with around double the budget of the Australians. They bought LHDs a year or two ago, configured to allow them to move up to 40 tanks iirc.

    That said, if the Australians wanted nuclear powered craft, I don't think there's much standing in their way politically, considering they have the largest reserve of uranium on the planet and the US has referred to them as their "deputy sheriff".

    Japan doesn't want "aircraft carriers", I think. But they have several destroyers with aircraft launching capabilities to compete with China, I believe.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    I don't see Australia operating CATOBAR carriers,

    I didn't say they were.....on the contrary.

    My point stated that the F35B will allow stealth & strike capability at a fraction of the cost of CATOBAR.

    Australia's 2 x Canberra Class LHD vessels will be able to support the F35-B (should Australia decide to do so).
    Japan doesn't want "aircraft carriers", I think. But they have several destroyers with aircraft launching capabilities to compete with China, I believe.

    Japan cant appear too 'offensive' however despite lacking a ski-ramp, the new Izumo Class carrier can also accommodate the F35-B, which has tested successfully from the similarly sized US 'Wasp class' ships

    izumo-24.jpg

    The 'B' variant is the game changer.

    (Apologies for digressing from thread topic)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,783 ✭✭✭BowWow


    gallag wrote: »
    But interesting non the less.

    To you maybe. Start a thread for it if you want. This thread is for the three Beckett class ships.

    If I want to read about the F36 v F16 I'll look in Aviation or Military under a suitable thread title.

    If I want read about either the US or Egypt shooting down the non existant Libian air force I'd try After Hours.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    I didn't say they were.....on the contrary.

    My point stated that the F35B will allow stealth & strike capability at a fraction of the cost of CATOBAR.

    Australia's 2 x Canberra Class LHD vessels will be able to support the F35-B (should Australia decide to do so).

    Japan cant appear too 'offensive' however despite lacking a ski-ramp, the new Izumo Class carrier can also accommodate the F35-B, which has tested successfully from the similarly sized US 'Wasp class' ships

    The 'B' variant is the game changer.

    I meant I can't see them operating them in the future. I do agree with you on the other points. Japan's Hyuga-class destroyers will also possess aircraft capabilities, I think.


  • Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭pilatus


    Back to my original point of the threat of Libyan aircraft, Egypt has been supplying MiG's to Libya recently and also Libyan MIG25s have been reactivated, don't know how many though.

    Remember the NATO led alliance pounded the Libyan air bases and still there was a sizeable fleet left intact and hidden .


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,161 ✭✭✭Ren2k7


    Just to get back on topic it's known that our own three Beckett class vessels will support unmanned drones taking off from its vessels. Anyone know of the practicalities of this given the OPV's small size and lack of heli pad? With the Eithne and Peacocks approaching retirement the NS should be looking at acquiring vessels with helicopter flight decks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,049 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Ren2k7 wrote: »
    Just to get back on topic it's known that our own three Beckett class vessels will support unmanned drones taking off from its vessels. Anyone know of the practicalities of this given the OPV's small size and lack of heli pad? With the Eithne and Peacocks approaching retirement the NS should be looking at acquiring vessels with helicopter flight decks.

    It most likely will be something along the lines of the Scan Eagle platform, catapult launch with a wire catching system, no helipad required, the RN have already used them on the River batch 1's I think.

    In terms of the Peacock/Eithne replacement if we did end up with the EPV we will have that, but with the budgets as is I'm doubtful. And while they will be in service for up to 35 years, lets be fair our history in replacing the air corps hardware isn't anything to write home about. If to buy that capability we end up having to pay something like the Batch 2 Rivers (over twice the cost of the Becketts, then honestly I think I'd prefer getting 6 more Beckett's than the potential capability (presuming the Air Corp played nice). The Spanish BAM's cost the same as all of the Beckett program for example, would you prefer 3 Beckett's or 1 BAM?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,161 ✭✭✭Ren2k7


    pilatus wrote: »
    Back to my original point of the threat of Libyan aircraft, Egypt has been supplying MiG's to Libya recently and also Libyan MIG25s have been reactivated, don't know how many though.

    Remember the NATO led alliance pounded the Libyan air bases and still there was a sizeable fleet left intact and hidden .

    Well ISIS reportedly captured Syrian MiG's with former Iraqi pilots at the helms so it's not inconceivable Islamic State fighters could get their hands on Libyan jets and carry out Kamikaze style attacks on Western interests and forces both on land and at sea.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,161 ✭✭✭Ren2k7


    sparky42 wrote: »
    It most likely will be something along the lines of the Scan Eagle platform, catapult launch with a wire catching system, no helipad required, the RN have already used them on the River batch 1's I think.

    In terms of the Peacock/Eithne replacement if we did end up with the EPV we will have that, but with the budgets as is I'm doubtful. And while they will be in service for up to 35 years, lets be fair our history in replacing the air corps hardware isn't anything to write home about. If to buy that capability we end up having to pay something like the Batch 2 Rivers (over twice the cost of the Becketts, then honestly I think I'd prefer getting 6 more Beckett's than the potential capability (presuming the Air Corp played nice). The Spanish BAM's cost the same as all of the Beckett program for example, would you prefer 3 Beckett's or 1 BAM?

    In an ideal world the Eithne would be replaced by another helicopter patrol vessel given search and rescue missions the NS deals with all the time and needing choppers for winching those in distress at sea. Yes the Coast Guard also has this as its primary mission but having that extra capability, especially hundreds of miles out in the Atlantic Ocean, can be the difference between life and death.

    Speaking of the Coast Guard I would rather see it integrated fully into the Naval Service and become its Search and Rescue arm, much like RAF SAR. Ireland being a small country with limited resources should concentrate on making the Air Corps the single provider of all air operations, as it does with the Garda air support unit and HSE air ambulance service. Having a single service providing all of these roles makes more sense. Of course this would require the state buying out the CHC contract first.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,049 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Ren2k7 wrote: »
    In an ideal world the Eithne would be replaced by another helicopter patrol vessel given search and rescue missions the NS deals with all the time and needing choppers for winching those in distress at sea. Yes the Coast Guard also has this as its primary mission but having that extra capability, especially hundreds of miles out in the Atlantic Ocean, can be the difference between life and death.

    Speaking of the Coast Guard I would rather see it integrated fully into the Naval Service and become its Search and Rescue arm, much like RAF SAR. Ireland being a small country with limited resources should concentrate on making the Air Corps the single provider of all airborne roles, as it does with the Garda air support unit and HSE air ambulance service. Having a single service providing all of these roles makes more sense. Of course this would require the state buying out the CHC contract first.

    Well bare in mind that a previous Government took the SAR away from the Air Corps to give it to CHC also I'd say there was zero chance that Bertie would have paid the $17 million a unit cost for them (IMO idealy we should have just gone for Seahawk's instead of the 139's (and if we had the Air Corps doing SAR get a few more), but that's water under the bridge. Don't expect any of the parties to care enough to bring it back into the Air Corps unless CHC screws up in an epic and terrible way.

    In terms of a ship, that only makes sense if we maintained a level of competency for such operations (and I think you'd have to go much bigger than the BAM for the S-92 (they are larger heavier and with a larger blade radius, so more costs for the ship)), and are the ones we have designed for maritime operations?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,712 ✭✭✭roundymac


    Over on IMO they are saying that P62 will sail on further sea trials on the 4/5th may, if these are sucessful she will then be accepted and delivery will take place shortly after. It seems the problem was in the propellers.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 93,126 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    sparky42 wrote: »
    As for the Brits, the point is they have created true lemon's of carriers just to get BAE the B variant contract. The limits include having to build one off Merlins for AWACs that are always going to be inferior to the Hawkeye that even France manages to have on a smaller carrier, they've gone for the most expensive and limited variant of the 35 and there was no pressing need to do so. They could have built a CATOBAR QE without much greater expense/difficulty and shared the Fords new Cat design, instead they get a carrier that currently is planned only to have surge capacity, normally having less than 2 dozen 35's
    How much did they spend on catapult changes on those carriers ?

    Don't get me started on how they sold off 72 harriers to the USMC for £116m. Before that just about any large vessel could have been used as a carrier if up against second level opponents. Couple of containers for spares , bit of welding on the deck and it's rock and roll time. They did an impressive conversion job on at least one car ferry for the Falklands.

    Yes they were ageing, yes having a single engine means you don't want to be in one when there's a problem.

    Can the F35 viff ? And there's no point in saying it'll all be stand off missiles, because you don't need an F35 to carry missiles. HMS Ocean and 72 half serviceable Harriers would still be something that most countries would would have to think twice about about. Had the Falklands war happened a few months later Invincible would have been delivered to Australia and Hermes decommissioned. It wouldn't have happened a few years earlier because they still had Ark Royal with the Gannets for AWACS , Buccaneers for coming in below the radar, and a few Phantoms too.


    As for stealth IIRC no ships were lost on convoys escorted by blimps. And some of those had massive radars inside the balloon.

    Ask over on the astronomy forum about improvements in photography over the years. Despite all the noise about Hubble , ground scopes have caught up for many purposes. Hubbles main advantage is it has less light pollution up there. Stealth is probably overrated. There's no stealth in clear skies or rain.

    Has anyone tried using lasers / high altitude parachute flares to detect stealth aircraft ? Then again that new really really back (not dark blue) stuff that reflects almost no light means you'd be looking for the hole in the noise , which by the way is doable.

    The original spec for US early warning radar was small continuous wave boxes on telephone poles with a modem back to base if the signal changed. It's not as simple as looking at reflections from mobile phone masts and other transmitters, but processing power to day is so cheap compared to the cost of an F35 that it might be worth looking at.


    Whatever about us joining NATO and buying aircraft from Sweden , there's no way we could justify buying white elephants.


    [/RANT]

    All kinda academic given how many F35's we could buy and run for what we are spending on these ships.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,047 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Deployment of a Naval Vessel to Assist in the Humanitarian Crisis in the Mediterranean http://www.defence.ie/WebSite.nsf/5DA6B7566A3866B38025777000566065/EBF2905C273EB68080257E31004948B8 its a maybe, willing if they want us and if we can. Are their new ships any use for this kinda thing, thought they had to have a low side to take people on board easily or would it just be use for search and surveillance?

    this is what I was reffering to re criticism of the LÉ Aoife being given to the Maltese
    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/malta-calls-navy-ship-gift-junk-313894.html
    It said AFM sources had pointed out the vessel had no capabilities to launch a small craft from its stern — essential in operations involving flimsy craft migrants often use for crossings.
    is the same issue for the news ships.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,049 ✭✭✭sparky42


    this is what I was reffering to re criticism of the LÉ Aoife being given to the Maltese
    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/malta-calls-navy-ship-gift-junk-313894.html
    is the same issue for the news ships.

    The Maltese complaints were from former personnel that were basically talking on a Maltese version Boards.ie. The Minister apologised if I remember. We mount the Ribs on the side, they go for a stern launch. No major difference, the frigates that the Itlalians use don't exactly have low freeboard either.


  • Registered Users Posts: 332 ✭✭nowecant


    If the INS was to get Extended Patrol Vessel, do we have a dry dock that can support her?

    I remember seeing a video of one of the ships going into dock in Verolme (I think) and it did not look like there was much room for anything larger.

    Is the dry dock in the basin in use? Is it owned by the INS?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,049 ✭✭✭sparky42


    nowecant wrote: »
    If the INS was to get Extended Patrol Vessel, do we have a dry dock that can support her?

    I remember seeing a video of one of the ships going into dock in Verolme (I think) and it did not look like there was much room for anything larger.

    Is the dry dock in the basin in use? Is it owned by the INS?

    That's one of the question and why I don't know if we could get an off the shelf version. The Absalon for example would barely fit (as in 1m to spare) and I don't think there'd be enough space in the dock to work on the hull even after it got in.

    The one in the Basin would have to be rebuilt, the gate (for lack of the correct term) is free floating (have a look on Google Maps and you can see it floating in the dock), and the pump room got flooded with Concrete at some point as far as I know.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 332 ✭✭nowecant


    sparky42 wrote: »
    The one in the Basin would have to be rebuilt, the gate (for lack of the correct term) is free floating (have a look on Google Maps and you can see it floating in the dock), and the pump room got flooded with Concrete at some point as far as I know.

    So it is bigger and the INS do own it.

    Free floating? As in it was meant to be attached and is currently tied up against the quay wall?

    Or was it originally designed to be a free floating gate and needs to be changed to a "static" one?

    I am looking on google earth now and am not sure which object it is. Also what about the marina that currently seems to reside in the dry dock?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,049 ✭✭✭sparky42


    nowecant wrote: »
    So it is bigger and the INS do own it.

    Free floating? As in it was meant to be attached and is currently tied up against the quay wall?

    Or was it originally designed to be a free floating gate and needs to be changed to a "static" one?

    I am looking on google earth now and am not sure which object it is. Also what about the marina that currently seems to reside in the dry dock?

    Behind that marina is the gate. For the rest of the question I'm afraid I can't answer you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,703 ✭✭✭IrishTrajan


    sparky42 wrote: »
    That's one of the question and why I don't know if we could get an off the shelf version. The Absalon for example would barely fit (as in 1m to spare) and I don't think there'd be enough space in the dock to work on the hull even after it got in.

    The one in the Basin would have to be rebuilt, the gate (for lack of the correct term) is free floating (have a look on Google Maps and you can see it floating in the dock), and the pump room got flooded with Concrete at some point as far as I know.

    Didn't Coveney pledge €50mn in 2013/14 to make infrastructural changes to accommodate larger ships and allow UAVs to be deployed?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,049 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Didn't Coveney pledge €50mn in 2013/14 to make infrastructural changes to accommodate larger ships and allow UAVs to be deployed?

    That money is for UAV facilities and such. Don't think they've said anything about upgrades for larger ships. Any work on the Basin is going to be a LOT more than 50 million. Think about it, there's the entrance to the Basin that would need to be enlarged, then maybe draft issues in the basin and the work on the Graving Dock.

    It would be highly expensive, which is our problem.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,300 ✭✭✭Garzard


    sparky42 wrote: »
    That money is for UAV facilities and such. Don't think they've said anything about upgrades for larger ships. Any work on the Basin is going to be a LOT more than 50 million. Think about it, there's the entrance to the Basin that would need to be enlarged, then maybe draft issues in the basin and the work on the Graving Dock.

    It would be highly expensive, which is our problem.

    I've seen the ScanEagle mentioned a few times here but has any decision on the UAV (and number to be purchased) been set in stone, so to speak?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    Garzard wrote: »
    I've seen the ScanEagle mentioned a few times here but has any decision on the UAV (and number to be purchased) been set in stone, so to speak?

    They have/had 6 of these from Israel
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiter_UAV
    (Clare Daly must have had an aneurism that day).

    I'm not sure if they are good for the NS though?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,161 ✭✭✭Ren2k7


    They have/had 6 of these from Israel
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiter_UAV
    (Clare Daly must have had an aneurism that day).

    I'm not sure if they are good for the NS though?

    Is that the only type of UAV the DF owns?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    Ren2k7 wrote: »
    Is that the only type of UAV the DF owns?

    I think so.


  • Registered Users Posts: 92 ✭✭Boreas


    I suppose cost would be an issue but wouldn't something like the Schiebel Camcopter make sense for naval use.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    Boreas wrote: »
    I suppose cost would be an issue but wouldn't something like the Schiebel Camcopter make sense for naval use.

    They look pretty nifty.

    Expensive though.... Googled & the price per unit looks to be around €400k.

    I also wonder if they are too big to land safely on a Beckett?


  • Registered Users Posts: 92 ✭✭Boreas


    I also wonder if they are too big to land safely on a Beckett?

    You may well be right about them being too big for the Beckett's, the Germans use them on the Braunschweig corvettes which are almost exactly the same size as the P60's but have a dedicated helicopter pad.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement