Warship Channel 4

[Welsh wheels]

A good thing too. Not only were they still children but they were acting like it. They could have been a liability in a war zone.

I did notice they were fooling around a bit

 

[ufkacbln]

It is always going to be a challenge to swim home more than 1,000 miles.

It was always planned, but not always realistic to remove Juniors from these situations

But once past a certain point logistics meant waiting for a replenishment ship, case act or other trip out

 

[ufkacbln]

The problem with aircraft, weapons and defence systems is they develop

In 1982 we were "lucky" that the defences against Exocet and others were in the lead

Another 6 months and the weapons manafacturers would have been able to override or get past those defence systems and losses would have been greater

 

[Piemaster]

Yes, thinknits going to the knackers yard in a year or so when HMS Queen Elizabeth approaches operational status.

Or possibly being flogged to Brasil. Wouldn't be the first time they have bought our old boats.

Didn't see it but one of my fellow engineers at work was talking about the program. Apparently took 30 hours to change a cylinder head. We were both somewhat aghast that it took so long and there appeared no shame it had taken that long for what should have been a mornings work.

 

[Chris S]

In the most recent episode there was steward from the Caribbean who had his hair in shoulder length dreadlocks. The days of short back and sides are definitely over.

 

[classic33]

There's been a lot of guff talked about F35 - a lot of it originating from Boeing who are still pushing hard for the F18. Like the F117 and F22, it's very reliant upon software. The initial testing on Block 1 software had it set up specifically to operate within certain parameters which made it look bad in dogfights - which spectacularly misses the point that it's not a dogfighter, it's a light bomber. In fact it's more than that. The way it will operate is as a control for bomb trucks. Basically F35 in stealthy mode will fly high and far forward of a number of Typhoon/F16/F15 which will be heavily loaded with missiles. F35 will remotely launch and/or control the missiles in flight and guide them onto target, thus enabling unstealthy aircraft to attack defended airspace. It's not about what F35 can carry itself but what it can control.

Comparing it to Harrier doesn't work. Harrier had a combat range of 600nm, F35B is 900nm. Harrier could carry 8000lb payloads, F35B 15000lb. Harrier top speed was 700mph, F35B 1200mph

You might find this useful - http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/03/making-f35b/

Concerns about increased risk of injury to F-35 pilots during lowspeed ejections have prompted the military services to temporarily restrict pilots who weigh less than 136 pounds from flying the aircraft, Defense News, a sister publication of Air Force Times, has learned.

During August tests of the ejection seat, built by Martin-Baker, testers discovered an increased risk of neck injury when a lightweight pilot is flying at slower speeds. Until the problem is fixed, the services decided to restrict pilots weighing under 136 pounds from operating the plane, Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian, F-35 integration office director, told Defense News in a Sept. 29 interview.

http://www.stopthef35.com/f-35-ejection-seat-fears-ground-lightweight-pilots/
&
http://www.defensenews.com/articles...ht-restrictions-could-occur-as-early-as-april

As for "dogfighting", it's was built as a Joint Strike Fighter
https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/...g-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

And the official reason it lost against the F-16
Pentagon say reason most expensive fighter jet ever the F35 lost a dogfight with an F16 from 40 years ago was because it did not have a special coat of stealth paint

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

What's that? When testing something they discovered it needed changed? Just as well they did tests then. Maybe that's what tests are for?

What were the ROE for the F16 "dogfight"?

The Chilean airforce once had an exercise against US jets. They had Hunters and F5s against F14s and F18s. The Chileans shot down the Yanks at a rate of four to one. Except the ROE were guns and rear-aspect heat seekers only as that was all the Chilean planes had. In a real fight the Chilean jets would never have even seen the F14s and F18s as they would have been swatted by radar guided missiles from 50 miles away which they couldn't even detect.

This is the first major warplane to be developed in the social media age, where every snippet of information gets twisted and spun by anonymous people who are often misinformed, uninformed or with an agenda.

That wasn't an F16 from 40 years ago, it was an F16 with 40 years of development. Initial F16s had awful radar, poor engines and were little more than point defence fighters. Today it's an effective multi-role aircraft but if social media had been around in the 70s, they'd still be flying F4 Phantoms today.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Incidentally, in the first Gulf War, Buccaneers were needed to laser designate targets for Tornados. The Buccaneers took off half an hour after the Tornados, flew to the target at a higher altitude, arrived there before them, designated the target and were back before them. Nobody thought the Buccaneer would be a better bomber going forward did they?

Similarly, the first Tornado fighters weren't nearly as good as the Lightnings they replaced. Rotten non-existent) radar, weak engines etc, but nobody suggested Lightning was a better option.

F35 is still being developed and isn't even in service with us yet. Tests are designed to test, find faults and rectify them.

 

[Kestevan]

New even seen Ocean, but been aboard the similar lusty and it seemed huge, though in the grand scheme of such things it was pretty tiny.

When I grow up I want to be a proper aircraft carrier.........

And HMS Ocean is smaller still

 

[classic33]

What's that? When testing something they discovered it needed changed? Just as well they did tests then. Maybe that's what tests are for?

What were the ROE for the F16 "dogfight"?

The Chilean airforce once had an exercise against US jets. They had Hunters and F5s against F14s and F18s. The Chileans shot down the Yanks at a rate of four to one. Except the ROE were guns and rear-aspect heat seekers only as that was all the Chilean planes had. In a real fight the Chilean jets would never have even seen the F14s and F18s as they would have been swatted by radar guided missiles from 50 miles away which they couldn't even detect.

This is the first major warplane to be developed in the social media age, where every snippet of information gets twisted and spun by anonymous people who are often misinformed, uninformed or with an agenda.

That wasn't an F16 from 40 years ago, it was an F16 with 40 years of development. Initial F16s had awful radar, poor engines and were little more than point defence fighters. Today it's an effective multi-role aircraft but if social media had been around in the 70s, they'd still be flying F4 Phantoms today.

The thing was staged, so the newer plane should have won in the dog fight. It didn't, with the official reason being given above.

Interesting to note that one of the requirements of the "face off", was a VTOL capability. No longer present in the aircraft.

When the manufacturers of the escape system impose a maximum, then a minimum weight limit, for their part to work without killing the pilot, inside the redesigned aircraft, there has to be something wrong/not right.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Did you actually read the link you supplied Classic?

https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/...g-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

my conclusion is that this is an airplane that allows me to be more forward and aggressive than I could ever be in an F-16.

The F-35 provides me as a pilot greater authority to point the nose of the airplane where I desire (than the F16). (The F-35 is capable of significantly higher Angle of Attack (AOA) than the F-16. Angle of Attack describes the angle between the longitudinal axis of the plane – where nose is pointing – and where the aircraft is actually heading – the vector). This improved ability to point at my opponent enables me to deliver weapons earlier than I am used to with the F-16, it forces my opponent to react even more defensively, and it gives me the ability to reduce the airspeed quicker than in the F-16.

Update: Since I first wrote this post, I have flown additional sorties where I tried an even more aggressive approach to the control position – more aggressive than I thought possible. It worked just fine. The F-35 sticks on like glue, and it is very difficult for the defender to escape.

I would emphasize the term “multirole” after experiencing this jet in many roles, and now also in a dogfight. The F-35 has a real bite! Those in doubt will be surprised when they finally meet this “bomber.”

 

[GrumpyGregry]

What, precisely, is the point of the Royal Navy, other than to inadvertently remind everyone that the UK is no longer a military super power?

 

[Welsh wheels]

What, precisely, is the point of the Royal Navy, other than to inadvertently remind everyone that the UK is no longer a military super power?

Still plays a vital role in disrupting the drugs trade, thwarting pirates, helping mariners in distress, and I could go on. While its strength is greatly diminished, make no mistake the Royal Navy is still a first class navy.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Still plays a vital role in disrupting the drugs trade, thwarting pirates, helping mariners in distress, and I could go on. While its strength is greatly diminished, make no mistake the Royal Navy is still a first class navy.

A maritime police force? That feels like a secondary role of the sort intended to justify something to the public.

I'd need a better grip on the numbers to understand if the contemporary navy's contribution to any of these activities can be considered as vital on a global, or even national scale.

 

[classic33]

Did you actually read the link you supplied Classic?

https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/...g-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

Someone said it was never a dogfighter, all I did was provide both sides.

Did you read the piece where he said it was actually done on the ground(simulator) not in the air.

VTOL & 3D veyctored thrust removed from the XF-35. The first a requirement for UK ship bourne use, when the order was placed.

When the manufacturer of a piece designed to help save the pilot, has to start putting a 11 stone limit as a maximum weight then a minimum weight limit of five pounds less, there's a problem. Given their seat was designed for the aircraft.