Posts by D3F 3 publicly visible posts • joined 8 Oct 2010
They're definitely managing the information released from this event in a manner that is likely to cause legitimate anger.
Right now it's reactors 2 + 4 that look to pose the biggest immediate threats, the fire in 4 is NOT H2, that much is obvious - I'd put money on the fact the spent fuel rods are exposed and are self combusting - after all, that is why they require active coolant.
This isn't over by a long shot.
The F35B is going to be exceptional - we don't want anything less, it's a mile ahead of anything else that Britain has ever been involved with - we've lagged behind the US for half a century in terms of our aviation, the EF is a generation behind the F22 and has none of the battlespace management or survivability assets that the F22 brings to the table.
Similarly, suggestions to use a CATOBAR with an ageing or navalised 4th generation plane are flawed by what we want to deliver - The newer russian SAM systems are not in any way similar to those that were faced over Bosnia or Iraq, they are an order of magnitude better in performance relative to the planes we have with passive seekers, several hundred NM ranges and decent sensors, Russia has invested in these for a good reason and they're selling like hot cakes.
Re: Rafales (for the poster above who rates them highly), consider that not a single foreign country has bought them, ever primarily because their real-world capabilities are completely different from what the French actually claim, they're a superb low-altitude dogfighter, a mediocre mud-mover (not compatible with US weapons) with a woefully performing underpowered radar which is useless in an era of BVR engagements and HMS/HOBS missiles (ASRAAM) (that can hit targets behind the wingline thus negating dogfighting as a method of survival) the rafale is basically the very symbol of french arrogance, endless buzzwords which equate to f-all when competing in international procurement competitions, they're junk, even the french have only bought a handful, they make a whopping 1 a month...
In terms of the carrier operations, I'd prefer it if they went CATOBAR and used the F-35A variant, it's the best in terms of performance, it's cheaper and will probably have the lowest RCS, I think at this stage the contractual obligations may be the problem, either in terms of the carriers or in terms of the F-35 buy, someone above also suggested reducing the purchase to equip a single carrier, the problem with that (although it's not a bad idea) is that you need enough spares, the 38/carrier was quite a practical number, in high intensity conflict you really do need as many planes as is possible, attrition and maintenance being the operative factors.
I am definitely in favour of keeping one carrier on patrol, one in port, definitely better than using one as an amphib vessel, having a single carrier is a huge risk, losing a single vessel could essentially lose a war, have one in harbour, good for public relations etc, train on it, operate it, and be ready to use it if necessary.
Look forward to seeing the SDR, hopefully it won't be as ruinous as some speculate.
Yes, surface vessels may be unimportant in a major conflict but are crucial for protecting sea lanes in the event of hostility - do you intend to do this with two carriers?
What about our SSN's? these have massive deterrent capability again naval threats.
And as far as the F-35 is concerned, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, it will be a paradigm shift in air operations, you're evidently one of the tin-foil-hat brigade who hasn't actually understood any of the capabilities the F-35 brings to the table relative to the Growler (EW-F18) or any other F-18 derivative, it can enter contested airspace, is an order of magnitude more survivable than any other jet we have (even the Typhoon with it's several M2 RCS) from most aspects, it is easily visible on radar (yes, even in frontal aspect) and will be easy pickings for S-400 batteries.
The F-35 programme is actually the single most important in terms of britain's defensive capabilities, it has the ability to manage airspace in an entirely different manner to any 4th generation jet in service, has a strike capability that will be unrivalled, and through-life-costs (maintenance/refits) which will actually be far cheaper, with greater longevity than any other platform on the table. Developing 5th generation operational doctrine enables us to work in tandem with the US should the need arises and develops our capabilities to control airspace with a mixture of UAV/manned systems. Suggesting we buy F-18's would give us an expensive and limited option with a massively reduced lifespan, it's current incarnations are pushing the platform just about as far as they can go, that's why the F-35 is so important, when I see comments like those above suggesting that we scrap the contract with the US I simply reply that we will never get another chance to co-operate on major advanced tech with them, they are light years ahead in terms of capability and BAE (therefore UK jobs) are created directly from our 10+ percent stake in the project. To the idiot (above) who suggested that a typhoon would make dogmeat of an F-35 in combat, it won't even have the ability to detect it with it's obsolete CAPTOR array (not AESA, not LPI) further than a few KM. Pirate (IR detection) on the EF doesn't work well and lacks volume search capability.
It would be seen in the US as a humiliating shafting, if you knew just how reliant BAE systems is on projects in the US, and what it would mean for british jobs if we were to crash their major procurement program for the sake of stupidity, you might reconsider your opinion.
Its capabilities are beyond anything we can hope to develop natively, its survivability means that we don't put aircrew at risk by shafting them with an older model F-18 aircraft (which is only in continued use by the US to in order to compliment its 5th gen air doctrine), it is the single most important and effective military programme we have going on in the UK, if we shaft the americans we'll be on our own (or worse, with france) in future, given where our defense companies are currently making their money that would be an insanely short sighted and operationally stupid decision to make.
The only solution that works is to reduce the budget cut to managable level - we could make up the shortfall by cutting 40 percent of our corrupt and pointless foreign aid programmes, why should defense have to suffer in order to provide the same capability to others.
D3
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
