Model Boat Mayhem

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length.
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?  (Read 9058 times)

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10,959
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
« Reply #25 on: September 08, 2014, 06:43:11 pm »

Quote
although I agree, only service men and women should be allowed as they then understand the needs for efficiency

Not sure that history demonstrates that to be a true statement! Service people see things from their own perspective but it isn't necessarily the whole picture. For example, Alan Mallison the author has a distinguished record of service in the Army but basically sees the Navy as unnecessary!

Two rules:
1) Things are never as simple as people would like to believe.
2) The same mistakes are ALWAYS made over and over again.

It's called human nature I believe.

Colin
Logged

Victor Meldrew

  • Shipmate
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
  • Location: Blyth, Northumberland
Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
« Reply #26 on: September 09, 2014, 11:12:27 am »

I personally think that Putin was installed as was Adolph as a front man controlled by many of the generals etc who didn't want to take a front seat just in case it all went wrong with a view to him  being removed when the time was right only now ( as with Adolph ) Putin has become a lot stronger and independent than expected. Let's just hope that as in history he doesn't become too greedy for power and land.
Logged
Victor Meldrew

derekwarner

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,559
  • Location: Wollongong Australia
Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
« Reply #27 on: September 09, 2014, 01:12:16 pm »

Guys..... in 1986....I walked on the deck of HMS Illustrious.........during our Australian 75th Naval Centenary at my work place.......

In a previous posting some years back.....I praised the helo pilots from Lusty  :-)) in defending the berthing of BB63 @ GID ..........

Lets leave this thread about the vessel HMS Illustrious & not world politics.........Derek
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDsQtwIwAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DQ05ErsQv9h8&ei=V-wOVJXRPIeSuASoh4GAAg&usg=AFQjCNE5GVBfAd_bHTRpe586lQGmcqSplA&sig2=8Sc_0VaI1ECuuujcyLzj_w&bvm=bv.74649129,d.dGc
Logged
Derek Warner

Honorary Secretary
Illawarra Live Steamers Co-op
Australia
www.ils.org.au

dodes

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 738
  • Location: Hampshire
Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
« Reply #28 on: September 09, 2014, 07:14:40 pm »

Well here is one, not political etc. but concerns the new carriers being built, specifically their designed aircraft. I often read a mag called " Wonderpedia " as they often have some very good facts about various topics (usually what our politicians do not want us to know), anyway the latest edition for this month has an in-depth article on the F 35 fighter.  Anyway its leading headline on the subject is " The 1.5 Trillion Dollar Flop ", appears it could eclipse the infamous Starfighter of some years ago as expensive flop, for several reasons , but its manufacturer gives annually 15 million dollars in support to 45 US congress members.
Logged

McGherkin

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 384
  • Location: Plymouth
Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
« Reply #29 on: November 03, 2014, 11:40:24 am »

The F35 is actually a really good aircraft, certainly far better than the Harrier it replaces (as much as I like them!). It's the same old people complaining now, that were complaining about the F16s, F18s etc etc. And look how much love there is for them now.

The F35 is far stealthier than the harrier, and much faster, and furthermore its ability to detect and engage targets from a long range is far superior. These days a harrier is a bit of a sitting duck, the F35 isn't.

There's a few initial reliability niggles, but they've all had that.
Logged

Bowwave

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 174
Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
« Reply #30 on: November 03, 2014, 06:06:48 pm »

The F35  has a chequered  history , initially the whole concept was based on the  Soviet Yak 141 project including  parts of the airframe    lift and propulsion system layout  and yes  the F35  should be better than the Harrier in so much as it is faster and stealthier yet there remains some  serious reliability concerns which need to be resolved.  the F35 is the most expensive procurement project  that the department of defence has undertaken  I just hope that  in the end   the project is successful.  But it is a sobering thought,  in the early 1960s  the then UK government  abandoned the 1154 project which was a supersonic VTOL fighter which was on the cusp of success . Had this program been completed then the chances are  the UK would have had an stealthier   VTOL aircraft much  sooner ,which may well have been more reliable,  at a much reduced cost to the tax payer  and an  aircraft  the Navy and RAF actually wanted .
Bowwave
Logged

dodes

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 738
  • Location: Hampshire
Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
« Reply #31 on: November 07, 2014, 12:53:10 pm »

Talking of stealth in being able to elude radar systems, I read that the Russians have now developed systems to beat it, in relation to their SAM battery control systems. One is they now can see them through a passive system which detects disturbance in the atmosphere and detects at 185 miles, plus they have beefed up their HF radar systems which they claim can detect them at 185 miles. So it seems like most military systems developed, rule supreme for a time until some one develops a counter acting system, you see it and read about ever since men have gone to war with each other. What's next in the technical advancement of warfare!!!!!!!
Logged

Bowwave

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 174
Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
« Reply #32 on: November 07, 2014, 01:25:08 pm »

It could be said that if the Russians have a radar system capable of penetrating  the stealth features of US aircraft such as the F22 and F35  then I would  probably surmise the US military boffins had cracked the same technology  as soon as they built the F-117 way back in  1981. Which of course makes the new Russian Sukhoi T50   multi role stealth fighter  just as much a target.  This may bring into question the  value of the F35  when such aircraft are required in the tactical role  where  stealth , speed and high technology are not as important as  survivability  for the likes of  tactical  support for  troops on the ground where most battles are won or lost.   
Bowwave
Logged

dodes

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 738
  • Location: Hampshire
Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
« Reply #33 on: November 10, 2014, 08:04:00 pm »

I am not sure of its type number, but I did see that the US Navy have successfully trialled their new super stealth strike plane and it is now going into service. I came across some pics of it on a carrier with its chief test pilot, forget her name but she was not bad looking.
Logged

McGherkin

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 384
  • Location: Plymouth
Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
« Reply #34 on: November 11, 2014, 07:31:59 am »

That'll be the F35. They're using the C variant though, which can carry bigger payloads than the B.

I doubt many, if any SAM sites can lock onto the F35 in a real world scenario though, it's like saying a submarine has sonar sensitive enough to detect a ship in New York - it could, if it weren't for the other million ships, billions of fish, a few whales having a chat, underground seismic activity etc etc etc. Can it pick up something with the Radar Cross-Sectional area of a marble? Maybe. Can it detect that marble travelling at Mach 1.6, at 50,000 feet? Unlikely.

Likely as not they'll only get a lock when the payload bay doors open - which is about a second before the bomb/rocket is released. At which point it's a bit late.

Even if a SAM site could get a lock, it wouldn't matter because it'd probably have already been hit by Tomahawk by the time the F35s show up, like happened in Libya.
Logged

Bowwave

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 174
Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
« Reply #35 on: November 11, 2014, 10:37:55 am »

In the closed world of  weapons programs ,    it would be a dereliction of duty to think that  a counter measure had not be developed alongside the original program .  The  U2 spy plane of the 1950s /60s was considered by some   to be  invulnerable  to any known missile because of its ability to fly  beyond the capability of  any Soviet air defence. the CIA  who operated the aircraft knew better and instructed all their pilots never to fly in a straight line  for prolonged periods . The  CIA were aware that the Soviets had the capability to down the U2 with their high altitude  SA-2  SAM missile.   The lesson of this incident of long ago is not to believe in invulnerability    and the F35 is no exception it is just another aircraft with a big price tag.
Bowwave 
Logged

dodes

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 738
  • Location: Hampshire
Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
« Reply #36 on: November 12, 2014, 07:14:46 pm »

I do not think it was the F35, the cockpit arrangement was as I remember quite different to the F35, the co-pilot was sitting superimposed above the pilot. But never mind at least one of their new types is actually working, which is more than what can be said of this country.!!!!!
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up