Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I agree the F-35B is needed as a replacement for the Harrier, the F-35C is also very useful as an attack aircraft. The F-18E/F seems to be perfectly adequate as an air superiority aircraft. Tho the A-10 is getting a bit long in the tooth it's still a fine ground support platform. And the F-15E seems to fill the USAF needs for a "resistant to enemy air defense systems" attack plane. So I'm not really sure why the USAF needs the F-35A, it may be a simple case of it having been shoved down their throats.

The question is ... how much would eliminating the F-35A and keeping the B and C help? If at all?

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I am not sure any air force needs almost any new aircraft 'forcing down their throats'. It is just new and shiny and sure I may be being a little biased against air forces.

F-35 is often sold because of its, limited, stealth. Radar is catching up with stealth, just like any other military competition (gun v armour, for example).

F-35B is pretty vital to the Royal Navy right now, but I wish to hell it was not.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Gotta be quick back to the "grind" later this afternoon. All this I've posted on in here.

1) QE Carriers "Thank God" will be multi-decked capable if required with the HMS Prince of Wales though I can't remember if they got it done with the Queen Elizabeth or it'll be retro-fitted (Has?).

2) Current A-10 fleet has had significant airframe and wing structural work done on it. Also new avionics suite (Which includes defensive upgrades as well.) plus new cockpit suite to modernize it, and tie into the above items as well as increase it's offensive capabilities in targeting etc. (I.E. Laser RF) plus the targeting pods that have for sometime now include defensive capabilities as well.

3) F-15E/SE without a doubt our best all around fighter/fighter bomber to include deep penetration ops which it was designed for.

4) Latest F-16 version also much improved over all previous versions if the exception of maybe the last possibly two previous versions.

5) FA-18E/F also seeing major upgrades to include FA-18/C/D being brought up to the E/F+ standard if you will.

6) F-22 also has had and is continuing to be updated as well. As the USAF has stated the F-35 would be irrelevant without the F-22. That's an eye opener.

7) Can you figure out why we're upgrading those USN/USAF planes? Well lets just say "It's all those delays..." caused by the F-35 program.

It's all in here already.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

If by "multi-deck capable" you mean able to launch and land standard Carrier aircraft such as F18 Super Hornet, sadly you are wrong. At one stage the British Government decided to fit 'cats and traps' To the second Carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, but despite the fact that we were told that the QE Carrier design was "adaptable" to conventional cats and traps, BAE came out with an enormous cost to do so (surprise, surprise) and the Government changed their mind again.

For Fixed wing aircraft the entire British Carrier programme (20 years in the making) is entirely dependent on F-35B...

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Interesting........

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/...ult/ar-AAlbrgh

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

You can launch some conventional aircraft off a carrier with a ramp, trouble is they cannot carry all that much weight in terms of fuel and weapons.

To land them on again you need arrestor wires.

F-35B is going to use a 'rolling landing' so it can bring back unexpended munitions (often very expensive these days). That means, I would guess, that the QE Carriers will need some kind of barrier system, to avoid what could be very, very, expensive accidents...

I suspect the Russian carrier problems are as much about lack of experience and practice as anything else. The RN has got air and deck crews working with the USN and USMC to keep up skills and has plenty of officers and men with Carrier experience from the Invincible class ships.
The last of which, HMS Illustrious, is about to head to Turkey for scrapping sadly, would have been nice to keep her as a Museum ship.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

Not really.
The F-35 was designed and is intended to be primarily a ground support/naval attack aircraft NOT a "fighter". The A-10 sucks as a fighter too ... so I guess it's a useless aircraft?

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

I guess I'm all "hosed up" about the F-22 based on the previous response, but didn't I mention I posted on this and the other topics over the years in my post? I don't know due to the vagueness of that response concerning what I posted concerning the F-22 is the issue. So...

1) F-35 is irrelevant without the F-22:
https://theaviationist.com/2014/02/0...f-22-acc-says/
It's good to know the memory is not too far gone-yet!! ;)

2) Now about those ongoing upgrades to the F-22 still on track pretty much as a hurdle was just cleared. Also from ref. 2 (And you better note the date of it-please!! :D) the weapons set has been increased and I think by now the "Usefulness in small Wars..." has clearly been demonstrated.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...updated-02908/
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...ersies-019069/
https://www.airforcetimes.com/articl...ars-with-f-35s

USAF General Data Package but, before you use this package, you MUST read "Primary Function:" data point:
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets...22-raptor.aspx
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets...g-variant.aspx
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets...-15-eagle.aspx
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets...ike-eagle.aspx
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets...erbolt-ii.aspx

Note the difference in the F-15 vs. F-15SE "Primary Function" as again defined by the USAF. The A-10 seems to be accomplishing it's mission pretty well in Syria and Iraq as "defined" by the USAF.

I think it should be clear to anyone that the F-35 is a fighter plane with land attack capability, hence the name, The F-35 Lightning II Program (also known as the Joint Strike Fighter Program) not close Air Support Fighter etc. etc. All you need to do is see what planes it designed to replace for the USAF the F-16 and at some point the A-10 maybe, because Congress has already mandated to the USAF that they will find a more mission capable plane for that role.

For the USN/USMC that would be the F/A-18 fleet. We have no F-22 to escort our F-35 MR Fighters into combat. They will have to provide CAP for the carrier battle-group or invasion force, and they'll be expected to fight their way into or out of an assigned target package as the F-15SE does now without a combat loss with around 99 kills that would be enemy fighters of course. I can ensure you that'll pretty much be the same for the F-35A if not going after a very high value target where the F-22 will be riding shotgun.

Concerning the UK carriers last I heard was they've designed them so the ski jump could be removed with the infrastructure in place for a catapult system and adding re-enforced decking to support conventional flight ops.

Also haven't heard much since this past Summer concerning taking one of the carriers and modifying it to support helicopter assault mission as well. What news of this?

A little something on a fine class of carrier in it's day and a good ship meets a sad end. Better to have used it as an artificial reef than to be scrapped.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-38224115
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-for-scrapyard

Never did make to Portsmouth, that got ruined for us by the Soviets. Too bad!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

:) But we all know the USAF as an institution doesn't like ground support in the first place ... tho the USAF pilots that fly such aircraft generally do. :)

The US Navy has some need for "battlefield introduction" and "deep strike" aircraft, thus are planning to keep the F-18E/F around to escort it's F-35C's as F-22s aren't carrier capable.

Tho frequently pressed into service for the above missions the USMC isn't all that interested in them, that sort of thing is the USAF/USNs job. The USMC is primarily interested in battefield close air support and operating from less then optimal airfields/carriers. I'm not convinced the replacement of F-18E/Fs in the USMC with F-35Cs is the best idea, but I never wore stars on my collar so maybe I'm missing something.

Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
 

The best place to keep up to date with everything about the Royal Navy including the Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers:

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/

A search on that site will give you all the latest news.