.com.unity Forums - Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- TO&Es (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=108)

- - Jets & Planes but no UAV's here. (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=46891)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by shahadi (Post 836581)

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronDuke99 (Post 836580)

Quote:

Originally Posted by shahadi (Post 836578)

Even given the current shortcomings of the F-35 as a family, it is far above the Chinese and the Russian 5th Gen fighters as those jets are nowhere close to production. In the hands of an operational squadron the development should grow exponitionally. Right?

What is interesting is the MAW did not describe the F-35 as an air superiority fighter, which I suspect still is the domain of the Raptor.

The Brits may have bigger issues with the F-35 as the US president elect has called into question the cost and role of the plane. It may get killed. And, that maybe why the Marines have "rushed" this squadron as a device to show the F-35 is already a fabric of the it's air element.

=====

Yes I did wonder if that had something to do with the very early USMC deployment. In British service F-35B will have to do CAP for fleet defence. In the same way Sea Harrier did until it was scrapped.

I don't see Trump scrapping it, too much money already spent, including by UK who is the only tier 1 partner on the aircraft, and if you scrap it the US (and other western nations) are left with no aircraft at all to replace the F15's and F16's.

Have to say I was never a fan of the VSTOL F-35B, wish the Brits had gone cats and traps and Super Hornet myself. It never made real sense to me to go STOVL on 70,000 ton Aircraft Carriers, especially once there was going to be a significant gap in service between Harrier ending (thanks RAF) and F-35B starting (Aircraft the RAF is highly reluctant to allow the RN Fleet Air Arm much control of)

Of course the RAF were very against cats and traps because you have to train hard and often to do that, and they seem to think you will not have to to use F-35B (with a 'rolling landing') from a carrier at sea. We shall see...

The Royal Navy is in a very hard place if she intends to use the F-35B for fleet defence as the STOVL plane is not an air superiority fighter, as the F-35C could be loaded out to do so but the Royal Navy does not have cat and trap boats.

Trump won't or cannot kill the F-35 but as with the Raptor the F-35 could be dramatically reduced. His pledge for a 350 ship navy may stay the Navy until Boeing delivers on the FA/XX super super hornet.

The USAF still has the best air superiority fighter in the Raptor.

=====

If you think the RN is in a very hard place in that event I don't know what place you think she has been in for the past few and next few years, ie, no carriers, no fixed wing aircraft?

Some in the RAF might agree with you about F-35B, I have seen a former senior RAF officer argue that the Type 45 Air Defence destroyer is all that is needed (I kid you not). This from a Service that last shot down an enemy some time in the late 1940's. (Last RAF air to air kill was 1946 or 48 depending on who you believe, all later British Air to Air kills have been RN Fleet Air Arm). Nope I'm not a big fan of senior RAF officers, and never have been...

And like the USAF, the RAF has a better air superiority fighter in the Typhoon. Great when the fleet is in reach of land based air cover, but historically, Air Forces have not been at all successful in providing air cover for fleets, and, after all, the mobility of the aircraft carrier, and the lack of needing a, vulnerable, fixed, land base are a major reason for having them at all...

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

That's really the problem.

Land based air is perfectly fine for home or pre-existing foreign base defense but if you want to be able to project power into and across the worlds oceans you need carriers. Even the minimal assets the UK had available for the Falklands were sufficient and the liberation of the islands would have been impossible without them.

Who you're fighting and where determines how much, if any, fleet air you need.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 836595)

Exactly.

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

I don't agree with everything said in this article.

(In particular it does not address the potential conflicts of mainly RAF 'owned' aircraft operating from RN carriers).

F-35B the right choice and the only choice for the Royal Navy

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/f-35...he-royal-navy/

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronDuke99 (Post 836600)

Do we know why the USN contines to favor the Super Hornet over the F-35C?

=====

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronDuke99 (Post 836599)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 836595)

Exactly.

Unlike an Argentine adversary, can a squadron of F-35Bs project power over a near-peer adversary?

=====

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by shahadi (Post 836617)

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronDuke99 (Post 836600)

Do we know why the USN contines to favor the Super Hornet over the F-35C?

=====

Simple.
The F-35C, like all F-35's is primarily a ground/naval attack aircraft. A replacement for the various "A" series aircraft in spite of being designated "F" itself.
The F/A-18 is a better air superiority aircraft, and the F-22 can't fly off carriers, thus it will provide fleet air defense and escort.

The USMC feels pure fighter aircraft aren't really needed by them so they're sticking to the F-35B and a few C's. As I understand it they plan to retain the E/A-18G Growlers as well as replacements for the E/A-6's.

I suspect in the long run the F-35 series aircraft will turn out to be better fighters then it's various critics think, much like the Harrier was seen as useless as a fighter until the Falklands.

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

Well if you are talking about RN Aircraft Carriers facing off against a near peer I don't see it as all that likely, without allies.

The only, non allied, near peers to UK in terms of technology/military I can think of are Russia and China. Things would have to be a bit on the bleak side for UK to be facing either of those nations on her lonesome...

Anyone other than those two, and British Allies like the USA, Australia, France, etc, F-35B, from about 2021-22 onwards, as a carrier CAP fighter probably could deal with.

The likes of India, probably? But India is actually drawing closer to the West/UK with both the RAF and the Royal Marines doing joint exercises with Indian forces recently. Hardly surprising with China expanding her navy and becoming more and more pushy at sea.

So, while F-35B is not a ideal carrier fighter I think it will, in due course, probably be able to defend a RN Task force against any threat it is likely to face.

Remember in a serious war situation a RN Carrier Task force would most likely include two Type 45 Air Defence Destroyers, three-four Type 23 ASW Frigates and a Astute class nuclear hunter killer submarine with cruise missiles. Not too many nations would really wish to tangle with that in a air-sea fight.

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

In a major war I suspect you'll see a lot of what we did in WW II. Joint US/UK/Australian/French/Etc. fleets.

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

Like the joint fleets of France and Spain at Trafalgar? Or the Australian-British-Dutch-American joint fleet at the Battle of the Java Sea? Or the Federation-Klingon joint fleet against the....OK, forget that last one...