|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
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:
|
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:
===== |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
===== |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
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...
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
I suspect, these days it would be more likely to be allied task forces working together, a bit like the British Pacific Fleet (Task Force 57) off Japan in 1945 working alongside the USN. Also in response to someone asking about a single squadron of F-35B, the new Royal Navy carriers will have 24 F-35B (ie two squadron's) routinely embarked, and around 36 (ie, 3 squadrons) in a actual conflict situation. The ships are said to have a capacity of over 40 aircraft including helicopters, although I would be surprised, given their size if it was not closer to 50 if push came to shove. UK took 20 Sea Harriers to the Falkland's, later reinforced by six more Sea Harriers and six RAF GR3 Harriers. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
===== |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
===== |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
===== |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
===== |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
It's hardly WW III and the aircraft is still undergoing operational testing and upgrades. Also chances are the maintenance is still primarily supervised by contractors and spare parts are virtually nonexistent. There's a difference between being confident a weapons system will fulfill the role it's intended for and being fully operational. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
Sounds like Lt. Gen. Ronald Bailey, USMC is confident in the plane to perform it's operatinal role. ===== |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
Never under estimate the importance of 'politics' in military decisions. If the USMC are going to keep dedicated USMC air after Harrier they need F-35B. 'Seamlessly' running Harrier into F-35B makes the chances of having that kind of, important, air support cut far less likely. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
===== |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
You might want to wait to buy a ticket for an F-35 ride yet.
276 faults found in F-35 jets. "THE MAIN ISSUES Fixing the 25mm cannon which vibrates excessively Way it is targeted by the aircraft’s ‘virtual reality’ helmet needs work Overheating, premature wear of components in the vertical tails and vulnerability to fire also an issue Aircraft’s ‘objectionable or unacceptable flying qualities’ while crossing the sound barrier – for which there are currently no plans for a fix." http://dailywesterner.com/news/2017-...combat-system/ |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Now the fate of the F-35B may well be enhanced now that SecDef James Mattis, a decorated USMC general, considered as a scholar assumes authority of the department of defense.
Let's hope he influences Lockheed Martin in the best interests of the MAW's and the land element marines. ===== |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Ever see a General without decorations? It's like a Christmas tree without ornaments. Without them, you are just a tree.
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
I don't see any indication either plans to shut down the F-35, in spite of those that claim it should be. But rather they plan to get the bloated and inefficient military-industrial system under control, long overdue. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
===== |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
My purpose with the next is very basic, simply it is to provide general information on who is currently operating carriers in the world now and what their capabilities are in regards to combat aircraft and air assault troop capabilities or a combination of both as many listed have. Why? To allow for these options to be available in the game and for scenarios that amphibious assaults are part of the mix. It hasn't been just about "landing craft" for a very longtime now. A minor point that might add a new dimension to the game or your scenarios. The upside you wouldn't even need to show/or build the ships after all these are over the horizon operations in the first place.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...raft-carriers/ http://www.military-today.com/navy.htm I leave you the main site that covers 10 main topics as noted in the left side column. They do cover a lot of ground and is well researched. I'd hate to lose this site like a couple of others so if you think about click on it "traffic counts" are real important to defense sites due to the "niche" market they serve. http://www.military-today.com/index.htm Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Thanks... got the New Japanese 8x8 APC from the link
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
That wasn't my intention!?! ;) Would you believe I've already been tracking the replacement for the TYPE 97 APC? :shock: I'll give you what I have in the "right thread" for that information which is fairly new.
Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I forgot to add to the above about the carriers, they would not serve any other purpose in the game much as an airfield doesn't. I could see the argument maybe why some would say there should be a plenty for a carrier. If that should be the case, and just for "food for thought" such penalty should be at either 250 or no more then 500 points plus the cost of the assets involved in jets and air assault troops. But again no penalty for airfields should apply to carriers. A nice picture of the vessel, aircraft/helos fitted for close air support, available from turn one dropping all ordnance, with a ten turn delay between sorties of the pairs as used allowing for recovery, rearming and return, yes as fully loaded aircraft. It can be done after speaking to a retired USN "AO". This assumes a near over the horizon capability of the carrier 100NM off the coast with the jet returning at a speed of 700 knots, flight time would be less than 8.57 minutes. I'm assuming sortie times and delay only because I'm going by memory, that each player turn is 6 mins long? I also only see six to ten pairs being available (Less where limited to available aircraft.) for use based on "other missions in the area" off map. Helos might incur around 12 turn cycle, however their support ships would be at least or could be well inside 50NM from shore.
Air Assault - I think were Jets and possibly AH Helos would fall under the artillery phase to allow for the turn delays. Regular Assault helos might not allow for the return to ship to bring in additional troops and might just have to sit in low altitude hover out to sea on the map unless there is a way to fly them off the map and be able to bring them back on the board when inland progress is being made and using them to lift the troops further inland. Don't know, that's beyond my expertise out here. Other issues - How hard would it be or can it be done to rearm the recovered jets and attack helos. Or do you just use KISS increase the pairings slightly and simply once they appear on the map and drop all their ordnance, we assume if not shot down they return to the carrier to support "other ops" and NOT return to your AOR. If your going to suggest something you gotta present the Pro and Cons as far as you can see them. Just me I guess. But I think the concept could open another dimension to the game beyond just landings to maybe include coastal countries as well either locally i.e. Brazil, France (As demonstrated in the Middle East.) or more of world wide projection which in reality might only mean the U.S. and maybe the UK. I can see this for China in the not to distant future as well and India somewhat more operating in the Asian AOR. Just my thoughts all from a harmless conversation with a retired "AO". That last (AO) is the homework part! ;) Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
The part in the article about the RN Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers (named after Queen Elizabeth I 1533-1601, btw) is way out of date. The British Government officially announced, well over a year ago, that they will normally deploy 24 F-35B and I would be amazed if they only carried 4 helicopters, given they need at least two for AEW (see Crowsnest project) plus others for ASW, etc. Also it seems they are about 70,000 tons full load. 36 F-35B in a major conflict seems reasonably likely, and, as I've said before, there is no way these huge ships -the largest ever built for the Royal Navy- cannot carry 50 aircraft. UK is buying 148 F-35B, as of now. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
The AI wingman software for one...the employment of deep strike capabilities for another. As I alluded earlier, forward deployment of the 3rd MAW is political for if the 3rd is ready for forward deployment in support of a MEU (ground support, strike missions, etc), then deployment to Turkey where the pilots would get learning of the F-35B her capabilities, etc and how to best use the aircraft in combat, for surely there are countless combat sorties to be had there rather than Japan. But, if all the problems you cited exist and I've read some of the same, then forward deployment is not justified. The birds are not ready. Properly speaking "enhancement" may also mean making the damn thing work or making it work better, not necessarily adding something new, often referred to as scalability. ===== |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
This is an old article, (mid 2014) but it does show a QE class carrier (right) next to a Invincible class light carrier they are replacing.
The three invincible class ships, after midlife refits, could carry a maximum of 20 aircraft of all types at a squeeze. The deck edge lifts are both down on QE. HMS Queen Elizabeth is due to enter Portsmouth Naval base for the first time at some point between between March and May this year. http://navalanalyses.blogspot.com.au...eth-class.html Click photo to enlarge. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
===== |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
Look at the F-35 in comparison to what it replaces as a ground attack aircraft not in comparison to air superiority aircraft. The F-16 didn't come out of the box as it exists is today, no new aircraft does. Has the F-35 had more then it's share of problems, probably. Are those problems insurmountable, no. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
HMS Queen Elizabeth is only now finishing building and is a brand new ship of a brand new class and has yet to do sea trails, etc. She is pretty unlikely to be operational in any sense until 2020 and that is when she will get her first fixed wing aircraft. Because the F-35B aircraft will also be new that is going to require a fairly long work up too. At the moment UK owns four F-35 and is due to buy 148, most will be RAF manned, although RAF squadrons will deploy to the carriers. Given the RAF intends to operate its F-35B aircraft in a conventional manner (ie, normal runway landings) on land, it remains to be seen how this will work in practice. At sea the F-35 can land vertically, but, if full of fuel and/or weapons will use a "rolling landing". My guess is that that is a skill that will require practice... (The RN has air and flight deck crew on attachment with the USN and USMC, and has had for some years now, to help work up big carrier/F-35B skills and also occasionally does stuff with the French Carrier). She should be more or less fully operational, with a full air group, in 2021-22, when, rumour suggests, she will do a Indian Ocean-Pacific deployment. A full, peacetime, air group should be 24 F-35B and about 8-12 Helicopters including AEW with Crowsnest. HMS Prince of Wales should Commission 2019-20, and getting her operational should be much quicker. Having two Carriers will mean the RN will be able to maintain one constantly in commission and, mostly, have two available for major emergencies. The current plan is that PoW will also be able to double as a Landing Platform Helicopter for the Royal Marines, although a lot of people, including myself, think that is a crazy, and risky, idea for a 70,000 ton warship. She would be a huge, very high value, target sitting just off an enemy coast. Hopefully common sense will prevail and HMS Ocean will be run on, until a replacement can be built. The RN's last big Carrier was HMS Ark Royal 1955-79, that ended up at 54,000 tons, 804ft with a oa beam of 171ft and could carry up to 38 aircraft. The QE's are 70,600 tons, 920ft with a oa beam of 239ft and can carry "over 40 aircraft" including aircraft as large as Chinook and Osprey. Frankly I will be amazed if these ships cannot carry 50 aircraft if need be, given that only USN Carriers are larger (The latest USN Gerald R. Ford class carriers are over 100,000 tons, 1,106ft with a oa beam of 256ft and carry 75+ aircraft). HMS Hermes (the RN Flagship in the Falkland's conflict of 1982) was about 30,000 tons, 744ft with a oa beam of 144ft and at one stage in the Falklands war had an air group of 36 aircraft of all types. For more info see http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/carr...tion-nonsense/ |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
PS
In an earlier post on the Harriers in the Falkland's conflict I made an error. The Task force sailed with 20 Sea Harriers (12 on HMS Hermes and 8 on HMS Invincible). These aircraft were later reinforced by a further 6 Fleet Air Arm Sea Harriers and 10 (not six as I mistakenly said) RAF GR3 Harriers. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I was reading a article today that says HMS Queen Elizabeth will get some Helicopters aboard later this year and the first F-35B late in 2018, although I still don't think she will be fully operational, barring a national emergency, much before 2020...
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
===== |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
As I said, QE will not be operational, with helos, or anything else, for some time. I have heard some talk of her being in 'limited operations' as of C.2019, but frankly, short of a big national emergency, she is not going to be operational until about 2021. |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
I'm posting this NOT to start any debate here because let's face it, the governments and associated military authorities have already made their decisions concerning what plane "we're" using.
So with that in mind, I'm tracking this program and I was surprised about the performance capability ALREADY TESTED for the U.S. entry being considered. You might find the next interesting for that reason alone. http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2017/...earch-for.html Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Latest war games using the F-35 (Red Flag).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgLjNsB_hyM |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Quote:
I have to remind myself, planes in the game are mostly eye candy. What they deliver per their costs is pretty steep. I'd rather buy a UAV for recon/surveillance, and spend my money on a detachment of attack helos. ===== |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
This comes from the September issue of Combat Aircraft magazine. The Austrian Ministry of Defense has announced plans to withdraw the Austrian Air Forces 15 Tranche 1 Eurofighter Typhoons from service from 2020. The ministry says the reason is that the jets "provide limited equipment and significant cost uncertainty". Hope this is the correct place to post this.
|
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
It's as good as any place for that post. ;) I have the following from early June with their being more to it just Tranche 1 EUROFIGHTER, it will also require the SAAB 105OE's and possibly their Pilatus PC-7 trainers replaced as well. As you can see the "numbers" are a big concern as all these decisions are.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...m-2020-439130/ This what I see happening as of right now... 1)Tranche 1 EUROFIGHTER: A possible deal gets worked in some combination or alone with EUROFIGHTER to reduce the cost of maintenance and or upgrade the fighter to a higher standard. 2) SAAB 105OE: Definitely will replace these they've been reliable jets for them that they've had for a longtime now. 3) Pilatus PC-7: I see them keeping these trainers with an upgrade package which are available. Conclusions: 1a) I'm not sure that EUROFIGHTER will be able to currently pull off the deal as noted in A) above. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ef2000/ http://www.military-today.com/aircra...er_typhoon.htm So... 2a.) I see a fighter competition coming down to the following... RAFAEL the one they wish they could have but might not be able to afford basically. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale/ http://www.military-today.com/aircra...ult_rafale.htm F-16V or next mark down, however, if they want a shot at competing with the Russian stealth fighters, they need to get the "V" series. http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...-role-fighter/ http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/f16v_viper.htm GRIPEN C/D 4th Gen+ or the new GRIPEN NG 4th Gen ++, either of these would be a cheaper option in leasing which several countries are doing and just in outright purchasing them as some have done as well. There are currently maybe only 2 or 3 jets that can be considered 4th Gen something. I believe the GRIPEN will be the winner as these fighters meet all their current considerations. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/gripen/ http://www.military-today.com/aircra..._39_gripen.htm Regards, Pat :capt: |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
2 Attachment(s)
The U.S. has delivered two (of six) A29 Super Tucano light-attack aircraft to Lebanon.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-le...the-us-2017-10? The pilots have already been training in the U.S. http://www.janes.com/article/69076/lebanese-super-tucano-pilots-begin-training |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
If I may:
Afghanistan OOB: 547 EMB-314 - an official designation is A-29 as well (I suggest: A29 SuperTucano). They first arrived in 1/16 (now: 4/15) https://www.militarytimes.com/2015/1...tack-aircraft/ - needs a formation 089 change as well Icon in fact should be grey (2894 could do, or 2844 Mustang) |
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
The above would be correct and from my files...
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...planes-in.html http://www.airforce-technology.com/n...rom-us-4786738 http://www.janes.com/article/68843/a...ighting-season http://armydotmil.com/afghan-air-for...tack-aircraft/ Both names are correct. A-29 Super T... would make it easier to find the plane should there be any offensive or defensive capability changes down the road across all country users. OV-10 BRONCO G+ not dead!?! And it ain't your Dad's" OV-10 BRONCO from Vietnam ethier... https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/...-capabilities/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politi...sis/index.html https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/ov...d-a-1764407068 http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-N...Bronco/2651703 https://www.usni.org/magazines/proce...12-cleared-hot Regards, Pat :capt: |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.