Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.

[Suhiir]

Frankly I have to wonder about several of his comments and conclusions.

"The Air Marshal does not appear to understand that the decks of U.S. Navy and US Marine Corps carriers are up to 4 inches thick - whereas our new carrier decks are less than 1 inch thick - and even with its superior deck thickness, the USS Wasp F35B STOVL embarkation demonstrated a need for deck reinforcement."
Since when does the USMC operate any ships at all? The US Army has ships, I thing even the USAF has a few. And 4 inch thick flight decks? Not on anything built post WW II.

"May I draw your attention to the statements given by your witnesses concerning air defence of the carriers without the Crow’s Nest or any other AEW capability. Contrary to your witnesses statements our Daring class destroyers cannot provide long range early warning of threats approaching at very low level such as sea skimming missiles and their launch platforms. The destroyers have a horizon-limited detection range against low level incoming threats of approximately 23 nautical miles which is insufficient to provide adequate reaction time against a missile attack."
Since when do picket ships operate directly on top of what they are protecting? The picket is likely to be 15-20 NM from the carrier giveing the carrier apx. twice as much reaction time.

Amidst much obfuscation, your witnesses endeavoured to persuade your Committee that the choice of the F35B STOVL aircraft for our new carriers is driven by the need to attain an early ‘initial operating capability’ at reasonable cost. It is quite extraordinary therefore that neither Members of your Committee nor any of the witnesses raised the issue of the far more cost and operationally effective options for our carrier air groups – the F18 Super Hornet, Super Growler and Hawkeye aircraft:
I don't believe the flight deck on the Queen Elizabeth is large enough to handle any of the above aircraft.

So perhaps you'll excuse me if I take everything in there with a large dose of salt.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

You have to be careful of the time frame these documents were produced, in 2013 the decision on what plane and how the flight deck would be designed was very much up in the air. The plane issue is buried in here somewhere. The QE Class carriers have three runways two at 160m/or 525ft. the larger one is at 260m/or 853ft.. As a flattop she would've been equipped with the electromagnetic catapults which will be on our newest class carriers. That decision was made before the RN's commitment to the F-38B Program. I'm not sure that a final decision for the flight deck of the Prince of Wales has been made yet. Last I read they were holding off on this decision pending program delays and increased cost issues of the F-35B that still might affect their final buy of the number of units. They will probably go the the F/A-18E/F or possibly the navalized Rafael that the French I believe are using on their much smaller carrier compared to the QE Class now.

Concerning the F/A-18E/F they are about 25ft. longer than the C/D version and heavier by I believe 2-3Klbs. if not mistaken. With catapult assistance the E/F needs at least 300ft (~1500 feet unassisted.) minimum take off distance and again a minimum of 329ft (~+1350ft non-arrested.) landing distance with a arresting system.

So the QE Class can handle them. By way of another example the Russian KIEV is ONLY 14m longer in total length then the length of the longest flight deck on the QE Class carriers and it carries 18 M-29K jets plus 8 Helicopters using a "ski jump"!

The basics have always come down to high ships speed into the wind to provide maximum lift for the aircraft, supplemented by aircraft engine power/thrust and catapults if equipped.

The QE Class is a very multi-functional carrier though the QE will be commissioned with a "ski jump" deck, these decks can easily be converted to a flattop in a normal refit period and vice versa. These are well designed and functional ships.

From the Ref...
"No catapult or arresters will be fitted in the initial build but the carrier will be built to accommodate a future back-fit. The carrier will be fitted with a steam catapult or electromagnetic launch system and arrester gear, if the option to convert the carrier to the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant proceeds.

The deck has three runways: two shorter runways of approximately 160m for the STOVL joint strike fighter and a long runway, approximately 260m over the full length of the carrier, for launching heavily loaded aircraft – an area of nearly 13,000m². The deck will have one or two vertical landing pads for the F-35 aircraft towards the stern of the ship."
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/
http://www.ausairpower.net/SuperBug.html
https://www.quora.com/Military-Why-d...have-ski-jumps

Regards,
Pat

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Always does.
I not-so-fondly remember taking up collections among the unmarried folks so the married ones could pay their rent/eat during the Carter years budget shenanigans.

The thing folks keep forgetting is the idea is the initial bombing missions with drastically reduced internal stores are to allow opposition air defense capabilities to be neutralized/reduced. After this has happened they can fly with full external stores, and be just as stealthy as say an F-16, because they no longer have to worry (near as much) about high-tech air defense weapons. Sure there will still be non-radar directed AA guns and MPADS and other heat seeking stuff but F-16s currently face that now and manage to still do their job.

Interesting. Bomb doors is misleading as the F-35 will carry air-air missiles internally as well. In fact, to retain stealth the bird must pack it's stores internally. Point here is that when the pilot opens the Weapons doors to let loose an air-air she's painted a tango. Even the gun is internal on the JSF.

In the game, I use jets although they are more eye candy than game "impactors." I can do more with attack helicopters than jets. Well a USV is handy too.

It was the former president of the United States Eisenhower that warned of a military-industrial complex in 1961.

[Suhiir]

Aircraft with JDAMs/Mavericks or other "smart" munitions are fairly useful, but yeah, those with "dumb" munitions are really more eye candy then anything else. Once in a blue moon something amazing will happen (like the time three B-52s actually hit the target area) but for the most part given the unit cost they are a waste of a significant number of points.

SEAD aircraft however work fairly well. I recall someone once saying they bought only SEAD types and I can't say I blame them, because they'll at least prioritize AA which can be quite handy if you also have helos.

[DRG]

attachmentid=14358&stc=1&d=1468450406

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Aircraft with JDAMs/Mavericks or other "smart" munitions are fairly useful, but yeah, those with "dumb" munitions are really more eye candy then anything else. .

I know we've been over this before and I cannot see what you are doing to get such negative effects but this.....



was a simple test scenario I set up with 39 visability and 155's had whacked the area first so there was a bit of smoke about.. This shows the second banshee after it knocked out the second tank....the first Banshee knocked out the first tank.....39 visibility attacking in hilly terrain and the NKs have 37mm AA firing at the Banshees on the way in and out...

I know that **some people* don't seem to have any luck with airstrikes and I don't know why.....they are NOT a "sure thing" but I don't think of them as a uselsss waste of points


The second time I tried the scenario I got one kill, the third time was one kill and 1 ** damage....all with "dumb" munitions

The test scenario is attached...just press quit orders


EDIT....... and that Banshee photo was SUPPOSED to have been changed last time to 828. and a new pic for the FH-1 Phantom ..oops ( in now.........)


Don

[Suhiir]

Rockets seem to work fairly well, I was referring to bombs/napalm, I should have been more clear.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Rockets seem to work fairly well, I was referring to bombs/napalm, I should have been more clear.

I'm going to take a look at Napalm when we start work on the games again.

Don

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Rockets seem to work fairly well, I was referring to bombs/napalm, I should have been more clear.

OK.. tell me WHY.......is it the aircraft and the way they attack you have issues with or the weapons that they use ??

I need details. I have discovered a few things but I want to hear it from you and anyone else who wants to jump in

Don

[Suhiir]

It seems "guided" weapons (LGBs, rockets, etc.) lock onto a specific target and thus hit or miss. Even with the frequent (50%?) chance of a reduced penetration hit they're still 50% probable to kill what they hit.

Whereas dumb bombs/napalm seem to attack a target hex, and anything within the blast radius may be effected. But since they rarely have have much, if any, any AP Pen armored vehicles are essentially immune. While soft vehicles are frequently effected infantry type units rarely suffer more then suppression. If you're trying to take out something like say a mortar merely suppressing the crew really doesn't have much effect ... a reduction in ROF for a turn or two. Napalm is GREAT at suppression but almost never causes casualties, and again after a turn or so that's worn off.

You don't dare try to drop bombs anywhere near your own units and suppressing something half way across the map for a couple turns hardly makes a 150-300+ point aircraft worth the cost.

[DRG]

You don't dare drop bombs anywhere near your own units in reality either..... can't say I agree with "Napalm .... almost never causes casualties" the tests I've run do not support that.

Napalm in SPWW2-SPMBT has 150% higher HE kill than the stock SP2 OOB's did but it holds over the small WH values and that's one thing I'm looking at but as for...Napalm .....never causes casualties....not in my tests and what survivors there may be are running for the map edge not just " surpressed"

What I did find was way back when we lowered the HE pen of aerial bombs in comparison to SP2's values and investigating that is one of my fall projects....SO NICE of Microsoft to "improve" the OS so now I have to fire up the XP machine when I want to check the original OOB's with the original MOBHack....it kinda lowers my enthusiasm

Don