Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

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.

Agreed.

=====

[jp10]

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/

[shahadi]

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.


=====

[jp10]

Ever see a General without decorations? It's like a Christmas tree without ornaments. Without them, you are just a tree.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by shahadi

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.
=====

Him and Trump both.

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.

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Him and Trump both.

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.

I don't mean to quibble, but I did say "enhanced."

=====

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

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

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

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

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.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by shahadi

I don't mean to quibble, but I did say "enhanced."
=====

No clue what they'd "enhance" at this point, they're still working on basic operability (software, certification to carry various weapons, getting the gun pod working properly, ...).

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

No clue what they'd "enhance" at this point, they're still working on basic operability (software, certification to carry various weapons, getting the gun pod working properly, ...).

In other words getting the damn thing to be able to fight and survive.

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.

=====