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.
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.
__________________
Suhiir - Wargame Junkie
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
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.........)
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.
__________________
Suhiir - Wargame Junkie
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Suhiir For This Useful Post:
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
Last edited by DRG; July 16th, 2016 at 10:56 PM..
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DRG For This Useful Post:
Location: I ain't in Kansas anymore, just north of where Dorothy clicked her heels is where you'll find me.
Posts: 878
Thanks: 584
Thanked 277 Times in 191 Posts
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Interesting reports from the first Gulf War illustrating the tenacity of precision guided munitions:
"The reaction of Iraqi forces to direct precision air attacks indicated that the traditional powerful psychological impact of air attack had, at last, been matched by the equally powerful impact of actual destruction. Two quotes serve to highlight this, the first from an Iraqi battalion commander interrogated by a US Marine Corps intelligence specialist a month after the war ended:
Interrogator: How many of your soldiers were killed by the air war?
Iraqi Officer: To be honest, for the amount of ordnance that was dropped, not very many. Only one soldier was killed and two were wounded. The soldier that was killed did not die as a result of a direct hit, but because the vibrations of the bomb caused a bunker to cave in on top of him.
Interrogator: So, then you feel the aerial bombardment was ineffective?
Iraqi Officer: Oh no! Just the opposite! It was extremely effective! The planes hit only vehicles and equipment. Even my personal vehicle, a ‘Waz’ was hit. They hit everything! [emphasis in original text]
The second is from an Iraqi general reflecting morosely on the war:
During the Iran war, my tank was my friend because I could sleep in it and know I was safe ... During this war my tank became my enemy ... none of my troops would get near a tank at night because they just kept blowing up." (Hallion, Richard P, "PRECISION GUIDED MUNITIONS AND THE NEW ERA OF WARFARE",http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/docs/paper53.htm)
I get it our game is a game not a simulation. However, I would expect modern era aircraft with smart munitions to hit a designated target far in excess of 50%.
==========
The Following User Says Thank You to shahadi For This Useful Post:
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.
Hybrid Mode
