Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by shahadi

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...

[Suhiir]

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.

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

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.

Exactly.

[IronDuke99]

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/

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

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/

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

=====

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

Exactly.

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

=====

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by shahadi

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.

[IronDuke99]

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.

[Suhiir]

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.

[jp10]

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...