Jets & Planes but no UAV's here. - Page 42

IronDuke99 · #**411** January 16th, 2017, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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...

Lol.

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.

shahadi · #**412** January 18th, 2017, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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...

Lol.

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.

I seem to recall the Sea Harriers and the GR3's had nine kills. Is that right?

=====

shahadi · #**413** January 18th, 2017, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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...

No. Just like a Federation/Vulgan joint fleet against the Kligons.

=====

shahadi · #**414** January 18th, 2017, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

Quote:

Originally Posted by shahadi

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

And yet, if you read the very long report in my last post, it clearly states that, as of now F-35's are, even when working, and they are not up to their availability expectations, they are not able to perform any mission as well as current aircraft.

I know the USMC, no doubt for their own reasons, are rushing these things into some sort of service, but it really does not look like this aircraft is going to be much use to anyone much more 2021 at the very best. They are strongly suggesting even the initial testing will not be done until 2019 As it stands at the moment the guns don't work due to sighting issues, the software is as yet nowhere close to what was promised and their are assorted other problems too (read the report if anyone is interested).

Myself I really hope they get it working, since the Royal Navy Carrier programme depends on the damn thing. But they look to be some way off having a useful aircraft, let alone a world beating one...

Even given the current shortcomings of the F-35 as a family, it is far above the Chinese and the Russian 5th Gen fighters as those jets are nowhere close to production. In the hands of an operational squadron the development should grow exponitionally. Right?

What is interesting is the MAW did not describe the F-35 as an air superiority fighter, which I suspect still is the domain of the Raptor.

The Brits may have bigger issues with the F-35 as the US president elect has called into question the cost and role of the plane. It may get killed. And, that maybe why the Marines have "rushed" this squadron as a device to show the F-35 is already a fabric of the it's air element.

=====

Yes I did wonder if that had something to do with the very early USMC deployment. In British service F-35B will have to do CAP for fleet defence. In the same way Sea Harrier did until it was scrapped.

If the Marines were truly confident in the plane as the literature suggest, they should based that squafron of F-35Bs in Incirlik.

=====

scorpio_rocks · #**415** January 18th, 2017, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shahadi

I seem to recall the Sea Harriers and the GR3's had nine kills. Is that right?

I believe it was 20+ with no loss! (a couple were lost to ground fire)

shahadi · #**416** January 18th, 2017, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scorpio_rocks

Quote:

Originally Posted by shahadi

I seem to recall the Sea Harriers and the GR3's had nine kills. Is that right?

I believe it was 20+ with no loss! (a couple were lost to ground fire)

Wow. That's nice shooting. Almost like flushing quail out of the Texas bush, once the birds are airborne, bam.

=====

Suhiir · #**417** January 19th, 2017, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shahadi

If the Marines were truly confident in the plane as the literature suggest, they should based that squafron of F-35Bs in Incirlik.
=====

Why?
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.

shahadi · #**418** January 19th, 2017, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Quote:

Originally Posted by shahadi

If the Marines were truly confident in the plane as the literature suggest, they should based that squafron of F-35Bs in Incirlik.
=====

Why?
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.

'Lt. Gen. Ronald Bailey, the Marine Corps’ deputy commandant for plans, policies and operations, told USNI News last month that “we intend to fully incorporate the F-35 into the [U.S. Pacific Command] area of operations.'” You may read the article here: https://news.usni.org/2017/01/10/fir...n-leaves-japan.

Sounds like Lt. Gen. Ronald Bailey, USMC is confident in the plane to perform it's operatinal role.

=====

IronDuke99 · #**419** January 19th, 2017, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shahadi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Quote:

Originally Posted by shahadi

If the Marines were truly confident in the plane as the literature suggest, they should based that squafron of F-35Bs in Incirlik.
=====

Why?
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.

'Lt. Gen. Ronald Bailey, the Marine Corps’ deputy commandant for plans, policies and operations, told USNI News last month that “we intend to fully incorporate the F-35 into the [U.S. Pacific Command] area of operations.'” You may read the article here: https://news.usni.org/2017/01/10/fir...n-leaves-japan.

Sounds like Lt. Gen. Ronald Bailey, USMC is confident in the plane to perform it's operatinal role.

=====

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.

shahadi · #**420** January 19th, 2017, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

Quote:

Originally Posted by shahadi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Why?
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.

'Lt. Gen. Ronald Bailey, the Marine Corps’ deputy commandant for plans, policies and operations, told USNI News last month that “we intend to fully incorporate the F-35 into the [U.S. Pacific Command] area of operations.'” You may read the article here: https://news.usni.org/2017/01/10/fir...n-leaves-japan.

Sounds like Lt. Gen. Ronald Bailey, USMC is confident in the plane to perform it's operatinal role.

=====

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.

=====