Super Carriers and STOVL jets
Discussion
Wasn't that the point of it though? The Harriers were scrapped because they couldn't land on the carriers with a full weapons load and hence had to jettison weapons which was expensive. So if the F-35's have the same issue and we're pushing ahead, why did we scrap the Sea Harriers and leave our carriers without native fighter support for all this time?
shars were scrapped because they drew the short straw. GR9's may have some issues with bring back weights. They don't jettison all stores though. F35 is a great advance over Harrier.
We have no native fighter support for battle groups because someone decided not to fight countries with a credible air threat, and because of type 42. Anyway, the americans are never far away.....
We have no native fighter support for battle groups because someone decided not to fight countries with a credible air threat, and because of type 42. Anyway, the americans are never far away.....
coanda said:
shars were scrapped because they drew the short straw. Wrong GR9's may have some issues with bring back weights. They don't jettison all stores though. F35 is a great advance over Harrier.
We have no native fighter support for battle groups because someone decided not to fight countries with a credible air threat Wrong and because of type 42 [b/]Wrong Anyway, the americans are never far away Wrong
We have no native fighter support for battle groups because someone decided not to fight countries with a credible air threat Wrong and because of type 42 [b/]Wrong Anyway, the americans are never far away Wrong
It may be a great advance over the harrier, but the harrier can land vertically 
And WW2 logic should illustrate perfectly why you shouldn't rely on surface ships for air cover. For a start their radar can't see past the horizon - wheras the horizon is substantially further away for a fighter at 20,000 feet 100 miles from the battlegroup.
Have they actually navalised the F35 yet btw? Or is it going to suffer the same corrosion issues as the GR9 does when deployed from carriers?
I may be wrong about the ordnance jettisoning (sp?) as I can't find where I read that now. Perhaps it was when it was carrying Sea Eagles?
Having seen the Mock Up F35 it does look tres cool, I just can't help wondering about the sense in spending out on an aircraft which doesn't ACTUALLY work yet. I'd have been tempted to tick the catapults option box on the new carriers and take the normal F35 initially which DOES work, and then if the C is fixed properly we can always buy those in the next batch for the second carrier and mix/match between the two.
And WW2 logic should illustrate perfectly why you shouldn't rely on surface ships for air cover. For a start their radar can't see past the horizon - wheras the horizon is substantially further away for a fighter at 20,000 feet 100 miles from the battlegroup.
Have they actually navalised the F35 yet btw? Or is it going to suffer the same corrosion issues as the GR9 does when deployed from carriers?
I may be wrong about the ordnance jettisoning (sp?) as I can't find where I read that now. Perhaps it was when it was carrying Sea Eagles?
Having seen the Mock Up F35 it does look tres cool, I just can't help wondering about the sense in spending out on an aircraft which doesn't ACTUALLY work yet. I'd have been tempted to tick the catapults option box on the new carriers and take the normal F35 initially which DOES work, and then if the C is fixed properly we can always buy those in the next batch for the second carrier and mix/match between the two.
dwilkie said:
And WW2 logic should illustrate perfectly why you shouldn't rely on surface ships for air cover. For a start their radar can't see past the horizon - wheras the horizon is substantially further away for a fighter at 20,000 feet 100 miles from the battlegroup.
True to a degree - hence AEW helicopters in the fleetSea Dart is excellent at what it was designed to do - hit high altitude Russian bombers at medium to long range. For point defence, Sea Wolf is about as good as it gets. Both are combat proven. PAAMS for the T45 is obviously untested but stats are incredible.
donutsina911 said:
coanda said:
shars were scrapped because they drew the short straw. Wrong GR9's may have some issues with bring back weights. They don't jettison all stores though. F35 is a great advance over Harrier.
We have no native fighter support for battle groups because someone decided not to fight countries with a credible air threat Wrong and because of type 42 [b/]Wrong Anyway, the americans are never far away Wrong
We have no native fighter support for battle groups because someone decided not to fight countries with a credible air threat Wrong and because of type 42 [b/]Wrong Anyway, the americans are never far away Wrong
dwilkie said:
It may be a great advance over the harrier, but the harrier can land vertically
And WW2 logic should illustrate perfectly why you shouldn't rely on surface ships for air cover. For a start their radar can't see past the horizon - wheras the horizon is substantially further away for a fighter at 20,000 feet 100 miles from the battlegroup.
Have they actually navalised the F35 yet btw? Or is it going to suffer the same corrosion issues as the GR9 does when deployed from carriers?
I may be wrong about the ordnance jettisoning (sp?) as I can't find where I read that now. Perhaps it was when it was carrying Sea Eagles?
Having seen the Mock Up F35 it does look tres cool, I just can't help wondering about the sense in spending out on an aircraft which doesn't ACTUALLY work yet. I'd have been tempted to tick the catapults option box on the new carriers and take the normal F35 initially which DOES work, and then if the C is fixed properly we can always buy those in the next batch for the second carrier and mix/match between the two.
Cheaper to buy all the same though. Defence contractors love it when the armed forces start changing their minds. It gives them a great excuse to hit them with all kinds of penalty clauses and lay off the blame for programme delays.And WW2 logic should illustrate perfectly why you shouldn't rely on surface ships for air cover. For a start their radar can't see past the horizon - wheras the horizon is substantially further away for a fighter at 20,000 feet 100 miles from the battlegroup.
Have they actually navalised the F35 yet btw? Or is it going to suffer the same corrosion issues as the GR9 does when deployed from carriers?
I may be wrong about the ordnance jettisoning (sp?) as I can't find where I read that now. Perhaps it was when it was carrying Sea Eagles?
Having seen the Mock Up F35 it does look tres cool, I just can't help wondering about the sense in spending out on an aircraft which doesn't ACTUALLY work yet. I'd have been tempted to tick the catapults option box on the new carriers and take the normal F35 initially which DOES work, and then if the C is fixed properly we can always buy those in the next batch for the second carrier and mix/match between the two.
Edited by rhinochopig on Friday 9th January 09:44
Donuts
Exactly my point. It's good at what it was designed to do. What it wasn't designed to do though was hit low flying strike aircraft. And what Sea Wolf will struggle with is dealing with a flood of ASM's launched from a large amount of fighter aircraft before it runs dry. The exact same problem with any CIWS.
If you think about the numbers, I've seen videos of the russkies flying their bombers and attack aircraft very low, and in very large numbers. But say for the sake of argument you have 20 small attack aircraft each carrying 2 small ASM's. They'll be heavy and slow to maneuver with all that ordnance, so 5 or so fighters should be able to engage them outside of missile launch range when there's 20 targets to deal with.
No fighters, and they'll likely manage to launch their missiles, so you now have 40 incoming targets to deal with. If your CIWS brings them all down, the attack aircraft at the least will still have guns, and possibly even 500lb bombs or similar, and your CIWS is going to be running low on ordnance by now. And that's assuming the CIWS managed to get 100% kill rate against the 40 inbounds. Say you had 2 destroyers, and 3 or 4 slipped through. Or the first scored a lucky hit on the destroyer and took it out of action.
Fighters can stop that happening. It's what they're there for. Most of the documented tactics used by the Russians (and almost certainly Russian backed nations) that I've ever read seem aimed specifically at overwhelming large numbers of surface ships without fighter support.
Having said that, I guess this is all just my opinions and I'm usually proved wrong in the long term
Exactly my point. It's good at what it was designed to do. What it wasn't designed to do though was hit low flying strike aircraft. And what Sea Wolf will struggle with is dealing with a flood of ASM's launched from a large amount of fighter aircraft before it runs dry. The exact same problem with any CIWS.
If you think about the numbers, I've seen videos of the russkies flying their bombers and attack aircraft very low, and in very large numbers. But say for the sake of argument you have 20 small attack aircraft each carrying 2 small ASM's. They'll be heavy and slow to maneuver with all that ordnance, so 5 or so fighters should be able to engage them outside of missile launch range when there's 20 targets to deal with.
No fighters, and they'll likely manage to launch their missiles, so you now have 40 incoming targets to deal with. If your CIWS brings them all down, the attack aircraft at the least will still have guns, and possibly even 500lb bombs or similar, and your CIWS is going to be running low on ordnance by now. And that's assuming the CIWS managed to get 100% kill rate against the 40 inbounds. Say you had 2 destroyers, and 3 or 4 slipped through. Or the first scored a lucky hit on the destroyer and took it out of action.
Fighters can stop that happening. It's what they're there for. Most of the documented tactics used by the Russians (and almost certainly Russian backed nations) that I've ever read seem aimed specifically at overwhelming large numbers of surface ships without fighter support.
Having said that, I guess this is all just my opinions and I'm usually proved wrong in the long term
Rhinochopig,
You're right of course. I guess in that case would it not make sense to buy ALL the F35B's instead then? I mean we're building catapult capable carriers. To outfit them with catapults and arrestors would cost less than the difference between the full order of B's and C's, and we'd be getting a plane that already works, AND that has a larger stores capacity and longer range.
It just seems daft to buy something less capable with shiny capability when you have the ability to get something better for less. If you don't NEED VTOL, why have it?
You're right of course. I guess in that case would it not make sense to buy ALL the F35B's instead then? I mean we're building catapult capable carriers. To outfit them with catapults and arrestors would cost less than the difference between the full order of B's and C's, and we'd be getting a plane that already works, AND that has a larger stores capacity and longer range.
It just seems daft to buy something less capable with shiny capability when you have the ability to get something better for less. If you don't NEED VTOL, why have it?
donutsina911 said:
And jumping down a new member's throat while they're composing messages in response to two posts isn't being an arse? Thanks for the etiquette advice though.
Would you mind pointing out where I was *jumping down your throat*. I was merely offering some friendly advice. If someone was telling you something in the pub would you really just stand there and say wrong repeatedly after each sentence?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff