Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
jeffw

First UK F-35B Squadron formed

42 posts in this topic

What we needed is a kick arse Jet with vtol... some thing like the harrier!.... wait a minute :hiding:

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/12435

 

17 Squadron has started testing the UKs first F35B prior to becoming 617 Squadron (the Dambusters) in 2018 when they go operational with 809 NAS. Both Squadrons will fly off HMS Queen Elizabeth.

 

As much as i like the jets the F-35B has to be one of the worst creations ever IMHO.

 

Now as for queen elizabeth what a spectacular carrier and something europe will respect when its finally fully commissioned and fully operational formidable force!.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now as for queen elizabeth what a spectacular carrier and something europe will respect when its finally fully commissioned and fully operational formidable force!.

I wouldn't be so sure, the era of the carriers has ended some time ago. The may be good for projecting power but in a stand-up fight with a modern adversary they are sitting ducks.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many stand up fights has there been with modern adversaries in the last 50 years?  God knows why you think the carriers day is over....

 

As for the rest of the comments, the Harrier was a great close ground attack aircraft but a kludge of a fighter, most modern fighters would have nailed them from distance with no problem.  They also had very limited range.  The F-35B is as good as it gets in V/STOL fighters so it is this or nothing for the RN.

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be so sure, the era of the carriers has ended some time ago. The may be good for projecting power but in a stand-up fight with a modern adversary they are sitting ducks.

 

I appreciate your opinion and respect your freedom of speech but i have to disgaree sir. I think carries like Queen Elizabeth are a huge benefit to europe they have major presence in the oceans and the UK have another one even larger being built ready for 2020 so two of these beasts is a major threat to europe already but for those allied with britain a good ally indeed.

 

Imagine two of these able to cover all of europe with aircraft that can theoretically take on multiple tasks across european countries :honoring:. It makes britain a super power in its own right only in europe and with the end of the budget cuts in 2020 i presume britain will build more super carriers possibly even nuclear powered ones if it comes out of the EU and puts that billions of money to defence budget!.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many stand up fights has there been with modern adversaries in the last 50 years?  God knows why you think the carriers day is over....

 

As for the rest of the comments, the Harrier was a great close ground attack aircraft but a kludge of a fighter, most modern fighters would have nailed them from distance with no problem.  They also had very limited range.  The F-35B is as good as it gets in V/STOL fighters so it is this or nothing for the RN.

 

 

Maybe he refers to wapons like:  DF-21D (CSS-5 Mod-4) Anti-ship ballistic missile.  America needs to protect its carriers with aegis cruisers like the Ticonderoga-class. A carrier on its own is not that power full anymore. It needs a lot of protection. I am wondering if Britain is building its own version of a aegis cruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many stand up fights has there been with modern adversaries in the last 50 years?

If you gonna think that way you might as well go back to building Battleships because why would you need carriers anyway.

 

The F-35B is as good as it gets in V/STOL fighters so it is this or nothing for the RN.

There is hardly any competition in that department really.

 

I appreciate your opinion and respect your freedom of speech but i have to disgaree sir. I think carries like Queen Elizabeth are a huge benefit to europe they have major presence in the oceans and the UK have another one even larger being built ready for 2020 so two of these beasts is a major threat to europe already but for those allied with britain a good ally indeed.

 

Imagine two of these able to cover all of europe with aircraft that can theoretically take on multiple tasks across european countries :honoring:. It makes britain a super power in its own right only in europe and with the end of the budget cuts in 2020 i presume britain will build more super carriers possibly even nuclear powered ones if it comes out of the EU and puts that billions of money to defence budget!.

 

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-to-sink-an-aircraft-carrier-f281fbc518fd

 

I'm sorry but if a Chinese budget sub can sneak up on a US Fleet then a carrier is as exposed as it gets those days.

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many stand up fights has there been with modern adversaries in the last 50 years?  God knows why you think the carriers day is over....

 

As for the rest of the comments, the Harrier was a great close ground attack aircraft but a kludge of a fighter, most modern fighters would have nailed them from distance with no problem.  They also had very limited range.  The F-35B is as good as it gets in V/STOL fighters so it is this or nothing for the RN.

 

 

Are  you sure? I seem to remember reading that they handled the much faster Argy jets without too much difficulty....what was it 20:1 kill ratio?

 

Sea Harrier could dodge just about any missile slung its way , which usually makes an aircraft much harder to shoot down. When they were upgraded they got the AMRAAM which meant they could also participate in the BVR shoot out.

 

 

While I agree about the fiascos of the F-35; it was the Harriers short legs that doomed it on any future carrier. As long as the mission was Cold war ASW /convoy screening against Soviet SSGN etc and massed bomber attacks - the SH short legs didn't matter much. But in a post cold war world where navy is mostly about bringing airpower to the enemy back door 1/2 way around the world and bombing discretely inland ; you need some medium range stealthy fighter bomber- with ability to launch long and ultra long range missiles.

 

 

Alternative would be ....Su-33?

 

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe he refers to wapons like:  DF-21D (CSS-5 Mod-4) Anti-ship ballistic missile.  America needs to protect its carriers with aegis cruisers like the Ticonderoga-class. A carrier on its own is not that power full anymore. It needs a lot of protection. I am wondering if Britain is building its own version of a aegis cruiser.

 

When was the last time a carrier went anywhere on its own just name one occasion when an aircraft carrier of any nation at any time ever went into action on it's own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are obviously unaware of the Type 45 Destroyers.   There are specifically built to provide air defence for the carriers in the same way as the Aegis cruisers do for the US carriers.  The Type 45 is 'state of the art' as far as radar systems are concerned.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Daring_%28D32%29

 

As to the Harrier's kill ratio (remembering I was actually in the RN during the Falklands) it was very good, however these where all low level engagements at close range.  20 kills to no Harrier losses (5 Harriers where lost to ground fire and another 5 in non-combat incidents)  The Mirage jets the opposition where using where not suited to low level fights and the other aircraft where very old in comparison to the FRS.1 Sea Harrier.  A modern fighter would make short work of a Sea Harrier at stand-off distances.

Edited by jeffw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When was the last time a carrier went anywhere on its own just name one occasion when an aircraft carrier of any nation at any time ever went into action on it's own.

 

The French Clemenceau pops to mind, but only because it went through the Suez canal twice, due to the sellers' change of heart selling it for scraps to a poor country using children to root through the carcass of an asbtesto riddled ship.

 

To add to the Falklands discussion, they were also using Super Etendards. Cheap carrier-borne planes, which are essentially updated models of a plane from 1954. Not exactly top of the line.

But on the other hand, if the USA bows their heads in modesty and actually purchase equipement from another nation, than that piece of equipement MUST be pretty damn good. The Harrier is a pretty amazing plane.

And the is always a great advantage in having a VTOL plane, even if you have a proper carrier. It gives options. One moment you can act as a proper carrier, the next as a landing site for more than one plane at a time to rearm and refuel.

 

Shame about the F-35 being bad, though I guess that's what happens you you give the contract to a single company, and don't have all of them compete for the contract like they would before. That gave way to some ridiculously good designs. Even the Soviets did it, I'm not sure the MiG15 would have existed in Uncle Joe just gave the contract away to his favorite company/lobby group/golf partner.

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When was the last time a carrier went anywhere on its own just name one occasion when an aircraft carrier of any nation at any time ever went into action on it's own.

 

A carrier never went anywhere on its own, and never will. My point is that modern missiles like the one I named will make It more and more difficult (and expensive) to protect carriers. Maybe up to a point it is no longer affordable to keep these ships around.  Like aircraft where the demise of battle ships, advanced hyper-sonic missiles maybe the end of huge capital ships like carriers.... 

 

Thanks for naming the Type 45 Destroyer, ships like these are required when a fleet operates carriers.

 

Do not get me wrong. I think a ship like the HMS Queen Elizabeth is a wonder of engineering and it looks great. But I see a threat on the horizon.....

 

Edited by TZen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that modern missiles like the one I named will make It more and more difficult (and expensive) to protect a carriers. Maybe up to a point it is no longer affordable to keep these ships around.  Like aircraft where the demise of battle ships, advanced hyper-sonic missiles maybe the end of huge capital ships like carriers.... 

Pretty much this.

 

Carriers nowadays have nowhere to hide... that's why we need Submersible Drone/Aircraft Carriers, hell yeah!


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much this.

 

Carriers nowadays have nowhere to hide... that's why we need Submersible Drone/Aircraft Carriers, hell yeah!

 

I think the key words are: fast, small, stealth and expendable. A drone weapon will fit that perfectly, and  I´m afraid a aircraft carrier does not..... But these are just my thoughts about the future.....   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is likely that Rail Guns will end the Carriers domination of the seas in years to come.  I expect to see a return to battleships with railguns and drones.


1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is likely that Rail Guns will end the Carriers domination of the seas in years to come.  I expect to see a return to battleships with railguns and drones.

Railguns are so lastgen, haven't you heard? The next hip thing, introduced by the US Navy, are LASERS which can take out incoming missiles. You seriously need to start hanging out with the cool-kids. Edited by WhiskeyWolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you need to learn a little bit more about weapon systems.  Lasers will not sink a ship, Rail Guns will.  As for the next 'hip' thing I think you will find that Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emmssion of Radiation had been around since the 1950s.  Railguns are a relatively recent innovation.

 

 

Anyway....HMS Dragon visiting Simons Town

 

HMS-Dragon-Visits-Simon%E2%80%99s-Town-S

Edited by jeffw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you need to learn a little bit more about weapon systems.  Lasers will not sink a ship, Rail Guns will.

Of course not silly, as I wrote above lasers they "can take out incoming missiles" and are for self-defence.

 

Even though rail-guns are a recent toy they can't match up to a modern long-range guided missile, at all and never will.

 

Edited by WhiskeyWolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even though rail-guns are a recent toy they can't much up to a modern long-range guided missile, at all and never will.

 

 

Cute 

Quick thought though, how is a small projectile going mach 10, with enough of an impulse on firing to travel over 100km, and enough energy on impact to punch through.... well.... any target really, inferior to a long-range missile?

Having a lot of explosives is fun and all, but when you reach hypersonic speeds, solid metals have very interesting properties, such as acting like liquids for very brief moments.

One minute your ship is intact, the next you have a massive hole in it, as if a drop of water fell in a glass of water, and all the metal that made up your ship's hull finds itself inside of the ship, making the crew and material inside it rather...uncomfortable.

 

Now imaging that this projectile is so small, you can't realistically track it, let alone hit it with countermeasures.

 

Railguns : abusing the " ² " in Ek=1/2mv²  since Bernoulli and Leibniz tag-team'd physics.

 


2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cute 

Quick thought though, how is a small projectile going mach 10, with enough of an impulse on firing to travel over 100km, and enough energy on impact to punch through.... well.... any target really, inferior to a long-range missile?

Having a lot of explosives is fun and all, but when you reach hypersonic speeds, solid metals have very interesting properties, such as acting like liquids for very brief moments.

One minute your ship is intact, the next you have a massive hole in it, as if a drop of water fell in a glass of water, and all the metal that made up your ship's hull finds itself inside of the ship, making the crew and material inside it rather...uncomfortable.

 

Now imaging that this projectile is so small, you can't realistically track it, let alone hit it with countermeasures.

 

Railguns : abusing the " ² " in Ek=1/2mv²  since Bernoulli and Leibniz tag-team'd physics.

 

Son, how old are you? We are not discussing space-warfare but 'wet navy' here.

 

A rail-gun is not practical against a modern warship that is way behind the horizon. The main physical factor that govern this limitation are:

1. Shape of the earth.

2. Air pressure.

3. Gravity.

4. Small mass of such a projectile.

5. Distance to target.

 

I had a passing grade in Physics - that was a long time ago - and I can still puzzle this out myself.

Edited by WhiskeyWolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.