Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Queen Elizabeth carriers will have two missions the open ocean carrier mission and the littoral combat mission both require different complement of aircraft

If the UK wants to close the situational awareness gap which has become clearly obvious after scrapping the cats and traps then they need to invest in the V-22 platform

USN is going to use V-22 for a variety of missions and I think it would be a good idea to add V-22 to the RN

After all UK is no stranger to the V-22 and have work with the aircrat here in UK

The Merlin might be a good aircraf and the Crowsnest might be a good radar but the payload, range, altitude, speed, endurance and capability the V-22 brings far outweights Merlin by a massive ratio

Adding a air to air fueling V-22 tanker would also gives the F35B good legs and range again which is left by cutting the cats and traps

UK paid almost £1 billion for the latest new 14 Chinnoks including the service and maintainance I don't see how they can't invest money in a tilt rotor programme

But check this Government reckons they saved £1.6 billion by scrapping the cats and traps then could they spend £1 billion rectifying it by buying V-22?? So why not just spend that extra £600 million to give it cats and traps in the first place??

I think if UK just clips aways the edges just a little bit and comes up with the extra cash the two carrier will be fantastic platforms but very easily they could get this drastically wrong and end up having two white elephants, and I do not have to list the number of the times the UK government has messed up military projects

America Class will have F35B and V-22, the QE a platform almost 20,000 ton larger has only the F35B so In comparison a QE is just a rather large amphibious assault ship minus the amphibious capability

But what anti-ship weapons for UK F-35B ? normaly one of the priorities missions for a fighter on a CV.

Different for US get yet F-18 and can decided later, in more maybe Hapoon can be carried by F-35C under wings and USMC have ground support as primary mission.

FORBIN said:

But what anti-ship weapons for UK F-35B ? normaly one of the priorities missions for a fighter on a CV.

Different for US get yet F-18 and can decided later, in more maybe Hapoon can be carried by F-35C under wings and USMC have ground support as primary mission.

Click to expand...

I am sure the UK will add a ASM to the F-35B for the QE class. No t whatsoever.

Perhaps the Naval Strike Missile, or later, the US LRASM. They will get such a weapon, no doubt, as will the USMC F-35Bs at some point.

FORBIN said:

But what anti-ship weapons for UK?

Click to expand...

That's what Astute SSNs are for.

HMS Astute said:

That's what Astute SSNs are for.

Click to expand...

Well, the Astute SSNs do perform anti-shipping and ASW missions...but they are not meant to supplant offensive strike capability from the carriers at all.

One of the absolute principle purposes for the QE carriers is to have a fixed-wing aircraft wing that can perform offensive attack missions against land targets and for war at sea scenarios against enemy vessels.

The F-35B JSFs will absolutely be able to do this off of the QE carriers.

Jeff Head said:

offensive attack missions against land targets

Click to expand...

Astute class SSNs can do wonders from significantly longer range that F-35 can only dream of...

[video=youtube;XgMK7Gd4UB4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgMK7Gd4UB4[/video]

HMS Astute said:

Astute class SSNs can do wonders from significantly longer range that F-35 can only dream of...

Click to expand...

Well, actually...no.

The F-35B can be refueled while in flight, so it's range is virtually unlimited.

So, it can carry its attack missiles, whether Anti-shipping or Land Attack, as far as necessary, being refueled along the way if necessary, within its weapons bay in stealth mode, and then launch them from their significant standoff range.

As I said, the Astute is not meant to replace the wing of F-35B aircraft in their attack role off of the carrier. Nor should they.

Having said that, the Astute SSN does have its own attack capabilities which are also impressive with the Tomahawks it can carry. It can also approach its targets in "stealth" mode under the waves and launch its missiles.

The two compliment each other. They each have their place and their unique capabilities. Although the Tomahawk Black IV missiles themselves will certainly have a greater range than the NSM or LRASM or other missiles the F-35B can carry, because the F-35B can be refueled in flight, it can make up for that whenever necessary.

Another factor in favor of the fighter vs Astute is the Magazine. Astute carries 38 weapons a mix of Tomahawks and Torpedos. the more Tomahawks the less torpedo's the more torpedos the less Tomahawks. reloading the Astute requires either surfacing the ship and resupplying a complicated and dangerous operation at sea for a submarine. or pulling into port. a F35 only has to land. it's supplied by the ships stores of the Mother Carrier who intern is resupplied in a easier method more regularly. rearm for a F35 take minutes and more regularly. a formation of F35's off the deck of a QE can carry equal to the entire weapon load of a Astute.
Don't get me wrong Astute is a good boat and her stealth makes her a great antiship platform but it's only one part of the formation.

Comparing a sub to a fighter? I thought sinodefenceforum.com was way above this? apples and oranges maybe?