Aircraft Carriers III

FORBIN

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
cockneyjock1974 said:
Sorry no figures for the Rafale I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
The best i have exact or almost
CR 1850 km A2A missions 8 AAMS ( normaly 6 but possible 8 ), 3 FTs or A2D mission 1100 km 2- 3 tons AG weapons, 4 AAMs, 3 FTs

Hi lo hi missions both so in average 1400 km i calculate always as it for have a good average.

Typhoon have same CR excellent for fighters of 25 tons !
FORBIN said:
I re find my chart !
View attachment 41514
Click to expand...

Foch more small ofc but Soviet/Russians are clearly less capable build as heavy Cruiser also... even for aviation logistic qty for Kuznetsov you can see, the Liaoning without SS-N-19 launchers have a little more ? doubtfull coz for reasons mainly of vulnerability magazines are at the bottom of the hull and to know what they did ...
 
C

cockneyjock1974

New Member
Registered Member
Thanks for that Forbin, when we get figures for F35 external fuel tanks, namely the ones the Israelis are looking at it should hopefully even up the playing field. No matter what the future holds QE with the facility to SRVL narrows the gap between CATOBAR and STOVL.
They're testing payloads in Patuxent river just now with 4 paveway bombs and 2 assrams externally. I don't know if the internal bomb bays are full as well.
However the Nimitz and Ford class are still the benchmark by far.
 
Obi Wan Russell

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master
VIP Professional
Jura said:
I missed the point of talking deep strike off two carriers using STOVL aircraft in the situation the RN doesn't have a quarter of bil pounds to fix Type 45 propulsion
Jul 1, 2017
can't afford for example sea-mines Apr 5, 2017
and OTH AShMs Nov 11, 2016

I mean the QEs are like Escort Carriers: no early-warning aircraft*, small combat radius of F-35B with a small payload and, ehm,
limited manoeuvrability if compared to fighter jets**


I would've thought the RN, knowing its budget and manpower limitations Dec 8, 2016

, should've concentrated on its ability to protect the traffic and the UK interests (Cod Wars come to my mind) in the Northern Atlantic; instead, though, the RN concentrates on fanciful stuff of dubious combat value = two carriers with F-35Bs but no AShMs and no escort vessels with AShMs*** ... just imagine if they had entered the Persian Gulf at the time of hostilities
Click to expand...
*They will have five AEW aircraft when ever they deploy operationally. Granted they'll be rotary wing Merlins and not Hawkeyes, but they have one of the best systems available (Cereberus/Searchwater 2000) which has also proven itself very good at finding Terrorists in the desert as well as ships and aircraft at sea. Not to mention nine more Merlins for ASW.

**Debunked ages ago! One test against an F16 when the Lightning in question was intentionally limited in the manoeuvres it could perform and the 'G's it could pull.

***The RN has for decades put it's primary anti ship capability in it's submarine force, the view now being our surface ships should never come into firing range of an enemy ship. Too much like a fair fight and we cannot afford to lose. In 1982 did we send Exocet equipped frigates to sink the Belgrano or the 25 de Mayo? Did we launch a Harrier strike? No, the task was assigned to the Submarine Force. SSMs on warships are definitely 'nice to have' and I would rather we kept them, but in RN doctrine they are most definitely a 'backup' capability rather than the primary Anti Ship capability.
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
Obi Wan Russell said:
*They will have five AEW aircraft when ever they deploy operationally. Granted they'll be rotary wing Merlins and not Hawkeyes, but they have one of the best systems available (Cereberus/Searchwater 2000) which has also proven itself very good at finding Terrorists in the desert as well as ships and aircraft at sea. Not to mention nine more Merlins for ASW.
Click to expand...
Today at 1:00 PM
I meant high-volume search-radar, ability to vector the CAP etc.

putting an early-warning pod under a helo is consistent with my notion of the QE class being Escort Carriers

Obi Wan Russell said:
**Debunked ages ago! One test against an F16 when the Lightning in question was intentionally limited in the manoeuvres it could perform and the 'G's it could pull.
Click to expand...
Today at 1:00 PM
I had in mind "Flanker family"

Obi Wan Russell said:
***The RN has for decades put it's primary anti ship capability in it's submarine force, the view now being our surface ships should never come into firing range of an enemy ship. Too much like a fair fight and we cannot afford to lose. In 1982 did we send Exocet equipped frigates to sink the Belgrano or the 25 de Mayo? Did we launch a Harrier strike? No, the task was assigned to the Submarine Force. SSMs on warships are definitely 'nice to have' and I would rather we kept them, but in RN doctrine they are most definitely a 'backup' capability rather than the primary Anti Ship capability.
Click to expand...
Today at 1:00 PM
in the end I gave an example which was the Persian Gulf with several navies able to mount a surface attack; how would your submarine force (I set aside the current status of the Astutes) handle it is above me

the above part was let's say tactical; what I think is even more important though is if the strategy of putting most of available resources into two carriers with STOVL aircraft is sound from the point of view of defending the UK
 
C

cockneyjock1974

New Member
Registered Member
Jura the Royal Navy is the only Navy that has...

1. Used an SSN to sink a major enemy ship.

2. Shot down a SSM during combat.

3. Used lynx helicopters to decimate coastal missile boats of the kind you are describing, utising the sea skua missile system.

Please do not call the QE class escort carriers, when fully up and running they will be CVA's in their fullest form.
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
cockneyjock1974 said:
... coastal missile boats of the kind you are describing, ...
Click to expand...
what I meant
Today at 1:00 PM
and
Today at 4:07 PM
were not FACs, but instead vessels armed with
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

or
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


anyway I think the primary anti-shipping asset is an over-the-horizon AShM ... I must be wrong according to the present Admiralty (LOL)

here is another problem:
cockneyjock1974 said:
Please do not call the QE class escort carriers, when fully up and running they will be CVA's in their fullest form.
Click to expand...
I think the capabilities of the QEs are more consistent with the classification you don't want me to use, and are less consistent with the power projection 'big stick'
 
C

cockneyjock1974

New Member
Registered Member
I think the capabilities of the QEs are more consistent with the classification you don't want me to use, and are less consistent with the power projection 'big stick

Name me a nation outwith the US that can put a 5th generation stealth fighter attack aircraft on a purpose built 70,200 ton super carrier. That has a 10:1 kill ratio over every 4th gen western fighter?
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
cockneyjock1974 said:
I think the capabilities of the QEs are more consistent with the classification you don't want me to use, and are less consistent with the power projection 'big stick

Name me a nation outwith the US that can put a 5th generation stealth fighter attack aircraft on a purpose built 70,200 ton super carrier. That has a 10:1 kill ratio over every 4th gen western fighter?
Click to expand...
I think you're underestimating the announced US scores:

Feb 15, 2017
Jura said:
"15:1" not enough: "Although they don’t have an updated figure, the pilots told us that the F-35 kill ratio was higher than the 15-1 figure they initially reported."
will they make it 20 and revoke one "loss"? LOL
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

Feb 28, 2017
Jura said:
Feb 15, 2017
LOLOL they just made it 20: "Indeed, while early reports suggested a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
recent Air Force testimony by Lt. Gen. Jerry D. Harris, Vice Commander of Air Combat Command characterized the kill ratio as “20-1” meaning that, for one F-35A “lost” in simulated combat in a high threat environment that the aircraft destroyed 20 simulated enemy aircraft."
Looks like the F-35 achieved an impressive 20:1 kill ratio at Nellis Air Force Base’s Red Flag 17-1
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

Mar 5, 2017
Jura said:
I guess it's more than your 110% as the USMC increased the USAF "20:1" from Tuesday at 9:40 PM
to 24:0 “In our own analysis we're seeing a consistent ratio more like 24:0 – we're not losing aircraft at all in our scenarios, and we set the conditions for other legacy fighters to be successful where we can.”
Marine Corps: F-35 is the best thing on the block
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


increasing even like prediction from Feb 15, 2017
Click to expand...

'willing suspension of disbelief'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top