Originally Posted by A56
The Falklands War was 38 years ago - halfway between 1944 and today - you can't keep trotting that out as a reason to indulge in carriers
They can only be in one area at a time when what is needed on a daily basis is a widespread, even worldwide, distribution of vessels.
Please re-read my post. I did not - and neither has anyone else.Carrier employment during the Cold War (which seems to be returning), and crises in the Adriatic and Gulf have informed things. I was making the point that warships in a task group do not just defend the flagship, and indeed work with the aircraft. I am sure that you once complained about the use of 'billion pound destroyers' for catching pirates...
Originally Posted by SASless
Are the UK F-35's meeting the Bench Marks set for them in the acquisition process that led to their being selected for service on these two Carriers?
It would appear the US Navy is not having what could be described as stellar success with theirs?
I am not sure what issues the US Navy is having with the F-35C. I know that carrier integration is a bit of a problem. particularly with the new
Ford class, but I assumed that was about operating the jets at their full potential.
Originally Posted by peter we
Its 105 sorties on the first day and 450 in the first week, I think...Higher than many carriers achieved in the Gulf Wars
F-35B has a significantly higher sortie rate than the C
Which why we chose it - amongst other reasons such as training and integration.
Originally Posted by Easy Street
... because it has to come back more often for fuel, and doesn’t take as long to fill up when it does?
All to do with movements on the flight deck. Incidentally quite a few CVN sorties are Super Hornets acting as buddy tankers for returning jets that might miss a wire a need a suck of gas.
Anyway - Happy New Year. A busy carrier year!