F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
ALIS seems to me like a very nice way for some people in the States to know where all your aircraft are and how ready they are. Also any spies they don't manage to block out.
I wonder if it's so real-time that they know when you're getting ready to do something and roughly what it is?
I wonder if it's so real-time that they know when you're getting ready to do something and roughly what it is?
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spaz said earlier:
"Flying in cloud and at night means flying in IMC Instrument Meterological Conditions using IFR Instrument Flight Rules ..."
Maybe there are differences in flight rules, but flying at night is not considered IMC in the US. Night VFR is perfectly legal if the aircraft is properly equipped, and some F-35s have been cleared to do so (after they fixed the nav/position lights.)
"Flying in cloud and at night means flying in IMC Instrument Meterological Conditions using IFR Instrument Flight Rules ..."
Maybe there are differences in flight rules, but flying at night is not considered IMC in the US. Night VFR is perfectly legal if the aircraft is properly equipped, and some F-35s have been cleared to do so (after they fixed the nav/position lights.)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Potential for Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs in Future Plan?
Jump jets on Defence radar 17 May 2014 Nick Butterly, Canberra, The West Australian
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/na...defence-radar/
"Australia could buy "jump-jet" Joint Strike Fighters to base aboard new landing ships, giving the nation its first aircraft carrier since the early 1980s.
Defence Minister David Johnston told The Weekend West the Government was considering buying the "B" model of the F-35 - a specialised variant of the stealth jet being built to operate from aircraft carriers....
...But the Government has left the door open to buying more F-35s and the minister says the F-35B will be considered.
"Now that aircraft is more expensive, does not have the range but it's an option that has been considered from day one," Senator Johnston said....
...Senator Johnston said stationing the F-35 aboard an LHD would be costly and technically challenging, but it could be done.
"The deck strength is there for such an aircraft," he said....
...The F-35 will replace Australia's fleet of F/A-18A/B Classic Hornet aircraft, due to be withdrawn in 2022."
Defence Minister David Johnston told The Weekend West the Government was considering buying the "B" model of the F-35 - a specialised variant of the stealth jet being built to operate from aircraft carriers....
...But the Government has left the door open to buying more F-35s and the minister says the F-35B will be considered.
"Now that aircraft is more expensive, does not have the range but it's an option that has been considered from day one," Senator Johnston said....
...Senator Johnston said stationing the F-35 aboard an LHD would be costly and technically challenging, but it could be done.
"The deck strength is there for such an aircraft," he said....
...The F-35 will replace Australia's fleet of F/A-18A/B Classic Hornet aircraft, due to be withdrawn in 2022."
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spaz
I just don't see that happening.
For a start, the money, secondly, the logistics of doing it for what return
are just massive, absolutely massive.
And what about having to replace the deck to handle the F-35B which
would mean the ship would be out of action.
I just don't see that happening.
For a start, the money, secondly, the logistics of doing it for what return
are just massive, absolutely massive.
And what about having to replace the deck to handle the F-35B which
would mean the ship would be out of action.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
500N,
I thought Spaz posted a quote saying that 'the deck strength is there'.
If it helps, I can confirm that the Spanish design target was to have the deck strength (and elevator capacity) to handle the F-35B.
Money and logistics - as ever, it depends what you want to do from what bases against what scenario. The Aussies have a massive potential operational area, with Host Nation Support (land bases) fairly thinly spread, as are their own land bases. They also have nations around them building aircraft carrier capacity.
Finally, the F-35B is designed to operate from small decks. The logs support system is designed to work from small ships as well. It's straightforward to operate from small ships.
OK, I'm a naval aviation type. But from where I look at it, it doesn't look such a far fetched idea.
Oh, and the Aussie ships already have a ski jump.
Best Regards as ever
Engines
I thought Spaz posted a quote saying that 'the deck strength is there'.
If it helps, I can confirm that the Spanish design target was to have the deck strength (and elevator capacity) to handle the F-35B.
Money and logistics - as ever, it depends what you want to do from what bases against what scenario. The Aussies have a massive potential operational area, with Host Nation Support (land bases) fairly thinly spread, as are their own land bases. They also have nations around them building aircraft carrier capacity.
Finally, the F-35B is designed to operate from small decks. The logs support system is designed to work from small ships as well. It's straightforward to operate from small ships.
OK, I'm a naval aviation type. But from where I look at it, it doesn't look such a far fetched idea.
Oh, and the Aussie ships already have a ski jump.
Best Regards as ever
Engines
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines
Yes, I read the quote re the deck strength.
Happy to be corrected but doesn't the deck of a carrier require a special deck covering to be able
to handle the downward force and heat ???
That is what I was referring to.
Hopefully someone can set me straight.
Good points in your post.
Yes, I read the quote re the deck strength.
Happy to be corrected but doesn't the deck of a carrier require a special deck covering to be able
to handle the downward force and heat ???
That is what I was referring to.
Hopefully someone can set me straight.
Good points in your post.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
500N,
Happy to oblige on deck aspects.
The deck steel can handle the F-35B doing VLs. Any potential issues could be further mitigated by using a 'creeping landing' technique as pioneered by the Kestrel in the 60s, where the aircraft lands with a knot or two of forward speed. This was hard in the Harrier, it's easy in the F-35B.
What does need to be considered is the resistance of the deck paint, or non-skid coating. Normal deck paints, especially the UK type, doesn't have a long life with Harriers. More a through life cost issue, though, not a 'deck capability' one. The 'Thermion' system, which is a sprayed on metallic coat, seems to perform extremely well. This can be applied to the areas of the deck most exposed to hot jet efflux.
I can post with a little knowledge here as I was involved with the BAE Systems trial and test work being carried out at Warton and Brough a few years ago. It was a thorough, extensive and ground breaking effort that took the US/UK knowledge of hot gas effects on surfaces many years forward. We also tested Thermion.
The bottom line is that the teams are well placed to put this aircraft on a range of decks. It's not a big deal. Seriously. It's normal STOVL at sea stuff.
I know some reading this will not want to believe that, but it's the truth.
Best Regards as ever and hope this helps,
Engines
Happy to oblige on deck aspects.
The deck steel can handle the F-35B doing VLs. Any potential issues could be further mitigated by using a 'creeping landing' technique as pioneered by the Kestrel in the 60s, where the aircraft lands with a knot or two of forward speed. This was hard in the Harrier, it's easy in the F-35B.
What does need to be considered is the resistance of the deck paint, or non-skid coating. Normal deck paints, especially the UK type, doesn't have a long life with Harriers. More a through life cost issue, though, not a 'deck capability' one. The 'Thermion' system, which is a sprayed on metallic coat, seems to perform extremely well. This can be applied to the areas of the deck most exposed to hot jet efflux.
I can post with a little knowledge here as I was involved with the BAE Systems trial and test work being carried out at Warton and Brough a few years ago. It was a thorough, extensive and ground breaking effort that took the US/UK knowledge of hot gas effects on surfaces many years forward. We also tested Thermion.
The bottom line is that the teams are well placed to put this aircraft on a range of decks. It's not a big deal. Seriously. It's normal STOVL at sea stuff.
I know some reading this will not want to believe that, but it's the truth.
Best Regards as ever and hope this helps,
Engines
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines
Thanks, that is great info.
I thought the deck required was much more complicated.
I had read about the creeping landing.
All good
As an aside, it will be interesting to see if the Marines bring any F-35's out to Aus as part of the
rotation training of Marines up in Northern Australia with basing at Tindall.
Thanks, that is great info.
I thought the deck required was much more complicated.
I had read about the creeping landing.
All good
As an aside, it will be interesting to see if the Marines bring any F-35's out to Aus as part of the
rotation training of Marines up in Northern Australia with basing at Tindall.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Many thanks as always 'Engines' for your input.
For '500N' the Spanish LHD was designed for operating F-35Bs. Oz LHDs are the same on the exterior as that original design; and mostly I'm told in interior with some minor mods to best suit our purposes. THERMION or whatever the Brits will use on CVFs (if it is not the same) will suffice for surface of the deck treatments. I was learning YankSpeak for our future USMC F-35Bs on Oz LHDs but now I guess the Queens Anglaisich will be necessary also.
sigh.
For '500N' the Spanish LHD was designed for operating F-35Bs. Oz LHDs are the same on the exterior as that original design; and mostly I'm told in interior with some minor mods to best suit our purposes. THERMION or whatever the Brits will use on CVFs (if it is not the same) will suffice for surface of the deck treatments. I was learning YankSpeak for our future USMC F-35Bs on Oz LHDs but now I guess the Queens Anglaisich will be necessary also.
sigh.
Budget issues? No big deal. Just take the entire budget for air operations, set fire to it and throw it off the back of the ship.
$32K per flying hour for the F-35A will be dwarfed by the bill for the B. Not to mention $140 million per jet in average procurement unit cost (at full rate, if everything goes to plan).
On the other hand, if the Australians can figure out a practical scenario where you need a (just about) supersonic and (somewhat) stealthy fighter, on a ship with no tanker, AEW or EA support, then good on yer cobber, because the Marines have yet to articulate such a thing.
$32K per flying hour for the F-35A will be dwarfed by the bill for the B. Not to mention $140 million per jet in average procurement unit cost (at full rate, if everything goes to plan).
On the other hand, if the Australians can figure out a practical scenario where you need a (just about) supersonic and (somewhat) stealthy fighter, on a ship with no tanker, AEW or EA support, then good on yer cobber, because the Marines have yet to articulate such a thing.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Here is a blast from the ancient past from the ancients themselves (the little tyros).... 2004 'tis.
Australia’s Maritime Strategy Jun 2004
http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_...ort/report.pdf (0.8Mb)
___________________
Despite assertions otherwise the money for DefBuys is squirreled away once the Budget passed according to DMO:
Defence Portfolio Budget Statements 2014-15 Defence Materiel Organisation | page 158
http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/14-...PBS_04_DMO.pdf (0.7Mb)
Australia’s Maritime Strategy Jun 2004
"...5.70 The Government is not required to commit to the purchase of the F-35 until 2006. The Government should give consideration to purchasing some short take-off and vertical landing aircraft (STOVL).
&
Conclusions
5.86 As part of the inquiry, the key maritime capabilities that were examined include amphibious lift, the protection and capability provided through the provision of air warfare destroyers, and the capability provided through an aircraft carrier. In addition, while the role of the Collins Class submarines was not discussed in detail, the committee fully supports the ongoing role provided through submarine capability.
5.87 The proposed acquisition of three air warfare destroyers is fully supported. These will provide a high level of protection against air attack and ensure Australian forces are adequately protected. The only concern is that the air warfare destroyers will not become available until about 2013.
The Government should explain what alternative type of area protection it will provide particularly for disembarking land forces.
5.88 In the previous conclusions, the committee suggested that if the Government, in 2006, confirms the decision to purchase the F-35, it should consider purchasing some short take-off and vertical landing aircraft (STOVL). This could provide the ADF with some organic air cover while it is engaged in regional operations. It is assumed that the F-35 STOVL version will be able to meet its design specifications. The committee is aware of reports that the STOVL version is subject to weight problems.
5.89 In relation to maritime surveillance, the impending use of uninhabited air vehicles (UAVs) such as Global Hawk is fully supported. This type of capability offers real advances in efficiency and surveillance time.
Recommendation 8
5.90 The Government’s decision to purchase three air warfare destroyers for delivery by about 2013 is supported.
The Department of Defence, however, should explain how adequate air protection will be provided to land and naval forces before the air warfare destroyers are delivered in 2013.
Recommendation 9
5.91 If in 2006 the Government confirms that it will purchase the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) then it should consider purchasing some short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35 variants for the provision of organic air cover as part of regional operations...."
&
Conclusions
5.86 As part of the inquiry, the key maritime capabilities that were examined include amphibious lift, the protection and capability provided through the provision of air warfare destroyers, and the capability provided through an aircraft carrier. In addition, while the role of the Collins Class submarines was not discussed in detail, the committee fully supports the ongoing role provided through submarine capability.
5.87 The proposed acquisition of three air warfare destroyers is fully supported. These will provide a high level of protection against air attack and ensure Australian forces are adequately protected. The only concern is that the air warfare destroyers will not become available until about 2013.
The Government should explain what alternative type of area protection it will provide particularly for disembarking land forces.
5.88 In the previous conclusions, the committee suggested that if the Government, in 2006, confirms the decision to purchase the F-35, it should consider purchasing some short take-off and vertical landing aircraft (STOVL). This could provide the ADF with some organic air cover while it is engaged in regional operations. It is assumed that the F-35 STOVL version will be able to meet its design specifications. The committee is aware of reports that the STOVL version is subject to weight problems.
5.89 In relation to maritime surveillance, the impending use of uninhabited air vehicles (UAVs) such as Global Hawk is fully supported. This type of capability offers real advances in efficiency and surveillance time.
Recommendation 8
5.90 The Government’s decision to purchase three air warfare destroyers for delivery by about 2013 is supported.
The Department of Defence, however, should explain how adequate air protection will be provided to land and naval forces before the air warfare destroyers are delivered in 2013.
Recommendation 9
5.91 If in 2006 the Government confirms that it will purchase the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) then it should consider purchasing some short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35 variants for the provision of organic air cover as part of regional operations...."
___________________
Despite assertions otherwise the money for DefBuys is squirreled away once the Budget passed according to DMO:
Defence Portfolio Budget Statements 2014-15 Defence Materiel Organisation | page 158
“...Joint Strike Fighter | Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft - AIR 6000 Phase 2A/B
Prime Contractor: Lockheed Martin is contracted to the United States Government for the development and production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Australia is procuring the aircraft through a government-to-government agreement.
This project is approved to acquire 72 JSF aircraft and supporting elements to form three operational squadrons and one training squadron. This comprises 14 aircraft approved in 2009 and 58 approved in April 2014. The funding for the recently approved 58 aircraft and associated elements will be transferred to the DMO post the 2014-15 budget.
During 2014-15 production of Australia’s first two JSF Aircraft will be completed at the Lockheed Martin facility in Fort Worth Texas. The aircraft will then be ferried to the International Pilot Training Centre at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona to support the commencement of Australian pilot training.
Some of the major risks for the project include the establishment of an electronic warfare reprogramming capability [ACURL - a JOINT effort with UK & CANUKS (yet to pay up dem Nuks) and Oz) and the stand up of sustainment systems and facilities required to support Australian operations....”
Prime Contractor: Lockheed Martin is contracted to the United States Government for the development and production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Australia is procuring the aircraft through a government-to-government agreement.
This project is approved to acquire 72 JSF aircraft and supporting elements to form three operational squadrons and one training squadron. This comprises 14 aircraft approved in 2009 and 58 approved in April 2014. The funding for the recently approved 58 aircraft and associated elements will be transferred to the DMO post the 2014-15 budget.
During 2014-15 production of Australia’s first two JSF Aircraft will be completed at the Lockheed Martin facility in Fort Worth Texas. The aircraft will then be ferried to the International Pilot Training Centre at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona to support the commencement of Australian pilot training.
Some of the major risks for the project include the establishment of an electronic warfare reprogramming capability [ACURL - a JOINT effort with UK & CANUKS (yet to pay up dem Nuks) and Oz) and the stand up of sustainment systems and facilities required to support Australian operations....”
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 17th May 2014 at 03:16. Reason: Show Me the Money Quote & quoths
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless a full scale war, the aust sf have always assumed no air cover.
Although now we have tiger and f18 and refueling capability, you wonder
If that is still the case.
Although now we have tiger and f18 and refueling capability, you wonder
If that is still the case.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Here are some items for the 'wet' Brits....
________________
And that thing about a STOVLie at the CVF 'naming ceremony'? WTF?
F-35B To Fly At Christening Of Brits’ Newest Aircraft Carrier, If Weather OK 16 May 2014 Colin Clark
F-35B To Fly At Christening Of Brits? Newest Aircraft Carrier, If Weather OK « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
STOVL testing at Edwards 16 May 2014 Darin Russell
"...A Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing variant of the F-35 Lightning II is shown performing Crosswind and Wet Runway testing at Edwards AFB May 6. Pilot Dan Levin and a team from the F-35 Integrated Test Facility at Patuxent River, Md., accompanied aircraft BF-4 for the deployment April 11. Testing is expected to continue until June 14....
...The F-35 ITF at Edwards AFB also operates variants BF-17 and BF-18 for its mission systems testing of the STOVL variant...."
SOURCE: STOVL testing at Edwards
"...A Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing variant of the F-35 Lightning II is shown performing Crosswind and Wet Runway testing at Edwards AFB May 6. Pilot Dan Levin and a team from the F-35 Integrated Test Facility at Patuxent River, Md., accompanied aircraft BF-4 for the deployment April 11. Testing is expected to continue until June 14....
...The F-35 ITF at Edwards AFB also operates variants BF-17 and BF-18 for its mission systems testing of the STOVL variant...."
SOURCE: STOVL testing at Edwards
And that thing about a STOVLie at the CVF 'naming ceremony'? WTF?
F-35B To Fly At Christening Of Brits’ Newest Aircraft Carrier, If Weather OK 16 May 2014 Colin Clark
F-35B To Fly At Christening Of Brits? Newest Aircraft Carrier, If Weather OK « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
I'll guess a lot of old plans will emerge from desk drawers now that the OzDefMin has said what he said. An LHD is NOT an aircraft carrier nor will it ever be one in Oz Service I'll imagine. The Spanish can speak for themselves. Meanwhile here is an old CVF story I do not recall seeing until today.
Royal Navy Widening Scope Of Carrier Use 11 Sep 2013 Anthony Osborne
Royal Navy Widening Scope Of Carrier Use | Defense content from Aviation Week
Royal Navy Widening Scope Of Carrier Use 11 Sep 2013 Anthony Osborne
"The U.K. Royal Navy is broadening the scope of how it might use its future fleet of Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers....
...Rear Admiral Russell Harding, the head of the U.K. Fleet Air Arm, speaking at the Defence Services Equipment International (DSEI) exhibition in London Sept. 10 [2013]....
...The carriers will form the centerpiece of the Responsive Force Task Group (RFTG), capable of embarking a wide variety of rotary-wing platforms as well as a squadron of the U.K.’s planned F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters. Although the last Strategic Defense and Security Review (SDSR) called for an embarked complement of 12 JSFs on the ship, Harding suggested that a new Joint Air Maneuver Package could be developed in support of amphibious operations.
A surge force of up to 24 JSFs could deploy on the ship along with what he described as a Maritime Force Protection package of nine Merlin Mk. 2 helicopters equipped for the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) mission, while a further four or five would be available to provide an airborne early warning capability. A littoral maneuver package also is envisaged, potentially using the Royal Air Force’s Chinooks, the upgraded Merlin Mk. 4, Army Apache attack helicopters and the Wildcat helicopter.
Studies are being carried out by the U.K. Defense Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) to see if the ship can operate safely with more landing spots than the six currently planned. Harding suggests that by adding a further four landing spots, the ship will be able to lift a company-sized unit of troops (up to 250 soldiers) in a single group lift using medium helicopters. “This is possible,” Harding said. “We just need to decide how we paint the lines on the flight deck.”..."
...Rear Admiral Russell Harding, the head of the U.K. Fleet Air Arm, speaking at the Defence Services Equipment International (DSEI) exhibition in London Sept. 10 [2013]....
...The carriers will form the centerpiece of the Responsive Force Task Group (RFTG), capable of embarking a wide variety of rotary-wing platforms as well as a squadron of the U.K.’s planned F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters. Although the last Strategic Defense and Security Review (SDSR) called for an embarked complement of 12 JSFs on the ship, Harding suggested that a new Joint Air Maneuver Package could be developed in support of amphibious operations.
A surge force of up to 24 JSFs could deploy on the ship along with what he described as a Maritime Force Protection package of nine Merlin Mk. 2 helicopters equipped for the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) mission, while a further four or five would be available to provide an airborne early warning capability. A littoral maneuver package also is envisaged, potentially using the Royal Air Force’s Chinooks, the upgraded Merlin Mk. 4, Army Apache attack helicopters and the Wildcat helicopter.
Studies are being carried out by the U.K. Defense Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) to see if the ship can operate safely with more landing spots than the six currently planned. Harding suggests that by adding a further four landing spots, the ship will be able to lift a company-sized unit of troops (up to 250 soldiers) in a single group lift using medium helicopters. “This is possible,” Harding said. “We just need to decide how we paint the lines on the flight deck.”..."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 17th May 2014 at 06:06. Reason: bloody quots quoth the ravin'
Glad Rag the situation may be helped by the fact that the vessels have been designed from the outset to accommodate a company of 250 Royal Marines, including provision for basic bodily functions. Sorry to disappoint 
.
Bastardeaux in fact the reference to surging to 24 is a more realistic take given the earlier references of a surge to 36, which always struck me as a tad optimistic with a total carrier-based buy of 48 airframes. I see that many who were confidently asserting that the carriers would never be built have now moved on to variations on the tired old "no aircraft" theme, but the fact is the Govt would find it politically difficult to go much south of the 48 they have publically committed to. I imagine you'll disagree with that, but happy to agree to differ.
. Bastardeaux in fact the reference to surging to 24 is a more realistic take given the earlier references of a surge to 36, which always struck me as a tad optimistic with a total carrier-based buy of 48 airframes. I see that many who were confidently asserting that the carriers would never be built have now moved on to variations on the tired old "no aircraft" theme, but the fact is the Govt would find it politically difficult to go much south of the 48 they have publically committed to. I imagine you'll disagree with that, but happy to agree to differ.
With 48 aircraft, you can sustain a 24-aircraft carrier wing for a sensible length of time. If your regular carrier strength is lower than that you might be able to provide some land-based operational capability as well. Under 48 aircraft, however, you can't even maintain a fig-leaf pretense that the GR4 is being replaced.
This is what happens when you select an aircraft that costs 80 per cent as much as an F-22.
This is what happens when you select an aircraft that costs 80 per cent as much as an F-22.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frostchamber, I've never hoped, or even postulated that the carriers will be scrapped...like the typhoon, they would cost more to cancel than to build, so why would I advocate such a waste of money and capability?
I'm simply saying what friends involved in SDSR15 have told me. In any case, how long could a purchase of 48 aircraft (29 FE@R? 6 OCU, 3 OEU, 10 in deep servicing) realistically sustain a 24 aircraft surge?...embarking nearly the entirety of the deployable force in one go? Serrrioously?
I'd just prefer to see people stop talking out of their butts as if launching 250 troops or surging to 24 aircraft will be some sort of regular occurrence!
I'm simply saying what friends involved in SDSR15 have told me. In any case, how long could a purchase of 48 aircraft (29 FE@R? 6 OCU, 3 OEU, 10 in deep servicing) realistically sustain a 24 aircraft surge?...embarking nearly the entirety of the deployable force in one go? Serrrioously?
I'd just prefer to see people stop talking out of their butts as if launching 250 troops or surging to 24 aircraft will be some sort of regular occurrence!