F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
"Here's what an F-35 can do for you: long before two aeroplanes get close enough to see each other the F-35 is going to see that other aeroplane and kill it."
I thought that was what my Granny used to call "Beyond Visual Range".
And as I have remarked too many times, the stealth ideal of "one-way BVR" was hard enough to make real in the ATF days, before digital ESM, RCS reduction (counter-NCTR as much as delaying detection), IRST that worked, and networking.
I thought that was what my Granny used to call "Beyond Visual Range".
And as I have remarked too many times, the stealth ideal of "one-way BVR" was hard enough to make real in the ATF days, before digital ESM, RCS reduction (counter-NCTR as much as delaying detection), IRST that worked, and networking.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Here's what an F-35 can do for you: long before two aeroplanes get close enough to see each other the F-35 is going to see that other aeroplane and kill it."
I thought that was what my Granny used to call "Beyond Visual Range".
And as I have remarked too many times, the stealth ideal of "one-way BVR" was hard enough to make real in the ATF days, before digital ESM, RCS reduction (counter-NCTR as much as delaying detection), IRST that worked, and networking.
I thought that was what my Granny used to call "Beyond Visual Range".
And as I have remarked too many times, the stealth ideal of "one-way BVR" was hard enough to make real in the ATF days, before digital ESM, RCS reduction (counter-NCTR as much as delaying detection), IRST that worked, and networking.
baffels brains as my old disips used to shout.....a lot 
Last edited by glad rag; 23rd Feb 2016 at 13:30. Reason: Claiming touchscreen defence!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Outside the Matz
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes its the Daily Mail, but I have added the source Link also. Maybe some valid points made about the F35s home plate.
US aircraft carriers are no longer the ultimate deterrent amid new technology | Daily Mail Online
http://www.cnas.org/growing-threat-t...s#.VszqPZyLSM-
US aircraft carriers are no longer the ultimate deterrent amid new technology | Daily Mail Online
http://www.cnas.org/growing-threat-t...s#.VszqPZyLSM-
Why is it that these things are always an existential threat to a moving and therefore harder to target ship, complete with some fairly heavy SAM carrying escorts, but somehow never to a fixed point with fuel and bomb shops that can be readily identified using google earth?
Because if I hit your runway with a 1000 lb penetrating munition going at Mach 3, you call up Bloggs and you say, yea, Bloggs, saddlest thou up the armored Cat D7 and fill yonder hole, that flight operations may resume.
I understand that it doesn't work the same way with grey floaty things.
I understand that it doesn't work the same way with grey floaty things.
Possibly. But not quite the same with a fuel or bomb farm. Which is why I was specific about them.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, the country that has developed the "carrier killer" missiles is building it's own carriers.
That suggests that despite them having the research info re the effectiveness of these missiles against carriers, they still think they are worth having.
You can take away from that what you will........
That suggests that despite them having the research info re the effectiveness of these missiles against carriers, they still think they are worth having.
You can take away from that what you will........
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
One builds carriers to project power to the other side of the Pacific - the other builds carriers (and islands) to sanitise the South China Sea and neutralise the first.........
China Deploys Fighter Jets To Contested Island in South China Sea
China's Island Radar Bigger Threat Than Missiles, CSIS Says - Bloomberg Business
Hmmmm, that's the radar that can track the F-22 and F-35, right?
China Deploys Fighter Jets To Contested Island in South China Sea
China's Island Radar Bigger Threat Than Missiles, CSIS Says - Bloomberg Business
Hmmmm, that's the radar that can track the F-22 and F-35, right?
So, the country that has developed the "carrier killer" missiles is building it's own carriers.
That suggests that despite them having the research info re the effectiveness of these missiles against carriers, they still think they are worth having.
You can take away from that what you will........
That suggests that despite them having the research info re the effectiveness of these missiles against carriers, they still think they are worth having.
You can take away from that what you will........
It's also easier to list all the countries that have or plan to have a carrier that does not have any organic SAM capability.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you in fact have anything defending the airfields whatsoever?
T45 goes with the carrier. That is a reasonable plan.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It matters little where they are.
The simple fact is that the country that has developed the alleged capability to render carriers ineffective is building it's own. This seems to suggest it is rather less cut and dried.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
There I would disagree Tourist.
An asset can be vulnerable or not depending on how, where and when you deploy it - and in the face of which threat.
An asset can be vulnerable or not depending on how, where and when you deploy it - and in the face of which threat.
I knew Bannock's post would start this one again.
Airfields stay still, which I rather like about them, so everyone knows where they are. But they are hard and you don't need to put all your avtur and bombs in one place. Takes a lot of effort to close a runway for 24 hours, but there are others (although nowhere near as many as their used to be). SAM systems are available. Of course, you're talking all out war to see that kind of threat to mainland UK or regional war to see attacks on Overseas bases. Reach, with deployed force multipliers (still like that term no matter what the others say) means you can operate from bases out of harm's way, given the right circumstances, obviously. Pluses and minuses as always.
Carriers move about a bit, but surveillance and targeting technology have moved on in recent decades and satellites and other assets can achieve good coverage anywhere in the world - not all of it all at once though. With the right assets, a carrier can be well defended from air, surface and sub-surface threats depending on the amount of effort an enemy is willing to put into it and how many assets the UK is willing and able to provide for protection. Not sure about the size of air wing that might be fielded. The ability to position, either to stand off or close in is an obvious advantage, but that may be facing ground based assets with greater reach. Vulnerability is an issue as it MAY only take one weapon to take out the runway, fuel and bomb farm and there may not be another one within reach unless the "boys" come home with a lot of gas. Low tech managed to inflict a lot of hurt in '82 and the failure to hit a capital ship had an element of good fortune in it - but things have moved on for both sides. So, pluses and minuses again.
On balance, maybe that's why a lot of nations like to have some runways that move and some that stay still.
Airfields stay still, which I rather like about them, so everyone knows where they are. But they are hard and you don't need to put all your avtur and bombs in one place. Takes a lot of effort to close a runway for 24 hours, but there are others (although nowhere near as many as their used to be). SAM systems are available. Of course, you're talking all out war to see that kind of threat to mainland UK or regional war to see attacks on Overseas bases. Reach, with deployed force multipliers (still like that term no matter what the others say) means you can operate from bases out of harm's way, given the right circumstances, obviously. Pluses and minuses as always.
Carriers move about a bit, but surveillance and targeting technology have moved on in recent decades and satellites and other assets can achieve good coverage anywhere in the world - not all of it all at once though. With the right assets, a carrier can be well defended from air, surface and sub-surface threats depending on the amount of effort an enemy is willing to put into it and how many assets the UK is willing and able to provide for protection. Not sure about the size of air wing that might be fielded. The ability to position, either to stand off or close in is an obvious advantage, but that may be facing ground based assets with greater reach. Vulnerability is an issue as it MAY only take one weapon to take out the runway, fuel and bomb farm and there may not be another one within reach unless the "boys" come home with a lot of gas. Low tech managed to inflict a lot of hurt in '82 and the failure to hit a capital ship had an element of good fortune in it - but things have moved on for both sides. So, pluses and minuses again.
On balance, maybe that's why a lot of nations like to have some runways that move and some that stay still.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
