Yet its exceeds the aircraft it replaces or are offered as alternatives.

F/A-18 E/F/G - two engines

WE Branch Fanatic, HMS Ark Royal HAS been sold.

The MOD confirms that the Turkish firm Leyal Ship Recycling has bought her for for £2.9m. She is to be towed early next year to the same facility in Izmail, Turkey where Invincible is currently being dismantled by the same company!

MoD confirms Ark Royal to be scrapped - Defence - Portsmouth News



A couple of years ago, on another discussion board, a Turkish poster said that Turkey was planning to build 2 carriers to operate F-35Bs. Most of us pooh-poo'd him, but considering the Chinese track record with ex-Soviet/Russian carriers... :eek:

Could this be the secret plan of those cunning Turks?

AV-8/Sea Harrier: 1 engine.
A-7 Corsair: 1 engine.
F-8 Crusader: 1 engine.
A-4 Skyhawk: 1 engine.
F11F Tiger: 1 engine.
FJ Fury (navalized F-86): 1 engine.
F9F Panther/Cougar: 1 engine.


Shall I continue? There are more jets on that list just for the USN, much less other nations.

Single-engine has never been, and is not now, a disqualifier for naval aircraft.

More SINGLE engine types:
T-45 Goshawk
TV-2 Seastar
Etendard
Super Etendard
Sea Hawk
Sea Venom
Scimitar
Demon
Pirate
and...
F4D Skyray
Attacker
Alize
and many single engine choppers

and...this offering. From Lockheed.:E

http://i797.photobucket.com/albums/y...9/seastar2.jpg

----and,

Buccaneer (the yardstick!)
Scimitar (note to TBM)
F-18
Rafale
Phantom
Sea Vixen
Prowler
etc etc

The Bucc is nice, but the Vigilante is purtier..... ;)

The Bucc is beautiful

The Viggie is Purty

But nothing says aircraft porn like :

http://2.bp.********.com/-pjgCS5uzop...14_Tomcat4.jpg

But how many of the above listed single engined aircraft cost $80,000,000 [and rising] ?

Single engined? Don't forget the...

Thanks for the lists of "single-engined" carrier aircraft, though if jindabyne's aircraft were flying with only one engine fitted some would represent an extreme triumph of accountancy over airworthiness.

The F-35B is a naval variant of the land-based F-35, which in turn is a stripped-down F-22.

It has a smaller weapons bay, which means either fewer weapons or some weapons must be carried externally, compromising stealth.

If operated from a stripped down carrier without catapult and arrestor gear, it has to land vertically, at reduced weight, so it has to dump excess fuel and expensive weaponry in the sea.

If the one engine fails or suffers combat damage, plane and pilot both have to be dumped in the sea. Anyone remember the loss rate of the F-104, and that in peacetime?

It has less fuel so the unstealthy carrier has to get closer in to the combat zone.

Was the Starfighter loss rate down to failures of it's engine, or was it to do with the postage stamp wing area combined with it's handling characteristics and the tactics employed flying it?



I have also struggled with the 'limited range' arguments. If what is quoted is for internal fuel and weapons only, then that is for maximum (should that be minimum?) stealth mode?

Is it's range on internal fuel and weaps better or worse than a Tonka, F-18 or a Tiffy each with internal weapons & fuel?

If you then need to hang tanks on it to give it the legs, will it have worse or better EM / IR visiblity than any of the above?

Storm Shadow would have to be carried externally in any case where it was being deployed in complimentary tactics to TLAM for longer range strike missions.

Unless I have missed something, the F-35 is the only new game in town - so I guess that it (in which ever Letter variant) and a 'drone' (tee hee) will become the replacements for the two RAF FJs this side of the next 25 to 30 years ( based on recent artist impression to full combat ready examples); unless we go for those decrepit legacy designs of the Super (Ultra) Hornet or the Strike // Silent Eagle or something with a more Russian flavour to it.

Now for something comletely off the wall - a pity that the USMC didn't haggle for marinised A-10s :E

The F-35B is a naval variant of the land-based F-35, which in turn is a stripped-down F-22.

Form an orderly queue..........

Can't we just buy an old Nimitz class set of plans and hoop one together with a new radio?

Oh, sorry, I thought this was the bull**** future of naval aviation thread, one that I, like a lot here, actually know 3/5th of the root of F**K ALL about...

we're having - Dave B.... This week - when the plan changes we will have whatever numptyballs and his team of chimps that we let rule over us lets us have.

I am off to the bookies to put cash down on us not seeing either carrier or Dave in actual working service.

it wont't be a big bet mind, but at the moment the odds are in my favour.

Yes, agreed. The smart money is on a 'squadron' of three second-hand F-18 flying from a shore base. :cool:

The F-22 being an updated variant of those Spitfires used in Dr Who that fought the daleks in space...

Romulus

Check post 1678 unless you're being desperately ironic old chap.

NAB - was just joining the queue! :)

Mitt Romney "re-start F-22 production"
 

So, if Romney does get elected, and does keep this pre-election promise (yes, getting to the 'fairly remote' territory, here! ;)), surely they'll have to be "F-22C", with new radar, new distributed-aperture IRST, whole new embedded computing solution, &c., to bring them up to mid-2010's technology.
And if that's happening, surely the F-35 is dead, they could never afford both programmes. The USN buys lotsa FA-18E/F/G & "H/I/J" Superbug upgrades, the USAF buys lotsa F-16 "Block 70", so they're happy.
If they made the F-22C available to Israel, Japan and Australia, they'll be happy too.

The only people really dropped in it are the USMC and UK, both of whom have 'bet the farm' on the F-35B. :{