Is the captain just responsible for steering the boat or does he get to decide what planes to send up, missiles to fire in a combat situation?
Yes.
Does he get a nice cake?
(You all know what I'm talking about)
I believe the captain is in charge of the vessel and it's protection (i.e. missiles). The planes belong to the carrier air wing commander - that said, it's ultimately the captains toy - he'll put the safety of the vessel first (even if there's an admiral onboard the captain owns the ship).
I could be wrong mind!
Does he get a nice cake?(You all know what I'm talking about)
Wasn't that a battleship or destroyer not an aircraft carrier? Assuming you are thinking of Erika Eleniak...
Planes?
On an aircraft carrier?
Getting a bit ahead of ourselves there, aren't we?
Isn't the captain also in charge of the entire battle group too?
Does he get a nice cake?
(You all know what I'm talking about)Wasn't that a battleship or destroyer not an aircraft carrier? Assuming you are thinking of Erika Eleniak...
Yes USS Missouri, I believe. Erika's emergence from the cake wore down the heads on my VHS
Just who is actually in charge ? [url=
The Officer of the Watch is responsible for the steering, the Captain sits on a tall chair making snide comments, the airy fairy WAFU flight commander is I/C of all the whirlygigs, none of the cooks can actually cook and the navigator is always pissed.
Isn't the captain also in charge of the entire battle group too?
Rear Admiral or commadore.
Strictly they are still captain in the context you describe as you can be given that as title rather than rank (you could also be captain of a small RIB whilst having a very junior rank), similalry commadore could be a title given in the same way to the captain of a ship to dennote them being in charge of a flotilla.
The Officer of the Watch is responsible for the steering, the Captain sits on a tall chair making snide comments, the airy fairy WAFU flight commander is I/C of all the whirlygigs, none of the cooks can actually cook and the navigator is always pissed.
😆
you could also be captain of a small RIB whilst having a very junior rank
I think it that case you would be the commanding officer. I may be wrong.
Doesn't answer your question.
Been on Illustrious (not serving). Tis a big boat although poxy compared to the yanks nuclear powered ones with a fraction of the planes and helicopters! Remember staring up at the gearbox, was about the size of a small new-build detached house. Long way down from the flight deck, wouldn't fancy diving off it. In typical British on the cheap style there's only ever one at sea on rotation, one in refit and the other mothballed, IIRC it's the same with the ICBM subs.
HMS Splendid, hunter killer nuclear sub was another interesting trip out. Bunks stacked four high in about a six foot space, with barley enough room to turn over, wouldn't fancy that for months on end. Not to mention being squeezed into a tube with a nuclear reactor mid ships. Was interesting seeing the decommissioned older subs sat there, some stripped with their reactors concreted into metal rail transport containers on the pier head.
The original SA80 was another classic British cock up, one of the most accurate assault rifles but jammed everywhere it went, useless in the desert, until the Belgians fixed the design fault for us.
Some shocking cost cutting, out of date equipment, with our lads doing the best they can mend and make do British spirit and all. Good to see we are keeping up traditions, aircraft carriers with no planes, with the yanks in a position to make us pay (for the cooled relationship) oh dear oh dear. Let's not discuss the other design faults and **** up's with recent vessels 😆
CFH has stw nailed.
Does it have a conveyor belt?
none of the cooks can actually cook
They ALSO cook.
Tis a big boat although poxy compared to the yanks nuclear powered ones
They're poxy compared to a cross-Channel ferry, could probably be taken a prize by an angry bunch of booze-cruisers too 🙂
Is the carrier on a treadmill?
Where are the aircraft?
Not that our carriers will be much better once they get the F-35. Slow, bomb bay overheats if it goes to fast at low level. No legs, not very manoeuvrable, (got rinsed in a dog fight with an F-16). Can only be major serviced in Turkey (stupid on board logistics software which the Israelis insisted was stripped out before they agreed to buy it). Folding wing tips on the carrier versions need replacing as they bend too much. Software to fire the cannon still not ready and won't be integrated for years but don't worry it carries pitifully low ammo.
Poor IR capabilities puts it at a disadvantage compared to the Typhoon, Rafale, Miss and Su's.
Ignore the Red Flag excerise claims of 20:1 kill ratio, apparently the playing field wasn't very level and most of the kills were allegedly down to the F-22's the F-35's were paired with.
Oh and to top it all off Russian and Chinese low frequency radar advancements should see through its stealth by 2025-2030.
We should've bought super F18's and cat and trapped the carriers.
Our new carrier take off solution....
@ Ming the Merciless - TBF it's not unusual for countries to spec their own avionics packages, I'm assuming you don't mean that though. The F35 seems to have turned into a similar disaster to TSR 2 without being cancelled.
But yeah the carrier debacle is so typically British. Will be behind schedule, out of date and expensive to boot brilliant. Wonder if it will be passed off as a great success further down the line. When will we learn 😆
Rafale was great the French dropped out of the EFA project and built their own remarkably similar aircraft 😆
Not that our carriers will be much better once they get the F-35. Slow, bomb bay overheats if it goes to fast at low level. No legs, not very manoeuvrable, (got rinsed in a dog fight with an F-16). Can only be major serviced in Turkey (stupid on board logistics software which the Israelis insisted was stripped out before they agreed to buy it). Folding wing tips on the carrier versions need replacing as they bend too much. Software to fire the cannon still not ready and won't be integrated for years but don't worry it carries pitifully low ammo.
Yeah.
Sure.
Pilot relatively inexperienced in regards to flying an F-35 get's bested by a Viper old hand - what a surprise. Polikarpov I-15's shot down BF109's during the war as well, no one ever said that the BF109 was therefore obviously trash.
And fighters have carried pitifully low ammo for their cannons for donkeys years, the Hunter carried about 150 rounds each for it's 30mm cannons if I remember correctly - but you don't need much 25/27/30mm to do any damage - one round and you look like this
[img] 
[/img]
Oh and to top it all off Russian and Chinese low frequency radar advancements should see through its stealth by 2025-2030.
You can see any stealth aircraft (well the B2 is supposedly able to defeat long wave radar) - and direct interceptors into the rough area - using Battle of Britain era radar.
The difference is that those radars aren't accurate enough for targeting and never will be and the tiny radars in the front of active missiles can't see them as easily.
We should've bought super F18's and cat and trapped the carriers
Or just kept the harriers and carried on upgrading them
I'll add (before anyone else does) that networking radars and increased processing power does of course decrease stealths effectiveness - but then again highly networked cutting edge air defences are going to be even more effective against targets giving bigger returns (4th gen fighters) aren't they? - and if you cut a link in that chain eg the networked radars (by jamming it or destroying some of the sensors) or make the missile seekers less effective - it all falls apart.
There's a lot of complete BS on the web, I'd prefer to think that the RAF and USAF have given thought into how they are spending their money and know a little more than the various punters on the net.
I think I'll go and watch The Final Countdown again.
Why 'Rear' Admiral?
Got my first "you may now drive a ship all on your own... gawd elp the lot of us." License on Ark Royal. Officer Of The Watch, for those who understand these things.
Certainly on a small carrier like those, the captain is very integrated into the whole plan. However, a lot of the flying decisions and fighting the ship options are delegated, just too much for one person to handle. When an Admiral is onboard they are in charge of the whole battle group, and greater strategic plan, so direct descisions about what happens with the ship are influenced, but not made by him/her.
The F35 is still in development and will be for many years to come as they expand it's envelope and further develop capabilities. They are still expanding the operational envelope of the F18 - these things are being constantly developed and tested through their entire operational life - that's the job of test pilots. I have no doubt the F35 will be a superb dogfighter. It might not be THE BEST IN THE WORLD, but it wasn't designed to be so. It was never designed to be better than the F22 or the Eurofighter aircraft for example. It has some technical issues but are not unsurmountable (overheating bomb bays, software glitches!!! not exactly huge issues)and these aircraft always have technical issues though their entire operational lives. There is always a weakest link in the chain, you fix one weakest link and all you do is expose the next one. They're still fixing F15's, F16's, F18's, Tornado's etc.
Our RN hasn't got the resources and budgets that the US has so the exponential cost of a cat and trap carrier is unaffordable for us. This compromises the aircraft we can use for sure, but dogfighting is a nonsense measure anyway just like 0-60 on cars as most aircraft in future conflicts will be shot down with beyond visual range missiles launched from the aircraft by someone sat in an AWACS miles away - even F22's/Eurofighters etc can't have a hope in hell chance of out-manouvering an air to air missile. Not if you want the pilot to survive.
No chance of upgrading the Harrier,. As great an aircraft as it was it had reached the end of the line - too slow, too small, too short a range, not able to upgrade/modernise the systems, too expensive. It's an outdated aircraft and there is only so much you can do. Upgrading it would have been a Triggers Broom job and wouldn't actually expand the aircrafts capabilities by much considering the bucket loads of cash it would cost - no bang for your buck. Cutting them off like we did was the best thing to do so we could channel resources into other things. Just a shame the F35 is going to be delayed.
Seadog has it ( but 'on board' is two words if I'm being pedantic).
Can it drop bombs (with some nod towards a bit of accuracy but not at the top of the list) on poor and mostly defenceless brown people?
By that simple measure will the F35 be measured a success. The idea that any of these aircraft are ever going to be involved led in anything as uncertain as a "dogfight" with Russian or Chinese built aircraft is the stuff of Hollywood fantasists
There's a lot of complete BS on the web, I'd prefer to think that the RAF and USAF have given thought into how they are spending their money and know a little more than the various punters on the net.
I've worked for DERA. I wouldn't count on that. 😀
the exponential cost of a cat and trap carrier is unaffordable for us.
Only because the only way our government can write a contract that holds water is to print it on plastic.
Why 'Rear' Admiral?
The junior admiral goes at the back.
"If the Navy wanted a cat, it would buy a dog and modify it."
Discuss
It was thought unlikely that dogfighting would be important before Vietnam, and again before the Falklands.
The F35 can't run, can't hide, and can't fight. At least the Harrier could do the last bit very well.
"If the Navy wanted a cat, it would buy a dog and modify it."Discuss
Hahaha! - I first heard that phrase when working at HMS Sultan a couple of years ago.
I've spent the last 10 years project managing the design/build/maintenance fairly hi-tech equipment fitted to RN surface ships and submarines.
The Navy (or rather the DE&S branch of the MOD) are their own worst enemy.
The procurement is driven by people who have no idea what they're doing, and no clear idea of what they actually want.
Any decisions take ages (years in some cases) and are often overtaken by events.
As an example - our equipment is fitted to every UK Navy Submarine, and all major surface ships except the new carriers.
The plants are different on every class of vessel, despite the specifications being close enough to be able to use the same kit across multiple platforms if very small compromises were made.
However, as the MOD are one big dysfunctional family this is never going to happen, so the R&D costs stay sky high, and the spares inventory is 5 x as big as it needs to be.
Although it would seem actual pilots are stating the opposite Zokes eg - see link.
Missile technology has come on quite a bit since the Falklands. We now have capable beyond visual range air to air missiles where a blip on a radar somewhere (doesn't have to be the radar on the aircraft) is targeted and the missile deployed. No need for dogfighting. The F35 was always tipped as the last western piloted fighter ever, so after F35 everything will be UAV's and missiles. The pilot is the weakest point in the system - they're too slow, prone to making mistakes, soft and squidgy so can only handle a paltry 9G's compromising the manoeuvrability significantly, they need to be able to breathe and be kept at a narrow temperature range and have lots of displays and a small room to sit in. The point is that aircraft are designed for multiple missions dogfighting is only one aspect. An F16 was initially conceived as a pure dogfighter though its operational envelope expanded through its life to an effective fighter bomber. The F35 has been designed as something other than a pure dogfighter, so more of a jack of all trades. The benefits the F35 has being the latest and greatest in technology is that the pilot will be doing less flying and spending more of their time thinking about and executing the mission.
Can't run? Nothing can run from an air to air missile
Can't hide? Nothing is completely stealthy and radar technology advancements will always outpace aircraft stealth technology. Aircraft stealth is a red herring. Pointless. Within months of the F117 becoming public the UK military boffins developed a way of tracking them. All those decades of development and billions of dollars invested all for nothing.
Can't fight? we'll see. Its at the beginning of its development with a huge amount more potential to be unlocked over the coming years and decades. An F-15 can fly with only one wing. Who knew? It wasn't designed to be able to fly with one wing, but since a pilot brought one back with only one wing a whole new section of aerospace R&D has emerged. These things usually end up much more capable than they were when they start out.
As to the unique way our military programmes are funded? Well it has more to do with development of key skills and technology than value for money. You just don't buy an F35 - you invest in the programme with key technology transfer going on. The UK is an important member of the programme and as a result we have developed loads of technologies off the back of it. Its far more strategic than just buying a product off the shelf. And that technology which we develop will earn us a significant income over coming decades. It's like the F1 of the aviation world.
Planes?On an aircraft carrier?
Getting a bit ahead of ourselves there, aren't we?
Oh he of little faith. At [i]some[/i] point we'll have some lovely Joint Strikes, all on a carrier. We'll even have a spare carrier for spares!
We just need to make sure we select the correct Joint Strike. And not get into any expeditionary scraps in the meantime.
Can't run? Nothing can run from an air to air missile
[img] 
[/img]
The Navy (or rather the DE&S branch of the MOD) are their own worst enemy.
Worth noting that a lot of the more senior positions in the DE&S are held by the Armed Forces, including the RN!
The F35 can't run, can't hide, and can't fight. At least the Harrier could do the last bit very well.
Are you suggesting that the Harrier is a good dog fighter?
Can't run? Nothing can run from an air to air missile
Did they forget to install defensive aids?
All those decades of development and billions of dollars invested all for nothing.
Being a bit dramatic now. You make it sound like they grounded the F117s from that point onwards
We now have capable beyond visual range air to air missiles where a blip on a radar somewhere (doesn't have to be the radar on the aircraft) is targeted and the missile deployed. No need for dogfighting.
This is nothing newThe F-4 Phantom was designed for beyond visual combat, however, the problem is that rules of engagement often require the need to eyeball the target and then you can end in a dog fight.
The original SA80 was another classic British cock up, one of the most accurate assault rifles but jammed everywhere it went, useless in the desert, until the Belgians fixed the design fault for us.
And, unlike most other bullpup rifles which can adjusted by the user, can only be fired right-handed.
😐
Rich_s - Member"If the Navy wanted a cat, it would buy a dog and modify it."
Discuss
Almost forgot, loading stores into an Astute is like "coming home with your shopping and taking it into the house via the upstairs back window"
Gunz - Member
Seadog has it ( but 'on board' is two words if I'm being pedantic).
To be pedantically pedantic, Admirals and their staff are 'embarked' on the flagship.
The Navy (or rather the DE&S branch of the MOD) are their own worst enemy.Worth noting that a lot of the more senior positions in the DE&S are held by the Armed Forces, including the RN!
Oh I'm well aware of that - "by the Navy for the Navy" that is the worst thing about it.
I've read numerous conflicting reports as to why the QE and PoW don't have cats and traps. Apparently BAe got rather upset about the carriers being equipped thusly and decided that we might buy F-18s or Rafales instead of F-35s (the latter in part built by BAe), so they fudged the whole project to ensure that fitment of EMALS cats proved prohibitively expensive.
The other issue that no one seems to have considered is that we won't now be buying any carrier based airborne early warning aircraft as the go to default option (Grumman Hawkeye) requires cats and traps. If we go down the route of bolting an existing radar set to the side of a helicopter, then size constraints will mean that our carriers will be much less capable of projecting air power at long range and F-35s operating away from the carrier battle group won't have the advantage of AWACS cover.
Still, at least we can put the money saved into a battle group of missile armed surface ships to screen our carriers from attack, eh?
If we go down the route of bolting an existing radar set to the side of a helicopter, then size constraints will mean that our carriers will be much less capable of projecting air power at long range and F-35s operating away from the carrier battle group won't have the advantage of AWACS cover.
That will be the option taken, doubt its even an 'if' as the baggies have been doing that job for ages. OTOH, unless we're operating independantly or can't get an E-3 near there will likely be other options available.
Are we also allowed to talk about our world-class SSKs that we sold off?
Not sure why you couldnt bolt an early warning radar to a v-22....
Not sure why you couldnt bolt an early warning radar to a v-22..
because it's even a worse airplane than the F35
[url= https://medium.com/war-is-boring/your-periodic-reminder-that-the-v-22-is-a-piece-of-junk-db72a8a23ccf ]War Is Boring[/url]
Although it would seem actual pilots are stating the opposite Zokes eg - see link.
It's slower than most other frontline fighters. It's probably visible to new Russian and Chinese radar, and it's not that manouverable. I don't think that any of these points are contested
The power aspect won't be fixed as there's not room for a second engine. The visibility bit can't be fixed because new radars can be developed much faster than new planes. And the can't fight bit probably won't be fixed because it's just not that manouverable. None of these things are being particularly contested. The fix for all but the stealthy bit is easy: make it an F22.
And according to the bloke who in recent times has downed more enemy fighters than most in the RNAS/RAF, yes, the harrier was a supreme dogfighter. Small, agile, could pretty much stop on the spot, and had a remarkably small radar and heat signature. No, it's probably not up to it by modern standards, but it used to knock spots off elite F15s in training, and apparently they're still ok.
Zokes, you're criticising the F-35 for being too slow while at the same time singing the praises of the subsonic Harrier.
Some of the criticisms of the F-35 seem to be based on the perspective of comparing them point-to-point with a current gen fighter's capabilities. If (and it's a big if, let's be clear here) it lives up to the claims made by its proponents then doing that misses the point. It intends to add so many new capabilities that it will have already stacked the decks before it enters into a traditional engagement.
As an analogy, compare a landline to a smartphone. Compared to a landline, smartphones are crap and slow at making calls. You have to unlock the screen, find the phone app and faff around with touchscreen keys. With a landline you just pick up the receiver, press the buttons and you're done. Plus the call quality is usually better.
So are smartphones a retrograde step from landlines? Only if you compare them only against the limited capabilities of a landline. If you want to make a call when you're not at home, or if you want to browse STW, or play Angry Birds, the smartphone is the only one that can do these things.
It's a massive big defence project so in the end there's a good chance that all the sensor fusion, networking, control, etc improvements in an F-35 won't live up to the hype, but if enough of them do pan out as hoped, then it will be able to operate in ways just not available to other fighters.
Well that link is contesting the fact that many see it as less manuverable than than an F-16. It has good energy retention characteristics, can pull more AoA than all but an F-22 or a Flanker, has off boresight capabiluty which makes that a moot point anyway.
The fact is that its going to be harder to hit with actively guided missiles, harder to track unless you have a networked air defence system (which will be the first target of cruise missiles). The power issue can be improved - of course you can develop uprated engines and they are - but its a strike fighter not a Flanker killer.
Then there is avionics, which will help deal with the biggest killer of pilots in a battlefield where a ything within 100 miles can kill you - situational/battlefield awareness.
Again, Harriers knocking the spots off F-15s during training is usually down to lopsided rules of engagement for aggressor training. See Skyhawks doing the same thing etc etc.
Think of it this way, given the same fangled new Chinese/Russian/Whatever radar - the aircraft with the highest RCS is still going to get smoked first in a BVR fight unless you can push the detection and targetting range well beyond your opponents missile range.
TBF Tom, that link is to the "offical blog of the Norwegian F35 program", hardly an unbiased viewpoint.
Also, as I understand it we're not building enough carriers to effectively run them with cats and traps. For that you need 3 if you want one always available - one available, one in refit and one being used for training. It's apparently much easier to train up pilots for STOVL flying from a carrier than it is to train them for cat and trap operations, so for STOVL operations only 2 carriers are needed.
Someone needs to tell the , 1 carrier, French that (not that the CdG is much of a success either)
Zokes, you're criticising the F-35 for being too slow while at the same time singing the praises of the subsonic Harrier.
Nope, not really. The beauty of posts is you can choose to read to the end of them, which is where I admit the Harrier is probably past it. However, it did rinse the F15 in exercise missions on the basis of its manouverability: something the F35 lacks
As an analogy, compare a landline to a smartphone. Compared to a landline, smartphones are crap and slow at making calls. You have to unlock the screen, find the phone app and faff around with touchscreen keys. With a landline you just pick up the receiver, press the buttons and you're done. Plus the call quality is usually better.
Yeh. But to use your analogy, while you figure out how to unlock your F35 and find its missiles app, the MiG has already killed you.
However, it did rinse the F15 in exercise missions on the basis of its manouverability: something the F35 lacks
The Harrier has a high wing loading & has never been bestowed with great agility.
zokes - Still not a customer
Nope, not really. The beauty of posts is you can choose to read to the end of them, which is where I admit the Harrier is probably past it. However, it did rinse the F15 in exercise missions on the basis of its manouverability: something the F35 lacks
Fair enough, I had mis-attributed to you some of the less qualified Harrier love on the previous page, and that with your "OK, it's past it, but it's still great!" attitude made me assume you had a less nuanced view of the Harrier than you might. 🙂
As others have said, any exercise has rules and when two aircraft are pitted against each other those rules may favour one against the other. During the development of the F-15, it could only fight the lighter and cheaper F-5 to a draw in some exercises. But as these were WVR dogfight tests they didn't account for the F-15's advantages in radar and its larger and longer ranged armaments.
I expect that it would be simple to set up an exercise that lets the F-35 play to its strengths and in such an exercise it would do very well indeed. Just as it would fare less well in a WVR dogfight exercise. However the significant question is which scenario best reflects reality?
Yeh. But to use your analogy, while you figure out how to unlock your F35 and find its missiles app, the MiG has already killed you.
Actually, one of the big improvements apparently made for the F-35 is that it's very easy to fly. This frees up time for things like situational awareness. Along with all the improved sensors this hopefully allows its pilots to keep away from messy and unpredictable situations like dogfights.
The Harrier has a high wing loading & has never been bestowed with great agility.
Yep, that's what the Argentinians thought too in actual open war. It's also what the F15 pilots thought in exercises. Both were somewhat surprised.
I should point out that I'm talking about the SHAR here for the purposes of AtA proficiency, not the GR marks.
I should also point out that thanks to its vectorable thrust, the usual rules about wing loading we're somewhat modified. The thing could fly backwards if you really wanted it to. Certainly being able to rapidly decelerate in a stable way won it a number of its kills in combat.
Actually, one of the big improvements apparently made for the F-35 is that it's very easy to fly. This frees up time for things like situational awareness.
That being the case, then it's a real plus in a war where you need more than just your absolute elite on the front line. But, it'll never be as good as a more difficult but more powerful/manoeuvreble plane in the right hands.
And as for the rules in the simulation fights, for the most part I though (though I could be wrong), that the trials were for the benefit of the US forces, and were staged in America. That being the case, I would have thought that the rules would be stacked against the Harrier.
If were talking about an actual fight with guns then yes vectored thrust might help - although its still shit - its a total myth that the harrier did well because it could suddenly stop - this was used to its advantage on very few occasions. You suddenly apply the brakes at the wrong moment and a decent opponent is just going to go into the vertical and come back down on you.
What matters in a gun fight is energy retention - a lost and dying art in air combat that few pilots actually get - let alone punters on the net.
Aggressor training isnt soley for the benefit of Americans feeling good about themselves - dissimilar air combat training is used to put pilots at a disadvantage so they can develop techniques to alleviate potential defficiencies versus their adversaries.
Could someone explain what "cats and traps" mean in this context please? (I'm assuming it's not because they have mice.)
Catapults and arrestor gear. Requires lots of room on the ship to fit all the gear on and under the deck. You also need to strengthen said deck as your landings have just been turned into controlled crashes.
Previously steam catapults, but ours would've been new electric ones...... so you can guess how well that would've gone!
What matters in a gun fight is energy retention - a lost and dying art in air combat that few pilots actually get
now I know you're talking pish, this is lesson one on day one for any baby fighter pilot 😆
Sorry should've explained Cats n traps but legends right. Steam catapult is proven tech, the septics are trying out electromagnetic catapults but you have horrendous current requirements (not so much a problem on their nuclear powered carriers. I'm not convinced about it as the rail gun project (similar idea) suffering horrendous issues of wear and tear so will require big metallurgy advances.
Current Russian and Chinese doctrine is to develop AWAC and Tanker killer long range missiles. This puts the whole F-35 sensor fusion thing in trouble as your big active radar gets splashed early on and then they have to start radiating, giving away positions. The F-35 doesn't have good over water range compared to the old Tomcat and the new Chinese jets. Coupled with that the Russians are developing IR missiles and sighting and the F-35 hasn't got much thermal damping unlike the F-117.
The other thing was the USAF want to use it to replace the A-10 in ground support,(until Congress sensibly kyboshed that). They are now looking at developing a new cheap to fly and maintain a-10 replacement.
Total waste of money to use expensive jets to bomb brown people who open eggs differently to us. Drones and cheaper A-10 equivalents. Use the F-35 for SAM sites or heavily defended stuff. Though tbh a stealthed tomahawk would be a better bet.
Nock - I mean pilots in general 😛
Ita dying though because each decade there are fewer and fewer fast jet pilots.
Ita dying though because each decade there are fewer and fewer fast jet pilots.
aye, fair point.
zokes - Still not a customer
Actually, one of the big improvements apparently made for the F-35 is that it's very easy to fly. This frees up time for things like situational awareness.
That being the case, then it's a real plus in a war where you need more than just your absolute elite on the front line. But, it'll never be as good as a more difficult but more powerful/manoeuvreble plane in the right hands.
It's as useful for expert pilots as it is for anyone. By freeing up time from the mechanical tasks involved in flying a plane, a pilot gets more time to asses the situation, co-ordinate with allies, plan ahead and and ensure that they engage the enemy in the manner most advantageous to them. On strike missions I bet it's really nice not having to spend all your time just trying not to crash into the ground.
A more powerful/manoeuvrable plane can still be at a disadvantage if they don't even know that they've been engaged, or if its pilot is spending much more time controlling the plane, or interpreting the display of its less advanced radar or whatever.
I think critics of the F-35 should focus on whether the expanded capabilities of 5th generation fighters are going to be as useful as they are claimed to be. Ignoring them entirely and concentrating on a Top Trumps like comparison against the capabilities of existing aircraft is silly and may in retrospect be analogous to the way that biplane proponents criticised monoplane fighters for their lack of manoeuvrability - while monoplanes were indeed less manoeuvrable, their additional capabilities made it irrelevant.
Ming the Merciless above is making the sort of criticisms that seem valid in my opinion. Though the whole A-10 thing is another massive can of worms that I know can explode into a huge debate of its own...
QEC was designed as an all electric ship with no steam plant for cats and traps - the ship design was complete and in construction before the politicians / senior brass decided it was a good idea to change plans after delaying the build for years to "save money". Electro-magnetic launch was evaluated for nearly a year before before being rejected for a whole host of reasons like putting lots of heavy stuff on top of a ship not designed to take it. Half the problem with the Navy ships is due to customer meddling in the design or specification without understanding the cost and time impacts, not actually having the money in the first place or unrealistic delivery expectations. Wait until they start fitting the new power and propulsion in the destroyers.....
You've also got to remember that they always want the latest kit. The problem there is that the latest kit when you start these projects is quite different to the latest kit available when they're nearing completion. So if something of particular interest appears mid-build then there's an inevitable delay + cost increase to accommodate it.
The problem with that argument ming is that we're already developing new counters to IR missiles eg DIRCM - so even if those pesky Ruskies do hit our AWACs theyre still going to have to try to paint the F35 with radar.
Everythings got a counter 😀 except lasers....sharks with lasers is where were going.
Oh, goes off to google/to look at DIRCM.....missed this!
Just a big flashy torch that you point at the missile's eye to blind it (give or take)