It is a simple reason. The 767 is a sound design.

You are obviously unaware of the wing flutter problems that have plagued the Japanese/Italian KC-767s then…

Or the changes that Boeing have made between RFPs because they realised their original proposal would have screwed up?

On the other hand, if the US would accpet an offer from EADS directly, with the KC-330 built directly in France and delivered to the US, then I would even support that offer. However I am strongly against the idea of a new factory inthe US and all the other nonsense in the original bid of NG/EADS.

Seriously? Against having the two large OEMs build aircraft on US soil?

Pardon my french, but are you f**king nuts?!?!

The point of your American LHD’s and Harriers/F-35b is that its a hell of a lot cheaper to send a wasp class to a area that a Nimitz class, so for area of less urgency where a smaller presence is suitable they pay for themselves, also a Nimitz cannot do what wasp can do in amphibious duties but a wasp class can do (all be it in a limited capacity) what a Nimitz can in terms of strike and helo support, if anything I would suggest the opposite that the LHD’s offer the value for money not the fleet carriers.

When are Wasps EVER sent somewhere dangerous without the big boys backing them up…? Has there ever been even one instance?

A WASP class is perfect for helos – its even more logical given that helos can bring back as well as take out.

Helicopter support = LHD.

Fixed wing support = Proper carrier carrying proper aircraft that can loft proper payloads and proper fuel loads.

plus a A-10s wingspan is far to big for a carrier haha but i take it u was joking about the A-10s on a nimitz

Oh I am absolutely serious.

There are no serious problems in adding a hinge to the A-10 wing. It is not a 9g rated aircraft to begin with (infact, is it any more than 5 or 6?).

That big thick unswept wing is made for carrier ops. Of course, the engines need a bit more guts, but as I’ve said, CF34-8 and -10 are on the market and suited to the job.

but it doesnt give you an accurate track, it gives a range bearing

I’m not going to start going round in circles like has been done here already.

Dependant on the fidelity of your passive sensors and your available computational power, if you have a bearing, you can calculate a very exact range. OK?

Given adequate time, the challenge of doing this becomes much simpler.

Can a Rafale obtain a firing solution at 60km? Dependant on how stupid the target was being, yes, I’m sure it could.

But your “proper” aircraft can’t operate off amphibious assault ships and is therefore not an option.

Yes. I know.

Hence why I said buy a Nimitz class.

Ultimately, the US Marines “me too” half-assed approach to fixed wing CAS is costing the entire US defence budget billions in money, and undeterminable amounts in capability.

Better to tell them, “yes, you can have fast movers… if you get a real carrier”. Or if they don’t want to buy a big flat-top, then concentrate on better choppers to for close support.

Simple. Harsh, yes, and I’m sure many will not like it. But ultimately far more effective.

Riddle me this – when is the last time US Marines staged an invasion of a hostile beach head without serious backup from a USN CVBG? When do you think it is ever likely they will be asked to do so in the future? Why not just add a USM dedicated/owned CAS (Nimitz class) carrier to the naval battlegroup? Makes far more sense than burning billions on questionable capabilities.

Shortened takeoff in relation to what? It’s ALWAYS been the plan to do a short take off. That’s what the “S” in “STOVL” means.

In relation to a proper aircraft.

Why risk a $100+ million dollar plane when it is only able to carry limited load-outs for limited endurance?

Better to fly pukka planes off pukka carriers.

Marines want their own fixed wing air support? Fine, buy a Nimitz class and run re-engined A-10s off it (150% of current thrust with same fan dia, or >200% current thrust with 16% greater fan dia – which from initial glances, I don’t see any showstoppers in integrating).

I’ve never been a fan of STOVL aircraft… in fact, IMO they verge on being a complete waste of money, resources and time. STOL on the other hand, completely different, simply as you are not lugging around a load of dead-weight during the normal flight phases.

is simply wrong. It is possible to estimate range with good accuracy using passive means only.

It is easily possible to gauge range from passive means.

You know your speed, your altitude and your heading. You need 3 discreet points to provide triangulation.

1 from initial detect, 2nd from straight level course and 3rd from a subsequent course change. Yes, the range will be approximate initially, but it will very quickly zero into usable tolerances with continuous data acquisition.

If you have a 2 plane element it becomes even easier, a quick split of the 2 aircraft and straightforward triangulation becomes possible – of course, some data needs to be transferred between aircraft, but that is real network warfare.

Still, the point was at some point the “quantity vs quality” arguement loses it’s meaning.

Course it does. Which takes us back to the land of happy mediums.

If airforces are looking for a (supposedly) cheap to maintain fighter, with good (but not stellar) performance, then the Gripen is facing off with the F-35. While not quite as good as the F-35 in some respects, it will be better in others.

[I say supposedly, because I’m in no way convinced the F-35 will meet that target either!]

Was the carrier moving? If so, it wasn’t a vertical landing even though the relative motion between the carrier and airplane was zero.

Which wouldn’t make a difference with regards where the plume was impinging the deck.

Although, as you say, shouldn’t be too much of an issue.

The more worrying thing is of course, reduced payload off a shortened takeoff.