Would having no organic tanking capability be considered a liability for CVF?
Marine Corps Harriers and Hornets don’t currently use the buddy pack so I don’t see why the F-35B would. They rely on KC-130 tankers and USAF KC-135/KC-10 tankers for refuelling support.
Navy F/A-18 Super Hornets can also provide refuelling for USMC aircraft if needed.
I was thinking more along the lines of RN use………no organic tanking for the RN carriers will put something of a “crimp” in their operations.
Will the F-35B be able to carry the buddypack refueling pod?
Will F-35Bs be able to carry “buddypack” refueling pods?
I understand the French version of CVF will have “cats” and arrestor gear…….sooo……..what will her propulsion machinery be? More to the point……how will she get steam for her cats?
Why couldnt a STOVL F-35 operate from a US CV?
As long as the RN is going for the “convertible carrier” concept…..they should take a page from the RAF’s wildly succesful “MRTT” program, and make the CVs “convertible” to carry containers. That way, when they arent off on some irresponsible navy mission, they can be farmed out for more useful work moving cargo. Or they may even be made so as to be easily convertible as passenger liners (whats a few port holes in the hull anyways, and imagine how many cabins could be fitted in the hanger deck!) and leased to Cunard when they arent required for UN peace keeping duties.:D
I see big yellow (DHL?) DC-8-72s going in and out of NAS Norfolk all the time. Its still a very good cargo machine.
Will the RAF keep calling them “C-17s”…or the more proper “Globemaster C.1”?
If the US and NATO ever go up against someone with a real air force, this whole thread will seem silly.
I’m 1/3 scottish, 4/3 moron.
Everyone does realize the IL-76 and C-17 are two completely different classes of air lifter? Comparing them is like comparing A400 and C-130….or C-130 and C-27………….or 130 and 160.
pointless thread.
ADV with AMRAAM is a smashing combination! Throw in AWAACS and………..
Cuba has a navy?