I was under the impression that it was just a Kh-22 with new internals, if that is the case there would be little if anything to see in a picture?:confused:

SL

The irony to this is that I am still a distinct fan of CATOBAR – just not for us with our very specific requirements. You look at the IN IAC and I’ll tell you that there is a carrier that NEEDS E-2’s and wants to be embarking Rafales or Super Hornets…because they are planning to use it squared-off to PLAN blue-water ambitions. If you want to control large volumes of sea-space you’d better have a method of surveilling it. We dont need that…or what we do need we can use an A-class sonar to achieve…..they do.

By saying that unfortunately you are missing the whole point of what having a manned deep strike capable asset in the airgroup brings. A fixed, strategic, target like those engaged by the GR4 Tonka force with Storm Shadow does not require a great ISTAR capability – i.e you can target buildings, airfield facilities, port facilities, comms towers etc, etc without needing ISTAR UAV’s or satellites!. RN TLAM’s and F-35B launched Storm Shadows can replicate that GR4 capability wherever the RAF are unable to stage Tonka’s out to – which is what I’ve said all along. What F-35C can bring is the ability to put a reactive strike asset deep over hostile territory able to engage fleeting or ‘pop-up’ targets…but you need to have a cueing asset able to support that deep capability or its largely valueless.

The surge capability is one we used to good effect in the Falklands when striking Stanley airport and Goose Green strip simultaneously so its hardly an ‘academic’ capability. For intensive operations the rapid launch-land cycle of STOVL CVF could be extremely valuable in keeping aircraft on call.

Its the nature of the cost thats largely the problem though…its nearly all year on year stuff. More people, more training, more logistics – at a time when we are trying to find efficiencies in meeting our routine commitments putting in the additional expense, again for what is a marginal real-word capability increase, is unjustifiable realistically!.

To repeat my illustration above though…this vessel is capable of striking London from a point well off the south-west coast of Ireland, in the Atlantic, using Storm Shadow!. This is not a Harrier/CVS level of capability being discussed here!.

Not so unfortunately. People here are stating the just because the F-35C can fly further and carry more ordnance than F-35B that makes CATOBAR the natural selection for the UK Carrier Strike mission. I am pointing out why that is not the case and how, comparitively, valueless extra range is when it cannot be leveraged into any extra capability and that greater weapons carriage is valueless when it only impacts one type of weapon, in the UK inventory, the targets for which can be engaged with alternate weapons systems. Essentially I am trying to detail the concept of ‘operational requirement’ over ‘brochure capabilities’ and I’m very convinced it’s not something I am making very clear!.

The range issue is not valueless, indeed it is very important, as is the loiter capability. Especially with the limited nature of the aerial refueling assets which will be available to these aircraft. You can continue to cite the distance thing if you wish but it not a useful comment. The other factor that you ignore is the loss of internal weapons capability that the B suffers over the C. A CATOBAR carrier is perfectly capable of surging attacks, this is not some uber capability specifically reserved for V/STOL carriers.

It is ridiculous to suggest that the E2 is only useful for squaring of to blue water opponents and you know it. The usefulness of of AEW assets such as the E2 can not be understated.

Finally, and I feel that I speak for a lot of people here I would prefer it if you did not patronise us with paragraphs like your last one in the above qouted post. We are all well aware of ‘operational requirement’ what is being pointed out is that that requirement is is in this case wrong and as such the RN is making a major sacrifice in terms of actual potential capability.

I’m talking about stoping the kind of stuff listed above. Catching a price jump from 19 cents to a million dollars wouldn’t be hard for software to notice. Questionable contracts and such is a whole ‘nother can of worms.

In my opinion it is one massive can of worms.

I wasn’t condoning it. 🙂 Just pointing out that there needs to be some oversight even if it’s automated. Software could have caught that easily, but only if it’s in place.

With all due respect a lot more is required than just a little bit of oversight. A review of all procurement is and has been for some time required. That includes the role of congress.

Why is this not surprising.:rolleyes: The entire US armed forces procurement process is rotten to the core.

I agree entirely with Sealord, the capability/cost margin favours the more capable CTOL arrangement, given the relatively minor cost difference. I would just like to point out, however, that at no time have I contended that the carriers should be given C-13 steam cats. I have consistently supported the use of EMALS, even if it means giving that program a kick up the backside to speed it up. Given the likely delivery schedule of F-35s, it is unlikely that we would end up with much of a gap between F-35s reaching readiness and EMALS-equipped carriers entering service.

As for the F-35B for the US Marines, I agree wholeheartedly, it represents a massive boost in capability. The potential to field a two CVN & two LHA fleet, with a total of around 150 aircraft (48 fighters on each CVN, 24 on the LHAs) is pretty attractive, and given the ability to surge up to six carriers, this could allow for 450 aircraft to be surged! This may not be a day-to-day requirement, but when push comes to shove, the ability to surge deploy one of the largest air forces in the world is worth a lot!

In terms of UCAVs, I don’t see them as a replacement for F-35s at all, but rather as an accompaniment for them. For the UK, they are likely to be the only way the carriers are going to get a full airwing.

Your remark about UCAV’s is exactly my opinion, you however articulated it far better than I did.;)

but you will see my name in print inside of a Jane’s publication 😀

Now thats just cool!:cool: Seriously though good work, The whole Russia thing has received so little attention in the last decade it is ridiculous and your blog is probably the best source I have come across thus far!

West does not knew in 80s that it had won the cold war. otherwise they would not have supported islamists against the Soviets. and By 1980s most of Consumer industries were outsourced to Asia so West can concentrate on Arms buildup. which inturn led to rise of Asia (more consumption) and complete Western dependency on eastern natural resources. so large scale War was out of question. More than 90% of War bill of 1990 deseart Storm was paid by Middleast/Japan. the rest of military build up on debt.

Again you have no idea what you are talking about! This is a perpetual problem with you, you just make things up and then pout them out!

Consumer industries were not outsourced to Asia so that the west could concentrate on the arms buildup- that is just a classic ridiculous star49 remark, so stupid it is unbelievable. It was outsourced becouse it lowered production costs.:rolleyes:

Why you have not been banned yet is beyond me.:mad: