I thought the whole “supersonic, very low level, terrain following” idea is being replaced by the idea of stealth, the F-35. No need to fly under the radar,but slip through it.

While it wouldn’t necessarily hurt if you are stealthy and fly low.
However, that is somehow limited to few applications.

the Tornado can achieve mach 1.3 at low level. The latest Gr4 varient, and most Gr1’s, I believe had there intake ramps removed and will not go supersonic at low level with stores.

In an operational scenario, supersonic speed at deck is quite unlikely. The USAF actually wanted just that with the F-111, but sobering experience is that the achievable Mach 1.1-1.3 at deck do not justify the 2-3 times higher fuel burn compared to M0.8-0.9.

The Tornado can break the barrier with stores, but they need to be “supersonic”, means quite a lot do not qualify for it.

Yeah, would have been interesting as I truly believe there is a bigger potentail market for a lighter 5th-gen fighter than one of the PAK-FA size. Just look at the sales and number of countries that purchased the MiG-29 family vs. Su-27 family.

—–JT—–

While the lack of MiG-29 orders is less connected to its size, but rather that it cannot compete in its basic version with the then available Suchoi 27. The Russians concentrated investments in the Suchoi 27.

90% of all MiG-29 are of the “A” model and were conceptually outdated in many aspects in the early 1990s.

Remember that a large proportion of the aircraft on a Nimitz is proposed to be defensive. I doubt that a smaller vessels holding a smaller aircraft detachment still can survive in hostile environment and retain an effective offensive punch.

The question is how large the aircraft detachment is and that somehow determines the size of ship and crew. A key element is to keep the average size of the aircraft small as it reduces maintenance crew, space requirement, deck requirement and needed fuel.

Good question. I’d say the fleet could be cut back substantially.

Because he already paid the bill and any bail-out wouldn’t save the big amounts. And the US carriers are one the few trustworthy guarantees for stability in the world, better than nukes and ICBM.

Sure, for peacetime steaming through friendly oceans the carriers are too big, 60 aircraft are still too much, and more than two escorts are waste.
But carriers are built for war with powerful enemies.

I think it is wise to continue to built carriers at about one every four to five years. At the same time keeping sea time low, having always lots of ships in port, keeping down crew and cutting active air detachments. In times of crises there is the option to grow the actual numbers by 50% quickly.

Current cruises are 75% aimed at keeping capability of aircrew and ship crew.

And stop picking on the Super Hornet. 390nm operational radius for inderdiction isn’t that bad, actually quite OK. Which Navy aircraft (except the A-6) was better (hint: the F-14 wasn’t)?

How about taking ~50 million USD, taking them to a hostile clan, equip them with some old fashioned gun boats (retired stuff) and let them go on patrol in front of the ports of Somalia?

I pointed this out before, and no one really talked about it. Israel has had nukes for years, well we “believe” they have nukes, to play that game. Question is, why hasn’t anyone else in the middle east decided they need nukes too?

I think this comes down to more than Israel and Iran, let alone any other “ME” country. One thing any ME country knows is, well, at least in the past, is that Israel will not act “outwardly” without the US’s consent…..(ok flame me now, I am, and admit, playing simplistics). However, I have heard, and maybe my source is wrong, but that if Iran were to get Nukes, it would set off a Nuke program in every country in the ME that could do/afford it…..namely, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc etc etc, hell we all know they have enough oil money, if need be, they can. Does this argument have any water? Id like to know, as some people know I have no problem waving my flag, but I still wana know the whole story.

Fact is that if Israel ruins the Iranian nuclear program the whole Middle East will protest with one voice … publicly.
Actually they (incl. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Eqypt, Jordania, Pakistan, Turkey, UAE) will applauder as they have no interest in a nuclear Iran. For most countries mentioned a nuclear Israel is no real problem, as Israel does not try to get hegemonic power over the region. Also, Israel is always very much bound to the USA, so they don’t act totally inadequate but normally seek backing at least to some extent in Washington (and Washington has wider interests going in the same direction with most ME governments).
A nuclear Iran in the opposite is a nightmare for most countries, especially with a government which has the set goal of overthrowing all non-islamistic governments in the region.
For this reason I don’t find the idea too far stretched that Israel might use Saudi airspace for an attack. Of course, this cannot be done based on an official agreement, but the Saudis can look the other way when Israeli jets fly low through the desert to get to their intermediate airports or airborne tankers in Iraq. The way back they can do high altitude via Jordan. The few F-16A Jordan has can make a symbolic act of opposition, or just stuff it.

See my signature.

Not so bad scenario(most likely in response to Israeli attack):
Iran retaliate by launching a salvo of 10 or so conventionally armed Shahab-3 missiles at the Dimona reactor plant.

Somewhat bad scenario:
Iran orders Hezbollah(from South Lebanon) to launches its 42,000 rockets toward Israel in retaliation. Some rockets now have the range to reach Dimona.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1040546.html

Very bad scenario(improbable, but possible):
Pakistan “lend” Iran a couple of 35kt nuclear warheads to armed its Shahab-3 missiles. Since those warheads weigh only around 450 lb, it’s small enough to mount on the Shahab-3.

I use bold letters so people read what I say:
The Iranian missiles do not have the capability to effectively destroy the Dimona facility, their CEP is too bad. Only armed with nuclear warheads of considerable yield they would be effective in destroying a military-industrial target.
Anything else is for show only.
A second strike would only demonstrate Iran’s inability and underline the currently underdeveloped stage of its missiles (which are basically upscaled Scuds).