Grim901go with the harrier ramp. What im looking at is the F-35B working of CVN without causing much disruption. Also aiding F-35C with a full load.
Watched the Carrier series episode where they are taking off and landing on a pitching enterprise, I bet every one of them would say hey if I can take off from a ramp that is throwing me up straight away, rather than the dip you get with a flat top, I’ll take it. Especially when the ship is pitching like that, dont wanna get fired into the water now!
I saw that as well, didn’t one of the pilots say that he’d be thinking he was about to launch but the deck crew would wait another 5 seconds so they didn’t shoot him into the water. That’d be quite disconcerting. At least with a ramp you’re guaranteed to be leaving the deck in the right direction for sure.
Grim901Theoretically yes. But you can’t really build a curving cat, I think. Meaning the cats would have to end before the ramp starts curving upwards, which in my estimation would mean around 30 meter further aft, which in turn screws your whole deck arrangements. The other option would of course be to launch fighterbombers over the bow up the ramp, and heavies like the E-2 via the cats on the angled deck.
Edit: Talking about heavy waether. Impressive every time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gGMI8d3vLs
The EMALS system they’re bringing in for the new class CAN be curved. And are you sure that the ramp would be 30 metres long? seems a little excessive when you consider an RN ski jump, that 30m would be a fifth of the flight deck.
Grim901Who’s been dissing evolution here? Oh, that’s right, I’m just a lowly American. An uncouth, bible-hugging, right-winger, who doesn’t hold a candle to a sophisticated Euro like yourself. Isn’t that right? And you wonder why so many of us feel nothing but contempt for the average Euro and their world view. You earned it and continue to earn it.
So you admit that you view Europeans with contempt? Way to paint us all with the same stereotype brush. Maybe that is why you ignore any salient argument we put forward.
Grim901The LCF posesses 2 types of AA missiles if I’m not mistaking.
The ESSM (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile), a Mach 4 missile, which has a range of about 50KM.
And the SM-2 IIIA (Rim-66) Which has a range of about 100-140KM. <— Correction, It seems that the range is between 74 and 170 KM.Again I am not someone who has ALL the information.
At what range the F-22’s were engaged both times, at what range the F-22’s expended their ammo and at what range they got shot down are all unknown to me.
I also do not know what the exact scenario was at that exact time.
I don’t know who and/or what the LCF was engaging at that time (aside from the F-22’s), what possible malfunctions there were etc. etc.But I think that the fact that the LCF used ESSM’s instead of SM-2’s indicates that the LCF did not achieve a (good) radar lock on the F-22’s at the maximum range of the missile. The F-22’s had to come closer than 50KM and I think that’s why ESSM’s were used and not SM-2’s
The LCF is a highly advanced air-defense frigate.
Its weapons include:
Anti Air Missiles
Anti Air CIWS system
Anti Ship Harpoons
Anti Ship Torpedoes
A 127mm Naval Artillery gun/canon
Electronic Warfare capability (ECM and I THINK, although Im not sure ECCM)IT–
Ah right ok, I was just trying to figure out why it didn’t engage further out. I had no idea what armament the LCF’s carry. Poor radar lock probably explains it.
Grim901Looks like a smaller version of Polecat and is very likely a Lockheed Martin product.
Just to reword that, Polecat is more likely to be a larger, newer version of this. I’d definitely bet on a Skunk Works project here too.
Grim901First of all, they have different missions. The Raptor’s primary mission is air supremacy, with some secondary A2G roles(i.e. SEAD/DEAD and things of that nature). The F-35 was always going to be bought in larger numbers as it was to replace the F-16s, F-18s, Harriers, etc… in the US Military, along with a wide variety of planes in other air forces, etc…
The F-35 is superior A2G aircraft though, as it’s more optimized in terms of internal(and external) weapons carriage, IR sensors, ground attack modes.
They’re replacing/supplementing things as diverse as the A10 as well.
That is one extreme weak reason to stop the production of the USA’s first line of defense in case of an invasion.
Very very bad judgment!
I really think that the F-22’s role will be an important one in the future.
Let’s just hope some people in DC get their heads out of the sand and make some good decisions for a change.IT–
Keep in mind that maintaining total air dominance over a hostile nation is a lot different to defending from an invasion (that will never come). And the thousands of old F15’s and F16’s don’t exactly become useless, just less useful and likely to ensure a win. And no one else is near to fielding a realistic competitor to F35 either.
It is a gamble, but it is more likely that the US will not be fighting an opponent with very high tech. planes in large numbers in a large scale conflict any time soon, so the US govt. has decided to end production and save some money. Even the US doesn’t have infinite money.
Grim901No, this is how it went… you kinda misunderstood (AND I REALLY HOPE I AM NOT SAYING TOO MUCH.. THIS IS CLASSIFIED AS FAR AS I KNOW!!! SO KEEP IT IN THIS FORUM PLEASE!!!).
The F-22’s approached the LCF with the intent to engage (Bombing-run? I think so).
The LCF fired 2 ESSM’s on the F-22’s but the Raptors managed to survive (Dont ask how. evade/chaff/flare, jam, fry, luck???).
The F-22’s deployed their munition on the LCF but they (The Bombs) were destroyed by the ships GOALKEEPER CIWS Gun System.
The Raptors turned around and made a pretty daring… Some would even call it suicidal move (Which it turned out to be).
Yes, they engaging the LCF with their guns. The LCF fired 2 ESSM’s again and this times the Raptors didn’t survive.
The simulated bullet impacts posed no real threat to the LCF, only a few rounds hit the ship.Remember, the Nimitz and LCF were both engaged by multiple threats at the same time, and the LCF’s main objective was to protect the Nimitz Class from any areal threats. (Fighter jets, Missiles etc.)
But this is not the point, what I want to know is HOW the LCF detected the F-22’s 150 miles out to begin with?
IT–
So the LCF didn’t actually engage the 2 targets at anything like 150 miles, they did it within range of ESSMs and with only enough time to get 2 shots off?
And these LCFs are air defense frigates? Do they not have any longer ranged armaments to deal with targets towards the edge of detection range? It’s all well and good saying that they can detect things really far out if they can’t do anything about it until the enemy is right on top of them. How exactly can they defend a Carrier like that?
Grim901I think the reference “Beast of Kandahar” is a misnomer. Isn’t most of Kandahar still under Taliban control?
The name comes from Kandahar airbase, where the UAV was spotted at and around, it is a major ISAF base after all.
Kandahar is indeed a major problem spot, but then it is the second biggest city in the country, give it a year and see what all the shiny new Marines have done with the place.
Grim901I cant i agree its semi daft but something needs to give and the people in charge cant keep cutting the budgets and sending our troops from the north pole to south and through tim buk tu as they say.
You have (as most often is the case) have a very fair point.
I totally agree that the current situation is unsustainable. Ideally i’d like to see defence spending increase to actually reflect the fact that a war is being fought.
Alternatively, I’d cut contributions to Afghanistan and try to make efficiency savings. Any other ideas are really unpalatable at this point because the forces have already been cut beyond anything they should have been even with the peace dividend after the Cold War, so further equipment or troop level cuts are just not an option without a major alteration of foreign policy to radically reduce commitments. (The only change there i’d like to see would be a shift to the strategic raiding concept and away from trying all this occupation lark).
Grim901I fully understand and appreciate that, but with the economy going the way it is and the government reluctent to start national service. for the security of the UK and to keep its ability to punch above its budget (not its weight, if the money is there we can go toe to toe with most) i can only see a few options and one of them is the EU rapid reaction force or Army where in the UK is seen as the provider of special ops troops.
It probably already is, having one of the best Special Forces in the world helps, but it would mess up every other part of our armed forces. Simply turning all our existing troops into Special Forces would not only be incredibly expensive (training costs a hell of a lot to that kind of level), time consuming and downright impossible. They say 99.9% of people in the UK aren’t up to Royal Marines standard, imagine how few are fit to rate against Special Forces troops, even after training.
The only way your “solution” would work would be to simply put special in front of all our current troops, it makes no sense or difference. It also means that the UK can not act independently at all or to act with partners for the majority of the time, like in the EU or NATO when normal troops or peacekeepers are needed. Can you really see the SAS toddling off to do UN peacekeeping ops?
Grim901Not having checked the details I doubt Afghanistan is the only place the British armed forces are being deployed to. I’m pretty sure there are hundreds or thousands of soldiers in areas like the Falklands, Iraq, UNO missions and so on. And of course there are young soldiers in training and older soldiers preparing preparing for retirement, neither of which would be deployed to Afghanistan. So having about 10’000 fine, brave men (and women?) in Afghanistan isn’t something they need to be ashamed of.
Btw, there is no official decision yet but Germany is considering to increase its commitment in Afghanistan too. With the September elections the government aligned a little more to the right and a little more to the US. Not to mention, that President Obama is appealing to German people and media a lot more than his predecessor did. Additionally the missions in the Balkans are slowly but steadily requiring less numbers. So I wouldn’t be surprised if our contingent got increased by a few hundred soldiers too (which is still not enough imo).
Have the ROE’s changed yet to allow the German troops to get involved in the proper fighting? If they haven’t there is little point in them deploying more. It’s all well and good having 5,000 troops in theatre if they sit in a safe region not actually fighting when tiny little nations (Plucky little Estonia :D) are toughing it out in Helmand.
Grim901Lockheed Polecat would be my guess!
It isn’t. The article says it is a similar look but an earlier design.
Grim901sounds daft but surely we should do national service in the UK i am a couch potato but i think if the country needs it they should be able to call me up for all my bad points and make use of me some ways.. cooking curry or something lol
Or an alternative make all the soldiers into specialist like Marine Comandos or something, special operations or something.
It wouldn’t work, any party that tried it would lose support. The better option would be to increase the size of the army and TA, and increase wages and living to make recruiting easier.
No idea what your last point would accomplish except making our armed forces seem better than they are.
Grim901Oh would that it were that simple. There’s the steam rams and accumulators for the cats and the buffer gear pistons and cylinders for the arrester gear. All kit that costs money, takes up space and weighs tons. Do without it and you save money, free up space and build a lighter ship
The ships are already being built, deleting the capability to put them in which is what you suggested, would require a redesign for something that currently costs nothing because they haven’t ACTUALLY installed the cats, they just plan to be able to, so have left appropriate space free etc.
You seem to be confusing the capability to install them on the ships, with actually installing them.
Grim901I wouldnt disagree with the above and it does explain a lot but its shocking to think that the UK army is tied up in such naughts that it can only put a standing army totalling 40,000 in any given war or as a total for a multiple of wars.
Also why can troops beployed for only 6 months every 2 years? what happens to the other 1.5 years?
It’s called a harmony guideline. You get rid of that and suddenly nobody wants to be in the Army anymore. Combat deployment takes its toll, so you have to give troops a chance to rest, then to retrain them before deployment etc.
I forgot to mention that troop numbers can be bumped up a little by bringing in TA and reserve forces, but again, it’s a short term only thing. The TA do already provide a large number of support personnel.
@Flubba: A lot of those mechanised troops are deployed even if the tanks aren’t. Some are filling infantry posts, with plenty more still acting as drivers etc.
Sign In
