dark light

kev 99

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 436 through 450 (of 1,460 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Marinised Typoon #2370157
    kev 99
    Participant

    Not sure if you are aware of whats going on in the States……but Sen McCain has stated he will introduce a bill that would kill the program. Not sure how much support he would have, but………the US is broke. Deffence WILL be cut……….just a matter of how much.http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/pentagon-cutting-f-35-would-be-complicated-costly-20110808

    So I was right he was making those figures up thanks.

    in reply to: Marinised Typoon #2370379
    kev 99
    Participant

    If the F-35C doesn’t happen – 50/50 at the moment?

    Where the hell are you getting those figures from? Why would the F35c be cancelled?

    in reply to: Global list of all flat tops in service #1996532
    kev 99
    Participant

    yeah, because a hypothetical CVN-78 air wing in 2015 consisting of 2 squads of hornets, 2 squads of super hornets, 4 growlers, 4 hawkeyes, a couple greyhounds, and a half dozen or so seahawks is so inadequate compared against the air wings that the carriers of other world navies will be able to put to sea.

    Or even compared to the rest of the USA’s CVNs. :confused:

    in reply to: Navies news from around the world -IV #1996552
    kev 99
    Participant

    Anyone think that adding nuclear propulsion to a submarine already under construction (Santa Fe) seems like a pie in the sky idea?

    in reply to: Navies news from around the world -IV #1996774
    kev 99
    Participant

    Agreed, for shore bombardment. Not a good anti-ship missile though, because it’d be too easy to shoot down.

    Just bung some Harpoons on T45 if AShMs are thought necessary. FNBNW, innit?

    I don’t really see much of a need for AShM on T45 anyway 😎

    in reply to: Navies news from around the world -IV #1996808
    kev 99
    Participant

    Much rather the money spent on the talked about integration of Fireshadow into the Sylver vls, I think it would be much more useful.

    in reply to: Navies news from around the world -IV #1997241
    kev 99
    Participant

    I wouldn’t believe everything you read, I strongly suspect the writer’s just looking for a story that doesn’t really exist.

    in reply to: Marinised Typoon #2373198
    kev 99
    Participant

    Why? AMRAAM is already in service. Buy AIM-9X instead of ASRAAM (barely any difference in capability), plenty of stocks available. Enhanced Paveway wouldn’t be much of a problem.

    In any case buying the F-35C means paying for weapons integration anyway.

    Well you were talking about comparing Typhoon and SH not F35c, in addition to Meteor and ASRAAM, we’d have to integrate Brimstone, Paveway 4 and Stormshadow to SH, all of these are already funded for Typhoon.

    in reply to: Marinised Typoon #2373244
    kev 99
    Participant

    Anyway with the F/A-18F BII you would get comparable capability to a Typhoon for substantially less money. Not sure where the F-35C will end up price wise but you will get more bang with LO ect.

    Maybe but then you have to fork out for the integration of UK weapons, very little of which are already cleared for SH.

    Not that I’m defending Naval Typhoon it’s a stupid idea.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #1997540
    kev 99
    Participant

    Says the rabid fanboy! LIGHTEN UP!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

    You’re very funny, and rather silly.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #1997552
    kev 99
    Participant

    I dont know what YOU were reading. But US Navy CVs were first brought up by CVF fanboys such as yourself. I used the 😀 emotacon to make a little fun of a fine model. And I did have a feeling that the merest HINT of criticism against the sacred CVF would bring the bloodhounds running!:diablo: Feel foolish yet? And yes, the USN uses “real carriers”. They are not frigates, are they?

    Stop backtracking, you said something deliberately inflammatory, borderline trolling in fact and you’re comments have been shown up as such.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #1997791
    kev 99
    Participant

    She is what the Brits want her to be. I dont see what ur problem is here. The design would never fly in the US Navy because we basically use single purpose ships, so a CVN is a CVN and thats pretty much all it does, an LHA is used as an LHA etc…… for now, we can afford to do that. CVF will be/is able to, and be expected to, accomplish multiple tasks, as she has been designed to do. Thus her design is a compromise of differing requirements that the USN would not accept because they dont have to.

    Of course it wouldn’t fly in the US, the US Navy says an aircraft carrrier has to be a 90k tonne 4 cat nuclear powered monstrosity, the rest of the world has to be a little more prudent and accepts that an aircraft carrier is a ship capable of launching and recovering fixed wing aircraft.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #1997813
    kev 99
    Participant

    A hybrid/compromise. Not to put it down, but thats what it is.

    So the only countries that have built proper aircraft carriers are the US then? All others were a compromise?

    in reply to: CVF Construction #1997856
    kev 99
    Participant

    do you think there will be a conflict between RAF and RN over who is responsible for deep strike?

    Does the pope **** in the woods?

    in reply to: CVF Construction #1997999
    kev 99
    Participant

    Pretty much, but I think they’ve been playing these games for most of the 2000s, it’s only becoming so obvious now because the illusion of having all the money for these big projects has been exposed for the bull**** that it has been since the 1998 SDR.

Viewing 15 posts - 436 through 450 (of 1,460 total)