If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Harrier vs. JSF-35
The JSF will be very late and very expensive.
The British have not even started to build the Aircraft Carrier yet that it is supposed to operate from ! It is a pity that the Harrier was not developed further ? An 'Invincible' Class carrier with Harriers and Osprey AEW is probably the way to go for the UK ? I don't think we can afford big carriers anymore? Big Carriers are very vulnerable to the 'Super-Torpedoes' that are being developed. The Second World War saw the end of the Battleship the time of the Super Carrier ending cannot be far away ? Merlin |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Merlin" wrote in message oups.com... The JSF will be very late and very expensive. The British have not even started to build the Aircraft Carrier yet that it is supposed to operate from ! It is a pity that the Harrier was not developed further ? You already asked this question once last week, and were told quite clearly that not only was the answer "no", but further that you are utterly clueless in regards to the harrier, the F-35B, and things military in general. Give it a break. Brooks snip further garbage |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Merlin" wrote in message oups.com... The JSF will be very late and very expensive. Perhaps The British have not even started to build the Aircraft Carrier yet that it is supposed to operate from ! The main contractor and supplier has been selected and the design assessment phase is in progess. It is a pity that the Harrier was not developed further ? It was but the limit of the technology has pretty much been reached. An 'Invincible' Class carrier with Harriers and Osprey AEW is probably the way to go for the UK ? I don't think we can afford big carriers anymore? The ships are no around 25 years old, are too small for the task allocated and the harrier is obsolescent. Big Carriers are very vulnerable to the 'Super-Torpedoes' that are being developed. But small carriers are vulnerable to aircraft already in service. The Second World War saw the end of the Battleship the time of the Super Carrier ending cannot be far away ? A prediction first made in 1946. Keith |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:14:21 -0800, hoarse with no name
wrote: In article .com, "Merlin" wrote: Big Carriers are very vulnerable to the 'Super-Torpedoes' that are being developed. Why would a super-torp be more effective against carriers than against other surface vessels? It wouldn't. Yet long carriers are more effective in the sub-killing role than harrier carriers. Long carriers are most likely the most effective surface vessel in sub-killing because the planes it launches cover so much area so quickly. This would be true if large deck carriers had fixed wing ASW assets. But they don't (or soon won't). The first time a Big Grey Boat gets "tagged" by a sub there will some very interesting discussions in the Halls of Power. Bill Kambic Veteran: VS-27, VS-30, VS-73/VP-93 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Merlin" wrote in message oups.com... Brooks is probably correct = I know nothing about military things. So my comment that it will only be in conflict whether or not the Super Carrier is proven becoming obsolete has no validity. What has no validity is your continual ranting about further development of a program that most posters have already well informed you is about at the end of its development potential. You started this argument once before, and a number of folks provided well reasoned arguments that pretty much destroyed your basic premises (you could not even get the basic facts right about the mechanics of the F-35B's vertical propulsion, for gosh sakes). Why don't you first address the points that were raised then, instead of bull-headedly restating the same clap-trap? Further lack of validity is the comment that in the next major war(heaven forbid) the submarine will reign supreme and advanced torpedo technology will cause the super carrier endless problems. If the steering system and screws are disabled by an advanced torpedo that would be a pretty cost effective round ? Not if your very expensive submarine sent to deliver that uber-weapon instead ends up being ripped apart by a combination of ASW helicopter, patrol aircraft, and destroyer/frigate attacks. It is likely that the lateness and the cost overruns of the F-35 will give Defence Ministers headaches. There will likely be a gap between the old systems ending and the new(F-35) beginning). When you can get your basic facts right about the F-35B, then you can come back and sling all of the website cites you care to, en mass, in another attempt to obfuscate; till then, back to the basics. snip numerous references of unexplained applicability Brooks |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 13:08:14 -0800, hoarse with no name
wrote: In article , wrote: This would be true if large deck carriers had fixed wing ASW assets. But they don't (or soon won't). This thread began as a discussion of British military decisions and my comments were in regard to this. The Brits are currently moving away from harrier carriers to long carriers and one of the reasons given is to increase the sub-killing powers of their carrier force. Err, how? The CV(F) will be carrying JSF, which has no capability against submerged subs, Merlin, which does not require a big deck, and the future replacement for the AEW Sea Kings, which also don't require a big deck (and also don't kill subs). So where's the extra sub killing coming from? -- Peter Kemp "Life is short...drink faster" |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Kemp wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 13:08:14 -0800, hoarse with no name wrote: In article , wrote: This would be true if large deck carriers had fixed wing ASW assets. But they don't (or soon won't). This thread began as a discussion of British military decisions and my comments were in regard to this. The Brits are currently moving away from harrier carriers to long carriers and one of the reasons given is to increase the sub-killing powers of their carrier force. Err, how? The CV(F) will be carrying JSF, which has no capability against submerged subs, Merlin, which does not require a big deck, and the future replacement for the AEW Sea Kings, which also don't require a big deck (and also don't kill subs). So where's the extra sub killing coming from? More importantly, where was it ever stated that the larger size of CV(F) was to increase the ASW capability? I've been following it reasonably closely,and the only claim I've ever seen made (and a valid one) is that a bigger carrier is far more effective at the power projection which CV(F) is designed to provide for the UK, as opposed to the purely defensive origin of the Invincible's design. Guy |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"hoarse with no name" wrote in message ... In article , wrote: This would be true if large deck carriers had fixed wing ASW assets. But they don't (or soon won't). This thread began as a discussion of British military decisions and my comments were in regard to this. The Brits are currently moving away from harrier carriers to long carriers and one of the reasons given is to increase the sub-killing powers of their carrier force. It most certainly is not. The reverse is true in fact, the Invincibles were seen as integral parts of a RN who's primary aim was getting reforger convoys across the Atlantic in the face of a Soviet combined air, surface and submarine threat. With the declined of that threat the task required is increasingly seen as power projection for which larger carriers are needed. Keith |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The demise of the Sea Harrier | Henry J Cobb | Naval Aviation | 39 | April 25th 04 07:27 PM |
Malaysian MiG-29s got trounced by RN Sea Harrier F/A2s in Exercise Flying Fish | KDR | Military Aviation | 29 | October 7th 03 06:30 PM |
Malaysian MiG-29s got trounced by RN Sea Harrier F/A2s in Exercise Flying Fish | KDR | Naval Aviation | 20 | September 16th 03 09:01 PM |
Harrier thrust vectoring in air-to-air combat? | Alexandre Le-Kouby | Military Aviation | 11 | September 3rd 03 01:47 AM |
Osprey vs. Harrier | Stephen D. Poe | Military Aviation | 58 | August 18th 03 03:17 PM |