Shipbucket

Please reread my posts, the bases would be sold to be used as civilian airports, while hangers would be used by the FAA. They'd still have the security measures from the time as a military base.

First off, don't insult me. I'm not a little child. As for the book, I'd read it if I had a copy. And unlike others, I don't have a couple hundred dollars to drop on a book.
The Sentry is a support craft, not combat.

I give you that navalizing the Typhoon would be hard, but not impossible.
T-50 isn't the finished model, and from what I've seen, the Russian have taken measures to shield the compressor face from dead on.

_________________
95% of my drawings are destined for NS, 4.9% for fun, & .1% serious.
Worklist:
Space Shuttle
Atlas V
Delta II/III
Project Constellation
Soyuz series

You guys are planning to start a personal hate-fest flamefigth here?
Rigth now?
When Im supposedly needed to stay calm and relaxed, and non-confontrative facist-pig by the anger-managment trainers?
So a please? The magic count to ten in future postings over these matters, shall we...?

Thanks for your co-operation in advance

Gollevainen
Adm.

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"

I apologize for calling him a Child, that was over the line. Everything else I stand behind.

And I've never called you fascist.
That's called Co-location, and yes, it does represent a security risk.

Try a local library. I don't know what it is like in North Carolina, but most places have an inter-library loan system. That's how I got my hands on a copy of Norman Friedman's U.S. Destroyers.

The point is that with 8 carriers you are look at 3 deployed at most. This means that you are limited to what three carriers can carry for both ordinance and fuel. yes, underway replenishment is possible, but it's a whole lot harder than shipping the bombs on regular cargo ships and trucks. Land based planes are also not as limited on takeoff and landing weights, which limit range and payload.
Ok then, The Predator drones. The fact that the RAF has fallen to such shell of it's former self isn't what I'm debating, The effectiveness of eliminating the RAF is.
Would it be more expensive than buying Super Hornets and F-35s? Fun fact - It would be much more expensive, and thus the new FAA would have fewer Fast Jets
It's still rather telling that they started showing it off in it's current configuration.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Nah, self-irony is good way of me dealing with my own monsters, so you guys shouldn't always take me sooo serious.
...remember to obey thougth

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"

Mind explaining further as to why it would be such a threat? Cause I seriously don't see it given that it's a common thing, at least here in America.
Despite NC being a major military supporting state, the library system here seems to be very anti-military. Very few books other than stuff on the Revoltionary & Civil War era.

As for 3 carriers being deployed at most at any one time, I can see that at worst, 4-5 at best. But even with 3, that's still 120 aircraft; 108 JSFs & 12 AEWs. Or if one replaces the JSFs with Super Hornets, that would be roughly 30 SHs per CVFs, so 90 SH deployable. And if that saying is right about the Nimitz's 90 max aircraft being more aircraft than entire AFs for most nations, those 3 carriers can do the job. But I doubt that's really the case, and the potential enemies will have more than 90 aircrafts.

What the question really is is what sort of aircraft does the enemy have? And in all likelyhood, MiG-21s/23s/29s & Su-15s/27s. Now the higher end MiG-29s & Su-27s would be a deadly challenge, but those would be rare and likely foreseeable foes in battle.

As for payload & range, those limits seem to be becoming smaller & smaller. More powerful engines allow for greater flyback capacity and range is easily solvable with midair refueling, which the SH can do with a buddy pack.

Doesn't the USN fly Predators off the Nimitz CVNs?
More expensive than buying SH, yes. More expensive than buying F-35s... doubtful.
Eh, that's all part of the propaganda. Plus it gives potential buyers of the PAK-FA a taste of what it has and what's to come.

_________________
95% of my drawings are destined for NS, 4.9% for fun, & .1% serious.
Worklist:
Space Shuttle
Atlas V
Delta II/III
Project Constellation
Soyuz series

We're not talking about the US, we're talking about the UK. A nation with a long history of Paramilitary attacks.
Could you look again, and include College and University Libraries?
No, that figure of 3 carriers is the Max. For every three dinosaur burners you have, you can keep one on station (the other two are either in transit or in port for refits/overhauls/training). You also now have to keep six of the T45s on station with them. This is going to put a massive strain on the RN.
Except the Flanker variants are proliferating and you can't bet the farm on not going up against them. They will have proliferated even further in the 10+ years it takes to get the CVF to IoC, much less a fleet of them.
The aircraft inherently gets a longer range and payload when not limited by carrier takeoffs and landings. If the limits of the plane are below the limits of the carrier, land basing doesn't effect it, but then the carrier isn't the limiting factor anymore.
No. The catapults can't take them at the moment EMALS might, but EMALS isn't ready for deployment yet.
I disagree, the F-35 is going to be built at this point. Buying it allows for greater commonality with NATO and Non-NATO allies. The only other nation that would buy Navalized Typhoons is India, who is working with the Russians on their planes so you can kiss any cost sharing goodbye. The Typhoon right now is going to cost about 80-100 million USD per plane (and a navalized one even more). The F-35 is probably going to clock in at about 120-150 million USD per plane (adjusted for inflation). Trust me, 6 F-35s are worth 9 Typhoons. and we haven't even started in on the development costs of a Navalized Typhoon
It shows that the PAK-FA is a good 10 years behind the F-35.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Oh yeah... Forgot about that, guess that's what happens when the people can't defend themselves. :/
That's what I used, which is also connected to the Public library system.
Does carriers undergo refits/overhauls every time it goes home? And why 6 T45s?
Good point, forgot that the Flanker is the new AK.
Not sure what your point here is. :/
Hmm... I thought I read a thing about it being operated off a Nimitz a few weeks back. :/
Oh, I agree the F-35 will get built, too damn big to fail. But I doubt it'll receive much support from other nations due to the pricetag, which I believe would likely average out to 140-160 million. And I seriously, seriously doubt 6 F-35s would be worth 9 Typhoons.
In what way? F-35 is a turkey, shit stealth and heavy as an F-15. PAK-FA doesn't try to be something it's not, unlike the F-35 that tries to do everything under the sun. Save for the avionics, PAK-FA trumps F-35.

_________________
95% of my drawings are destined for NS, 4.9% for fun, & .1% serious.
Worklist:
Space Shuttle
Atlas V
Delta II/III
Project Constellation
Soyuz series

The whole scenario is ridiculous.
nrly. You're guaranteed to have 30 (or more) F35. With friendly bases you may have nothing at all.
Arms are available to everyone. US sold arms to the third world, communist nations, even countries that it later went to war with. And it's hardly the only source, aside from the domestic industry. A lot of the time US sells arms to countries buying them with US government loans. Countries want to sell one another stuff more than the buyers want to buy, because they're all closet mercantilists, and guns are cool.
Not a specific source, just that every BMD project ever failed and then was canceled. 25% chance of losing a re-entry vehicle does nothing to change MAD.

More ridiculous than Terrorists using planes as cruise missiles?
All you've got is 30-35 JSFs per carrier. No more. That nice big land base is looking attractive now isn't it?

Carriers are part of the equation, but only part of it.
Nice way to dodge the truth, the US never sold Trident to anyone else, and the only other deployment of Polaris would have been to Italy.

• Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report: February 2010. Department of Defense, 26 Jan 2010.
  Web. 26 April 2010. <http://www.defense.gov/bmdr/docs/BMDR%2 ... %20web.pdf>
• Bruce-Briggs, B. The Shield of Faith: A Chronicle of Strategic Defense from Zeppelins to Star
  Wars. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1988. Print.
• Friedman, Norman. The Fifty-Year War: Conflict and Strategy in the Cold War. Annapolis: Naval
  Institute Press, 2000. Print.
• Mantle, Peter J. The Missile Defense Equation: Factors for Decision Making. Reston, Virginia:
  American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 2004. Print.
• NIKE Zeus: The U.S. Army's First Antiballistic Missile. Missile Defense Agency, 20 Oct 2009.
  Web. 26 April 2010. <http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/zeus.pdf>.
• The Missile Defense Program. Missile Defense Agency, 3 Aug 2009. Web 26 April 2010.
  <http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf ... rogram.pdf>

Put up or shut up.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Well, looks like the Carriers will be built according to AvaitionWeek.

One being commissioned and the other in Reserve.

_________________
95% of my drawings are destined for NS, 4.9% for fun, & .1% serious.
Worklist:
Space Shuttle
Atlas V
Delta II/III
Project Constellation
Soyuz series