Demon Lord Razgriz wrote: |
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.
We're not talking about the US, we're talking about the UK. A nation with a long history of Paramilitary attacks.
Demon Lord Razgriz wrote: |
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 Revolutionary & Civil War era.
Could you look again, and include College and University Libraries?
Demon Lord Razgriz wrote: |
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.
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.
Demon Lord Razgriz wrote: |
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.
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.
Demon Lord Razgriz wrote: |
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.
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.
Demon Lord Razgriz wrote: |
Doesn't the USN fly Predators off the Nimitz CVNs?
No. The catapults can't take them at the moment EMALS might, but EMALS isn't ready for deployment yet.
Demon Lord Razgriz wrote: |
More expensive than buying SH, yes. More expensive than buying F-35s... doubtful.
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
Demon Lord Razgriz wrote: |
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.
It shows that the PAK-FA is a good 10 years behind the F-35.