-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
TOPGUN and WTI: similarities / differences
- Thread starter pourts
- Start date
danpass
Well-Known Member
Who knows ..... perhaps in 20 years, heck, maybe 10 years, it may become acceptable doctrine to have 'a supercarrier' cruising in a strategic location that places it within 2-3 days of three hotspots since one LHA/LHD, with her F-35Bs, would already be IN each hotspot providing presence.
The LHA/LHD assets might be considered enough to keep the door open until the CVN arrives.
The striking power of a carrier task group is manifest in its attack aircraft and the missiles the supporting ships carry - the striking power of the MEU is in the Marine Ground Combat Element (a reinforced battalion) with its own organic Aviation Combat Element (generally a medium lift tilt-rotor squadron reinforced by heavy lift, attack helicopters and a few jets) - not really designed for the same threat / mission.
Those same supporting ships can be allocated to an ARG. with F35 - a CVN will just have more. What makes the CSG different are the AEW / EA / tankers.
The Osprey tanker would be a big help
And that their bench is big enough that they can either keep up a sustained sortie rate over time, or put together one cast-iron bitch of an alpha strike less often. I will grant you I have yet to so much as set foot on an LHA/D, but just looking at the numbers and T/M/S, it seems to me that you'd have to have several Harrier/F-35 Carriers together to bring the same hammer that 4 Hornet squadrons can bring. Not even counting, like you said, the supporting cast of fat kids.
And are they going to somehow brief the large force strike via telepathic VTC in potential EMCON conditions in lieu of being able to all congregate in CVIC? Economies of scale are a thing.
I'm not sure where all these big deck amphibs are going to come from. Navy/Marine Times is reporting that the Corps is in talks with allied countries merchant shipping to host Marines to make up for a lack of gators. Furthermore, there are normally no more than 3 bid deck amphibs world-wide at sea at anytime: 1 out of Norfolk, another out of San Diego and a third out of Japan. I seriously doubt if you will ever see a concentration of these gators together unless it is preparations for an amphibious operation. Finally, the deck is crowded enough with a dozen Ospreys, 4 $hitters and 6/7 skids - how many F-35's are gonna fit above the normal complement of 6? Do you fly off the GCE's vertical lift? Do the helos det over at the LPD?
Amphibs are not intended to be escort carriers (America class with no well deck perhaps...)
We're too stuck on the terrible and antiquated idea that it has to launch and recover from the boat. When you have 44+ hours of gas, with a loadout better than what a Harrier or an F-35B, and with the same sensors as the F35B, you can control/fly/operate (or whichever non offensive term everyone wants to use this week) it from the boat and have launch and recover elements anywhere in the world. With 44 hours of gas even a 10 hour transit gives you 20 hours TOS without refueling. Throw an AESA radar and a few AIM-12os in the mix and you have a fairly capable BVR DARG. (Yes, going to the merge won't work, I get that)
We can do this with tech and airplanes that exist now, we just have to stop wasting our money on programs like the MQ-21 - A UAV born out of an UNS based around Afghanistan.
I understand the need for manned fighter aviation, but the more I learn and experience with our unmanned communities the more I realize that we have a large amount of capabilities that we are simply ignoring because they aren't cool. To put it in comparison imagine if in 1939 everyone dismissed aviation as incapable because they didn't allow their idea of manned aviation to progress beyond WW1. Essentially that is what we're doing now.
What you just described sounds like it would cost more than the fucking space shuttle
If the space shuttle costs 20 million then yes it costs as much as a space shuttle. Adding an AESA radar is a bit more expensive but still much cheaper than an F-35. Read up on the Predator C/Avenger for the AESA and air to air piece. Read up on the latest MQ-9 variant about carrying 44 hours of gas with 4 hellfire and 2 GBU-12 or 38. It can carry more payload but can't take off with a full bag of gas. But the X-47 has autonomously refueled from a tanker.
Data links are getting faster, and bandwidth is increasing. Like I said, it exists now and if we buy into it we can have the best but we've got our heads buried in the sand and are going to miss the proverbial boat. There is a damn good reason why Marine UAV guys are jumping ship to join the AF/ANG.
If it has a datalink it can be jammed, an inherent weakness of UAV's and their utility in a high threat enviroment.
I really don't want to get into another one of these arguments with you but you're high if you think a reaper with the same sensors as an F-35 that can shoot AMRAAM (at what speed?) would cost 20 million.
I didn't say a Reaper would do it, but an Avenger can, and maintain tactical airspeeds. I guess I'm high.
Never heard of an avenger. Due to my unfamiliarity, I spent about two minutes looking it up on the google machine. Looks like it 1) doesn't have the same sensors as an F-35. 2) it claims 18 hrs endurance not 44. 3) it weighs 18,000lbs and has a single engine with 4,000 lbs of thrust. If people think a transonic harrier is outmatched as an interceptor, how do you think this thing would do zorching around at .5 Mach?
Could they make something to meet the specs you mentioned? Sure. It would look like a B-1 and cost as much as a space shuttle. And yes, you must be high.
