Aircraft Carriers III

Brumby

Brumby

Major
bd popeye said:
LHA or LHD cannot do what a CVN can do. Period. I just does not have the weapons capacity or eyes in the sky, E2-C/D Hawkeye and no dedicated tanker. A capable ship? Yes! But not a CVN.
Click to expand...

Whilst I do not dispute the sortie generation capacity of a full carrier airwing nor the sustainability of sorties from a conventional carrier, sortie generation as a performance metrics alone do not reflect the intrinsic value (of stealth) in delivering mission "effects".

As an illustration, on the first day of Operation Desert Storm, F-117s flew 45 sorties against 76 targets. Meanwhile, non-stealthy aircraft flew 1,096 sorties against 109 targets. In this case, each stealth sortie was worth 17 non-stealth sorties on a sortie per target basis. Graphically the contrast is obvious.

upload_2019-11-10_17-17-24.png

Said differently, a 8 ship F-35B strike package (excluding tanking support) would deliver similar mission effects as a 44 ship 4th generation strike package - essentially the entire carrier wing of a conventional carrier.
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
Brumby said:
Whilst I do not dispute the sortie generation capacity of a full carrier airwing nor the sustainability of sorties from a conventional carrier, sortie generation as a performance metrics alone do not reflect the intrinsic value (of stealth) in delivering mission "effects".

As an illustration, on the first day of Operation Desert Storm, F-117s flew 45 sorties against 76 targets. Meanwhile, non-stealthy aircraft flew 1,096 sorties against 109 targets. In this case, each stealth sortie was worth 17 non-stealth sorties on a sortie per target basis. Graphically the contrast is obvious.

View attachment 55072

Said differently, a 8 ship F-35B strike package (excluding tanking support) would deliver similar mission effects as a 44 ship 4th generation strike package - essentially the entire carrier wing of a conventional carrier.
Click to expand...
yeah with Harry Houdini in charge
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
TerraN_EmpirE said:
A dyslexic spelling of Cobham.
Click to expand...
in the meantime found
Cobham Contracted to Develop Aerial Refueling Kit for V-22

25 Oct 2016
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


and took a look at what type of game-changer refueling by Osprey is:

then-Deputy Commandant for Aviation Lt. Gen. Jon Davis "said the Marines are developing a program of record for the Bell Boeing-built VARS and are hoping to get it funded in the Fiscal Year 2017 budget after failing to secure funding in the 2016 budget request to Congress."
Davis: V-22 Aerial Refueling System Should Be Ready For Early F-35 Operations Despite 1-Year Delay
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
asif iqbal

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
Carrier oops is not so much about sortie rates

It’s now all about bombs on target

how accurately can you drop a bomb at a certain range

off course the higher the sortie rates the larger the bombs on target range

however when efficiency gets extremely high bombs on target rates match with the sortie rates

second is the turn around time
 
B

Bhurki

Junior Member
Registered Member
asif iqbal said:
Carrier oops is not so much about sortie rates

It’s now all about bombs on target

how accurately can you drop a bomb at a certain range

off course the higher the sortie rates the larger the bombs on target range

however when efficiency gets extremely high bombs on target rates match with the sortie rates

second is the turn around time
Click to expand...
Turnaround time is integral to calculating SGR.
F35B has demonstrated SGR of
5.5/4.0/2.0 with ASD of 1.1 hrs
Compare that to F35C SGR of
3.9/3.0/1.0 with ASD of 1.8 hrs
B variant is tailor made for high frequency, short duration, forward USMC missions.
When it comes to efficiency, PGMs pretty much ensure more than 90% accuracy for ground targets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top