Aircraft Carriers III


Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Love to see those F-35Bs on the RN carriers.

Alos love to see these on there...finally. At least something!

They need some ESSMs and some RAMs too though.

0000000-qe-w-phalanx-01.jpg 0000000-qe-w-phalanx-02.jpg

As I say 3-4 Phalanx is better than nothing, but when you have a max of two shooters with nly 48 silos reach, you need more. But glad to see these on there anyhow.
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Also...I made my point with the Japanese 2 carrier Strike Group with F-35Bs.


Now for the Korean wit F-35Bs.


BTW, those Sejong DDGs are custom made from a couple of Flight IIA US Burkes. Lengthen then a bit and then added all the extra weapons.

I always have liked the Sejong. Total of 165 missiles. 80 Mk-41, 48 K-VLS, 21 RAM missiles, and 4 x Quad Packed ASMs (Korean missiles, Harpoon like) amidships.

1/700 retrofitted and turned into Se Jong AEGIS (KDX-III)

IMG_7350.jpg IMG_7351.jpg IMG_7352.jpg IMG_7355.jpg

I've got a new 1/350 scale Flight IIA Burke I will be doing this to also...gotta have a 1/350th Se Jong too.
 
Also...I made my point with the Japanese 2 carrier Strike Group with F-35Bs.


Now for the Korean wit F-35Bs.


BTW, those Sejong DDGs are custom made from a couple of Flight IIA US Burkes. Lengthen then a bit and then added all the extra weapons.

I always have liked the Sejong. Total of 165 missiles. 80 Mk-41, 48 K-VLS, 21 RAM missiles, and 4 x Quad Packed ASMs (Korean missiles, Harpoon like) amidships.

1/700 retrofitted and turned into Se Jong AEGIS (KDX-III)

View attachment 54649 View attachment 54650 View attachment 54651 View attachment 54652
hey Jeff Oct 2, 2019
how are you Jeff?

a KDX-III has 144 tubes in total, fore to aft:
  • 48 of Mk41;
  • 16 with Red Sharks;
  • 48 of Korean VLS; and
  • 32 of Mk41


 

XavNN

Junior Member
Registered Member
First British F-35B land onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth

Pictures released by the MOD show UK F-35 Lightning jets landing, taking off and hovering onboard Britain’s next generation aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth for the first time.

Flown by Royal Navy and Royal Air Force pilots, the Lightning jets are embarking in the 65,000 tonne carrier to conduct operational trials off the East Coast of the USA.

This follows successful developmental trials last year with US Lightning jets, where forces conducted 500 take offs and landings over their 11-week period at sea.

These trials are aimed at ‘end-to-end’ testing of the aircraft and personnel to ensure the aircraft are compatible with the carrier. The tests involve mission planning, arming the aircraft using the ship’s Highly Automated Weapon Handling System, flying missions and debriefing on completion.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
points from
Aircraft Carriers – what are they for?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:



1. Cover for naval task group
it's the other way around

2. Platform to launch strikes on coastal and inland targets
"inland" using F-35Bs??

3. Launch point for amphibious landings by troops
the way how to get sunk by navy of some Third World country

4. A Flexible, mobile and responsive airbase
OK

5. Base for the delivery of humanitarian aid
no comment

6. A demonstration of political will without resort to force
= bluffing

7. A flagship for command and control
OK

8. A base for intelligence gathering and reconnaissance
fishy

9. Sovereign territory
looking for trouble

10. A platform for trade and diplomacy, a visible symbol of prestige
LOL
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
1. Cover for naval task group
it's the other way around
Actually it’s a bit of both ways. The Carrier is fairly underwhelming in its armaments as a general rule yes but the air wing supports operations. Assets off the carrier like ASW Choppers, AEW platforms extend the range of detection and support among the formation. The Fighter wing also adds anti surface capability. It’s not as one sided as it seems.
2. Platform to launch strikes on coastal and inland targets
"inland" using F-35Bs??
The British,USMC, Italian and Spanish use AV8 for that today and that has an inferior combat radius and Max range vs F35B. So why not?
3. Launch point for amphibious landings by troops
the way how to get sunk by navy of some Third World country
In theory, but the. Again there are other types of launching points for Amphibious landings and this isn’t so much carriers as it is LHA and LHD types.
4. A Flexible, mobile and responsive airbase
OK

5. Base for the delivery of humanitarian aid
no comment
These are actually one and the same. It’s common practice for the US DOD to support humanitarian and disaster relief operations. From both CVN and LHA/LHD types. Nuclear carriers bonus is they produce sweet water on there own. The ability to move on transport and deploy food, Medicine even help by providing a hospital and command and control make such missions far easier.
6. A demonstration of political will without resort to force
= bluffing
Not entirely a bluff as they can still be used to render pain on to trouble makers.




7. A flagship for command and control
OK

8. A base for intelligence gathering and reconnaissance
fishy
These two again are really one and the same. The command systems the organic air wing. These mean it has the ability to process and launch information gathering ops. Heck for a time US carriers played host to a unique U2 Variant that could take off and land on the deck for launching recon ops.
9. Sovereign territory
looking for trouble

10. A platform for trade and diplomacy, a visible symbol of prestige
LOL
The battle ships of old did this all the time. Port of call visits were often diplomatic functions.
 

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master
VIP Professional
Beat me to it. The most annoying point is suggesting the F-35B lacks range. LOL! It has TWICE the range of Harriers that were previously used in the role and no one suggests they couldn't work 'Inland'. The 'Bravo' only lacks range compared to other models of the F-35, not other fighter bomber types, and IFR negates this anyway.

You've been listening to Pierre Sprey again, a man who makes a living denouncing things he knows nothing about, claiming he has expertise from being on the design teams for the A-10 Warthog and the F-16. He wasn't. He was a lowly number cruncher in the Pentagon in the 70s and had no say in any aircraft design. None of his claims stand up to scrutiny yet people still give his views credence.
 

Top