I said that the F-35 is ahead in sensor fusion, not that the Su-57 did not have it. The aerodynamic performance is definitely worse than the Su-57, no doubt about it but aerodynamics is not the most important parameter of a 5th gen fighter, I would argue that is the least important. In the most important parameter, stealth, The F-35 is way superior to the Su-57.
The Su-57 is designed to work inside the Russian IADS system as part of it. It is meant to be cued by the Konteiner, Voronezh, and Rezonans radars. With the cueing it will be able to focus its own AESA radars on specific targets largely negating their stealth. The extra agility and speed it has are supposed to help it evade long range missile attacks.
Yeah, no way the Brits can afford to acquire the F-35C on top of their F-35Bs. Heck, the RAF can't even afford the F-35A for themselves and have to joint-operate the -Bs with the RN.
So all that is really just so the boat can service American F-18s/-35Cs and French Rafales. I guess the RN are projecting themselves to be even more of an extension of the USN (and even the MN) than they already are right now.
The RN never planned nor is planning to acquire the F-35C. The joint operation of one aircraft is wise, why have 2 OEU squadrons when you can jointly operate the plane and by that streamline a lot of the logistics?
Read the picture which you attached and you will find the answer to your comment. Hint, it's got something to do with uncrewed aircraft.
I've said this before, but the Royal Navy is vastly oversized for their actual needs. They do not need aircraft carriers. This is a country that's insistent on power projection purely for the purpose of supporting any American adventures overseas.
As an American, I'm not glad they're doing so. They can achieve the effects they need without this massive overhead. UK would've been a much more effective ally if they were fiscally prudent, and kept their ambitions relative to their economic prospects.
UK does not need carriers, they need more surface combatants, and more air power, with a very limited ground elements because at most, it needs to be an expeditionary force. They don't need a massive land component.
UK is the kind of country that's letting its geopolitical ambitions drive itself into ruin. They could learn a thing or two from France.
UK's military policy is highly retarded. They sold HMS Ocean, an LHD which actually makes sense given their size and type of missions they might get involved in, allegedly to pay for the costs of the HMS Prince of Wales carrier. Which spends all its time pier side.
I wrote it several times, the UK is spending way too much money on naval force projection assets and on the navy in general. They have 2 carriers despite having just 17 surface combatants. 11 of these are frigates and 6 are destroyers. They have ~25 fixed-wing aircraft for that 2 carriers. So they can't escort a single carrier without using most (all?) of their deployable destroyers and they can't fully populate a single carrier with aircraft.
Anti-shipping capability of the UK is ironically anemic. The F-35 has no internally storable anti-ship weapon and it can't carry the Harpoon as of 2023. Most of the RN ships are limited to 8 Harpoons and most of the time they don't carry even that. Thus I am not sure if they even train for ASuW regularly. RAF aircraft have no dedicated anti-ship munitions as of 2023. So the UK's high-end anti-shipping capability is limited to torpedos launched by 7 submarines. The Astutes are very capable but submarines suck at active hunting.
British Army and RAF have a lot of similar capability gaps. I recently wrote about the current lack of AWACSes. Temporary but a military with such a budget shouldn't have left with no AWACSes after a few old ones got retired. So, like you, I see a military that sacrificed everything except underwater capabilities to support Americans in GWOT-like campaigns.
Side note: After the Russian military got exposed recently, the need for smart military spending in Europe actually disappeared. I would go as far as saying all of Europe is overspending and better off just decreasing budgets. I used to advocate for more army spending and cuts to naval budgets, but it turned out it doesn't matter.
I agree in the strongest possible terms. This is a 2nd or a 3rd tier force that simply cannot operate independently in a peer-level conflict. Forget sustainment, the only way the Royal Navy would be useful in a Pacific War, is if they simply fully integrated all of their ships/personnel under a US chain of command.
British Armed Forces in totality, need to have a serious conversation about what their priorities are, and what is truly a security concern for the realm. UK can meaningfully contribute to helping USA fight in the Pacific, but attempting to create their own CSG is just not it. But I get it. This is a country that's confused about their own destiny and their own aspirations, which is reflected in the nonsensical politics of UK. Their own electorate is unsure of whether it wants to be part of Europe, the long arm of United States, or a truly sovereign state.
Until UK determines what its interests are, they cannot construct a meaningful battle force that would credibly defend those interests. This is a country that has had Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and Liz Truss as national leaders. People who stand and believe in nothing. Which is perfectly mirrored in the state of their armed forces.