Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Guess I misread something when I looked them over, for some reason I thought they only carried 24 aircraft.

But at 55 there's no reason they can't carry F-35Cs. Yeah It's not an F-15 or F-22, but what that can land on a carrier is?

True in terms of size, but BAE gave a really crazily high quote to fit them with EMALS cats and traps, so they have a ski-jump and can only really operate F35B as a fixed wing aircraft (at least until they have a major refit and that is not going to happen this side of about 2035 ish).

24 F35B (plus helos) will be the normal peacetime air group.

In a major conflict situation this could go up to about 36 F35B -including RAF aircraft- plus helos, including airbourne early warning radar, in a strike role.

The idea being they will get tailoured air groups depending on the task. (as FASTBOAT TOUGH notes). The RN does have a number of Amphibious ships available for the Royal Marines, etc, but will lack a dedicated helicopter carrier for the time being.

The ships can carry and operate helos up to Chinook size and total aircraft capacity is said to be around 55 or so, although in an emergency Carriers can generally carry a few more aircraft than design compliment.

The first ship HMS Queen Elizabeth (named after Queen Elizabeth I) will be operational in 2019 and it is very widely expected that the second ship, Prince of Wales, will be renamed HMS Ark Royal.

Teamed with Type 45 air defence destroyers, frigates and perhaps a nuc hunter killer sub they will give the Royal Navy a formidable Carrier task force. But I wish they had a real fighter for CAP missions...

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This for perspective only, but note this was published in 2014 since then the MINSTREL class landing ship deal between Russia and France did fail due to the UKRAINE crisis. France would end up paying a substantial amount of money to break the MINSTREL contract. France would recoup the losses with the recent sale to Egypt of both the MINSTREL ships to them which literally gave Egypt a quantum leap in conducting amphibious operations in their "neighborhood" as these are highly advanced purpose built ships.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/mistral/

In my opinion given the failure of the MINSTREL deal to Russia (They were to get four of them.) and the current (But improving.) maintenance of their fleet, serious consideration has to be given to moving up the UK in swapping the two in their rankings.

Also Japan is in the process of redefining itself away from a "Self Defense Force" to a as yet undefined new role due to both the actions of N. Korea and China.

This next has the right music and is very much in line with MANY other sources online that like to rank this kind've of stuff. Note #1 and #2 have been interchangeable on the many I've seen. Everyone else seems inline with everyone elses assessment. What struck me though was how old some of these Marine Forces where.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKDBk-b-SNw

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

Well, most of the worlds Marine forces are so small they just plain can't afford to develop the specialized equipment needed for amphibious assaults so make do with the last generation of USMC equipment.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

To clarify my last, I should've added that at the end of my last post, I mentioned "what struck me was how old some of these Marines Forces where." I should've added to that "historically speaking." I think it was Spain or Portugal that can trace the origin of their Marines back to the 12th Century-to me that's just too cool.

Another thought came to me in the "reading room" while actually reading T.E. Lawrence's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" and thinking about the ref. that ranked the world's navies, that in discussing China's SSBN program that they used the word "bastion" which I haven't seen used in a longtime. The term "Bastion" was used during the Cold War years describing the areas (Soviet) Russia would use to hide their SSBN's so that they'd be fairly close to the "Motherland" and could more easily be protected by other Russian assets against "unwanted guests" like us. As an update the Russians are reactivating 12 Cold War era Arctic bases to have them in place as the NW Passages opens up and to protect their vast energy resources in the region.

Geographically speaking I feel now a much more strategic link to the man made islands the Chinese are building beyond just "power projection" in the South China Sea region. They can't realistically have a "bastion" setup to the North because of Russia nor to the East because they'd be sandwiched between Taiwan, Japan and S. Korea. So unless they invade Taiwan they can only go South in the area of those contested "islands" that are all going to have airfields on them and surface combatants that can operate from them along with their attack submarines. You would have all the pieces in place to support and protect a "bastion" for your SSBN subs to operate within.

I guess I just shouldn't think on a "multi channel" level in the "reading room" it sometimes drives CINCLANTHOME a little crazy in any room of the house or elsewhere but she still likes me - you gotta love her for that, well I do anyway!!

Regards,
Pat

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Well, most of the worlds Marine forces are so small they just plain can't afford to develop the specialized equipment needed for amphibious assaults so make do with the last generation of USMC equipment.

I doubt there is much to choose between the British Royal Marines and the USMC (one of my best mates who once saved my bacon in the British Virgin Islands, with his yacht by leaving his extremely cute French girlfriend over Xmas, was a former USMC bloke, he could drink Pussers rum in very large amounts and always said I was the only Limey he knew who was dark enough to be interesting. I, kinda, think it was a compliment, sort of). The USMC have the advantage in numbers and amounts of kit. As an Englishman I think the Royal Marines have a slight advantage in training, but I admit I'm biased.

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

Geographically speaking I feel now a much more strategic link to the man made islands the Chinese are building beyond just "power projection" in the South China Sea region. They can't realistically have a "bastion" setup to the North because of Russia nor to the East because they'd be sandwiched between Taiwan, Japan and S. Korea. So unless they invade Taiwan they can only go South in the area of those contested "islands" that are all going to have airfields on them and surface combatants that can operate from them along with their attack submarines. You would have all the pieces in place to support and protect a "bastion" for your SSBN subs to operate within.

Regards,
Pat

Aside from the vile Islamist a...holes, a good many already in our own nations, with others being let in by the so called 'refugees' and actually largely economic Migrant route, the biggest longer term threat to the West is from China, Communist Dictator Government but successful open economy. China is working very hard on her Navy, including Carriers, and her marines, etc.

China has the money, the man power, and the economic base to be a very serious threat in not a long time.

Japan and Australia are both taking that threat fairly seriously already, even as the Australian mining economy depends a great deal on China. Who ever said anything was simple?

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

I doubt there is much to choose between the British Royal Marines and the USMC (one of my best mates who once saved my bacon in the British Virgin Islands, with his yacht by leaving his extremely cute French girlfriend over Xmas, was a former USMC bloke, he could drink Pussers rum in very large amounts and always said I was the only Limey he knew who was dark enough to be interesting. I, kinda, think it was a compliment, sort of). The USMC have the advantage in numbers and amounts of kit. As an Englishman I think the Royal Marines have a slight advantage in training, but I admit I'm biased.

I'd tend to agree. The RM is more the equivalent of the USMC Recon units then the typical infantry ones.
I had the dubious honor of spending a couple years in Scotland (Holy Loch in the 70's) so have somewhat more familiarity with the RM then most.

[Suhiir]

Opening a can of worms.

I'm looking at the EW ratings of various aircraft in v10b.

US Army (OOB#12)
Unit#144 F-16C Falcon EW=8
Unit#145 F-16C Falcon EW=9
Unit#146 F-15E Eagle EW=10
Unit#156 F-15E Eagle EW=10
Unit#200 F-15E Eagle EW=10
Unit#201 F-16D Falcon EW=9
Unit#561 F-15E Eagle EW=12
Unit#595 F-22 Raptor EW=16 (currently x3)
Unit#920 F-35A JSF EW=12 (SEAD Aircraft)
Unit#921 F-35A JSF EW=9 (external ordnance)
Unit#927 F-16C Falcon EW=8
Unit#928 F-16D Falcon EW=8

Isn't the whole idea of the F-35 that it's more stealthy then the F-16/F-15? While with an external bomb load I can certainly understand it being rated the same as an F-16/F-15.

Admittedly WinSPMBT doesn't deal with "stealth" but it's sort of represented in an aircraft's EW rating, it's vulnerability to MPADs/SAMs/radar guided flack.

[DRG]

Two years and counting they have been the exact same as they are this release......before that they were 8 so you're a LITTLE late in making this an "issue"..... and it has NOTHING to do with v10b

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Suhiir actually gave me something to think about as I haven't got near as far into that side of the question of EW. I only bring it up because the F-15E Strike Eagle has/is getting a major electronics suite upgrade now. They have had some minor work done to reduce their radar and heat signature, but the advantage here is the fact it's a big plane that is capable of "warehousing" a lot of electronics in this case EW. So I was surprised to see there's already an F-15E UNIT 561 in the game with a EW that high, the only issue I see without having looked at it is might it be appearing to soon is all in the game. The USAF under pressure from Congress has already conceded the need for a new CAS (A-X Program.) platform. I see the F-15E/F-22 being the major players in "deep strike" capability for the USAF. I think the F-15E will be just as good as the F-35 (USAF decision still pending if it'll compete against the A-10 and F-35A in the CAS competition.) in a CAS role as well until the dedicated plane is chosen to replace the A-10 in that role. But in this era of precision stand off weapons the point is almost mute anyway even the newest AC gunship will have somewhat of a standoff capability with it's ability to carry "VIPER STRIKE" and others onto the battlefield.

I believe those EW numbers are about right were they need to be the F-22 should be and is rightfully so the EW standard bearer for that type of plane/or class. Only a bomber should be higher and I believe the B2 is already. The B1B and B-52H are and have had significant improvements made to their electronic suites and EW also. I will not forget the Russians as they can't be out of this discussion with the Tu-160 BLACKJACK which many sites feel is on par with a per-current model B1B. I specified the last only because I haven't yet seen or given a "DEEP LOOK" into whether or not they've received any recent electronic upgrades.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tu160/

But like the F-22 above, the B2 is the standard bearer in EW for bombers without a doubt.

Is there not an F-35 with internal bomb load in the game? I thought there was but not listed above unless I missed it.

As a reminder I've posted several articles in here on the new updated electronics suite the F-22 is already flying with. As this is ongoing I would bet the ones with that suite already installed are the ones that've hit targets in Syria who never knew they were there using some of Russia's newest SAM systems.

A little something I've been talking about for years now is going to finally get it's day in court, after the USAF released their numbers a short time ago the Congress isn't buying the conclusions reached (After all they have full access to that and their own data sources.) anyway there'll be another look...
http://www.janes.com/article/59675/p...uction-restart

Regards,
Pat