CVN21,and the F35.

i hope the navy will begin to develop smaller carriers and have more of them, i think with weapons technology these days big carriers make easier targets.
 
therise21 said:
i hope the navy will begin to develop smaller carriers and have more of them, i think with weapons technology these days big carriers make easier targets.
Click to expand...

You have missed the defensive weapons that we now have that can stand off almost any weapon fired on us. A smaller carrier won't be any more or less of a target than any current ship we have. The stand off weapons systems are onboard all of the ships, the bigger the ship the more you have. I do agree that we need more carriers and carrier battle groups. I think that Ronald Reagan had the right idea, but he was going for too many. I think a 400-450 ship Navy would be about right.

I also think we need to increase the Air Force, Marines and the Army. There are more specialized fields in each service that are necessary to keep us safe from whacko's. The Navy is quick to respond and then the Marines and the rest come in with a little longer lead time to stabilize the region in question.

I think all of the personnel in the Military need SOME of the same training the special forces get, Rangers, Navy Seals, the Marines in general and whatever special forces the AF has.
 
I know this is a little odd, but will the F 35s sent to the UK and Austrailia be as advanced as the US versions?I mean they are priced the same...
 
The CVN-21 is expected to cost $13 billion for the first unit ($5 billion R&D included) and, as with most projects of this type, less for each successive unit.

$40 billion is just plain wrong. The Nimitz design is 40 years old. It's certainly time for a replacement, even if they are still amazingly capable ships.
 
Sukio said:
I know this is a little odd, but will the F 35s sent to the UK and Austrailia be as advanced as the US versions?I mean they are priced the same...
Click to expand...

I've read that any aircraft exported is not equipped with the same avionics that our planes are. They are also not tyically equipped with the same power plant.

When we exported the F4J's to Israel in the 70's we were amazed that they were better pilots than our guys. We found out that they stripped most of the remaining avionics from the planes and used them as basic airframes.
 
Japanese DBJ 15s are the same,striped of most avionics,Isreali F15 pilots are more reliant on strategy training with the trigger button if you know what I mean.
 
Sukio said:
Japanese DBJ 15s are the same,striped of most avionics,Isreali F15 pilots are more reliant on strategy training with the trigger button if you know what I mean.
Click to expand...

In recent years, because of the school in Fallon, NV, the U.S. aviators have regained the edge in combat tactics in all versions of fighters. You learn by doing and at the TG school, formerly in Miramar, CA there is ample time in the cocpit to hone the skills, not to mention the flight time in simulators.
 
Your right we are taking steps to get our pilots to be more aware,as well as less relient on avionics and missle tech.Take Veitnam for example.The United States thought missles where the future of air combat,thus ,the F4,comonly called the "Flying Turkey"by its pilots ,begged pleaded,that the Air Force Follow the Navy's and Marine Corps example,and instail guns on the new plane,eventualy crews instialed thier own guns this mistake is being prevented by todays methods.
 
Sukio said:
Your right we are taking steps to get our pilots to be more aware,as well as less relient on avionics and missle tech.Take Veitnam for example.The United States thought missles where the future of air combat,thus ,the F4,comonly called the "Flying Turkey"by its pilots ,begged pleaded,that the Air Force Follow the Navy's and Marine Corps example,and instail guns on the new plane,eventualy crews instialed thier own guns this mistake is being prevented by todays methods.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting your information? You might be right about the pilots putting guns in their planes at one times, but Vietnam was not the war that happened in. All of our jet aircraft have always had guns installed. Especially in the Phantoms.
 
Why,why do every time I use a referance from something,I get asked the same qustion,where are you getting your information from?I knew this for some time now,and really cant remeber how I came upon this information.And Why?Why do every time I use a realy word antic or referance I keep getting cut down in the face of others?

Am I doing something wrong?
 
Sukio said:
I know this is a little odd, but will the F 35s sent to the UK and Austrailia be as advanced as the US versions?I mean they are priced the same...
Click to expand...

As a Tier 1 participant in the development program, the F35s the British Navy get should be equally capable, but the UK is likely to tailor the platform (the source of some of the tension over this sale).

Personally, I have some serious reservations about the F35 programme. I think the French were right in wanting a naval variant of the Eurofighter, and that, indeed, the F35 is too expensive, likely to come in late, and more suited to American than British requirements.
 
Indeed,I had a feeling that the British Navy would fare better on the New F35 JSF beacuase they have expericance with Military avionics and hardware the rivals the United States.But the thing the makes the shipments so "tense"for the other potetial buyers is the enormous price tag for a more basic aircraft.Im not sure,and doubt anyone is ,of how the F 35 will fare once released but I am certain that changes to ential contracts will be changed due to Priceing.
 
Senior Chief:

Fighter-Planes.com said:
In 1965 the first USAF Phantom IIs were sent to Vietnam. Early versions lacked any gun armament. Coupled with the unreliability of the air-to-air missiles (AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-9 Sidewinder) of the time, this major drawback resulted in the aircraft loss after they ran out of missiles. During the course of the Vietnam War, its contemporaries, the MiG-19 and MiG-21, inflicted heavy losses on the F-4s when the American aircraft were ambushed after returning from bombing assignments. This prompted the USAF to introduce an M61 Vulcan 20 mm cannon in the nose of the aircraft, below the radome (although no Navy or Marine Phantoms ever had an integral gun).
Click to expand...

And before you ask, here's my source:
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f4.htm
 
Sukio said:
Why,why do every time I use a referance from something,I get asked the same qustion,where are you getting your information from?I knew this for some time now,and really cant remeber how I came upon this information.And Why?Why do every time I use a realy word antic or referance I keep getting cut down in the face of others?

Am I doing something wrong?
Click to expand...

A simple link would suffice to keep from getting the questions asked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top