Page 1588 of 1588 FirstFirst ... 5881088148815381578158015811582158315841585158615871588
Results 23,806 to 23,808 of 23808

Thread: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

  1. #23806
    Member desertswo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CarrierFan2006 View Post
    Inclined to agree. The problem is that he, along with Spray et al, have their set in stone views. They are out of touch with modern capabilities and regard what they were doing 20+ years ago as cutting-edge. Sharkey, sadly, appears to have done the same. We cannot keep relying on Harriers. They are a 50+ year old design, which has reached its limitations. Great in their day. So was the Sopwith Camel, in 1918, and the Spitfire in 1945, but times move on, and technology too.
    As I understand it, he isn't so much anti-F35 as he is anti-ski jump and F35B and the concomitant loss of capabilities that might have been pursued such as an AEW platform that operates at higher altitude and far longer ranges, and a more robust ability with regard to aerial refueling. In that regard, he sounds like , well, me. QE and POW will be fine ships, but to those of us who have "been there, done that" on both sides of the Atlantic, there is no getting away from what might have been.

  2. #23807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by desertswo View Post
    As I understand it, he isn't so much anti-F35 as he is anti-ski jump and F35B and the concomitant loss of capabilities that might have been pursued such as an AEW platform that operates at higher altitude and far longer ranges, and a more robust ability with regard to aerial refueling. In that regard, he sounds like , well, me. QE and POW will be fine ships, but to those of us who have "been there, done that" on both sides of the Atlantic, there is no getting away from what might have been.
    Of course I think we all believe the MV22 could provide the solution to both the AEW and refueling issues. I doubt that we will be getting this capability, but it is another 'fitted for but not with' capability of the carriers. (I realise there is a need to fully develop these for the MV22 but I think it is a given that we would/could get these capabilities operational quickly if required).

  3. #23808

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •