Target to field 24 by next year
They're balancing training and operational requirements and the expected delivery dates
All in all, it's actually pretty good
We went to war in 82 with about thirty-five Harriers all told
https://i.imgur.com/njglta2.png
It's a STOVL aircraft so its landing gear is designed for that, so I assume that's good enough for a ramp run.
It's not like it's landing on the ramp.
The F-35C has a much larger front landing gear in comparison the F-35B.
>It's not like it's landing on the ramp
They practice that too
We cant operate our carrier outside of a US carrier group
its americas carrier really
the uk is practically at war with france, we will never unite with europe because we have too many differences and the yank menace would never allow it
and before you get pedantic, I know the B and A aren't IDENTICAL, but they're pretty similar and one isn't super obviously beefed up compared to the other.
Here's my question about harrier-style variable jet nozzles: why do they angle them down 10 degrees or so during takeoff (while still rolling down the runway)? Surely the most efficient angle would be pointing straight back for best acceleration and to turn them just as you are about to rotate, but in every manual I read they want a downwards angle the whole way. At first I assumed it was to save the flaps on the harrier from exposure to the blast or something, but that wouldn't be an issue on the lightning.
> It is to avoid the mid-body lift fan from lifting the front of the aircraft, rotating it in the main landing gear and damaging the rear of the aircraft.
> Most tricycle gear aircraft have the main gear just aft of the center of gravity. At takeoff, even before rolling, the lift fan is at full power. Without a counter-balancing rear lifting force, it would rotate on the main gear and smash the tail on the aircraft on the deck.
> You'll notice that just before the end of the takeoff roll, the nozzles swivel to full back position, for just a second (then resume to 45° down position again). This allows the lift fan to raise the front of the aircraft to a nose high attitude for climb out. I suspect that the f-35Bs rear exhaust swivel mechanism is integrated with elevator for this low speed takeoff flight mode.
>Comparing anyone with the US
I wonder how many world air forces can actually field 150+ aircraft with the capability of the Typhoon FGR.4/F-35B pairing and with adequate tanking and ISAR.
NTA but the Saudi air force doesn't count since they basically have to hire western mercenary pilots to fly combat missions.
https://i.imgur.com/rQWITso.png
This is italy but their title is cut off.
Italy is secretly europe's underrated military power. Compared even to Germany who are far more of a paper tiger/arms dealer than they are a competent, experienced military.
Yeah, they work fine on all current carriers. My guess is that the Super hornet is still relatively new whereas the USMC Harriers are ancient and starting to be well over air frame hours. Essentially the Navy is going to do a slow rollout of the F35 as F18s wear out, just like they did with the F14 and F18->super hornet.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Navy has fewer F-35's than the Marines
WAT
F-35A and B has export customers, only the USN and USMC will be using the F-35C, so the F-35C got pushed back so the F-35A and B could be finished first.
[...]
F-35A and B has export customers, only the USN and USMC will be using the F-35C, so the F-35C got pushed back so the F-35A and B could be finished first.
The Super Hornet is still a relatively new aircraft too so that's also why C was last.
The longer the navy waits, the more updated model they get, since as production continues they keep getting better upgrades installed from the factory.
1 month ago
Anonymous
True. There's training considerations too. They just spent the last 2 decades getting all their pilots and crews trained on the super bugs and developing tactics and operations around that aircraft. Throwing all that work/money down the toilet just so you can switch over to a new aicraft years/decades sooner than you needed to would just be dumb. Besides if the Navy needs the capabilities the F-35 provides in the meantime they have the Muhrines they can lean on.
Yeah but even if you compensate for population, the US has ~5.5x more population, multiply the RAF airframes by ~5.5x and you still aren't all that close to the US.
the uk is practically at war with france, we will never unite with europe because we have too many differences and the yank menace would never allow it
Who? France?
Ok you're actually retarded.
Why are bongoloids always like this?
1 month ago
Anonymous
>youre retarded hehe
not an argument stupid yankoid
migrants are how 'friendly' countries damage eachother these days
1 month ago
Anonymous
>not an argument stupid yankoid
I'm french bong anon.
>scallop wars >weaponised migrants >trade wars
britain and france arent friendly and never have been
>scallop wars
Wtf are you talking about?
Situation >some seafood is being over exploited by some english fisheries which makes some french fishermen angry.
Reaction of the english: >"this is war billions must drown into the channel"
Wew. >weaponised migrants
France is not doing this to the UK. France actually retains the migrants, France is trying to stop them from entering France through Italy and got accused by italians of not doing its part of taking its fair share of illegal migrants. So WTF? These migrants cause chaos in France, they steal boats to cross the channel, the french gendarmerie maritime runs after them constantly, they try to freeload through the channel tunnel, and so on. Whose fault it is these fucks want to join the UK? Is it France that made your country a desirable destination for them? >trade wars
Anon, France, just like every other EU nation, is only applying the brexit as it should be. That's not a trade war. France is not responsible for the european politics on the matter. Brexit means Brexit, there are no more trade wars between France and the UK as there are between France and Switzerland, both countries being NOT in the EU and therefore not able to claim the same status as an EU member regarding trade. It's not rocket science. Either you're in or you're out. Don't you think France has some very real reasons to hate the EU too? Except the french are not as dumb as to demand to exit the EU completely over this kind of stuff.
Or do you think Macron of all people is dictating its policy to the EU in terms of trade regulations?
Loyer gratuit/rent free.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I forgive you froganon
1 month ago
Anonymous
>scallop wars >weaponised migrants >trade wars
britain and france arent friendly and never have been
It's actually aimes at the extra dimensional ayys. Massive shockwaves combined with EMPs absolutely shred the astral plane. It's why UFO sightings have gone through the roof since the first atomic bomb test.
>He thinks the nuclear deterrent is aimed at russia
Considering the UK and France cooperate on the maintenance and lifecycle of their respective nukes, notably through the Teutates program, based on the joint exploitation of the french Airix/Epure X-ray radiography installation dedicated to imaging the interior of nukes to validate their performances, I find your opinion regarding the possibility of a nuclear war between France and the UK for the sake of scallops fishing very telling of your mental illness, granting you the special title of Grand Bongoloid Master, courtesy of His Majesty King Charles. >https://europavarietas.org/csdp/fr/csdpblog/installation_franco_britannique_valduc >https://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/index2.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-lmj.cea.fr%2Ffr%2Fprogramme_simulation%2Fepure.htm
>thinking the US would have to lift a finger to stop the EU from federalizing.
You motherfucker spent centuries murdering each other and only stopped when the US ended WW2. You can't even build a fighter together, and you think a centralized euro military can happen.
If I were Grand Admiral of the EU I would want a CSG for both the Mediterranean and North/Baltic Seas, plus one on standby in the Atlantic if there's room in the budget. Would probably need to get the UK back in to make that happen though.
Are the bongoloids actually going to install EMALS on this thing? I thought they designed the hull so that the ramp could be removed and a catapult put in. It's been a while.
They would need to train airwings for CATOBAR when they always used STOVL since the Harrier. The increased range would also necessitate new doctrins for carrier operations. Better keep doing what you always did.
In theory I think it could be done years down the line when they get a major refit. In practice these carriers are designed for simple power projection not maximum efficiency. Less for potentially fighting china and more for having the ability to park off the coast and blow up sandnaggers/argies/african rebels as appropriate.
>In theory I think it could be done years down the line when they get a major refit
Look how much trouble the USN had with EMALS and the huge reliability issues that came with it. Waiting a couple years for the technology to mature just makes sense.
Exactly. From the RN's point of view it's 'can we pay for two good-enough carriers with upgrade capacity' and a minimal carrier strike group vs 'one ultra-effective carrier and no capability when it's in for maintenance'. The latter is more or less the situation the French are in with the CdG and have been for decades.
It was partially that, and the American EMALs at the time were unreliable and expensive when building them, so they put the upgrade further down the line rather than risk major breakdowns every 400 launches since they only have two.
The ramp is literally Americas fault and I hope they fix it so they can sell it to bongs properly.
>In theory I think it could be done years down the line when they get a major refit
Look how much trouble the USN had with EMALS and the huge reliability issues that came with it. Waiting a couple years for the technology to mature just makes sense.
>With the automated weapons handling system the QE's sortie rate can match a Nimitz, and unlike the Harrier the 35B and 35C differ only very slightly in range and weapons carriage
The Nimitz class is a far older design hence the lack of automation the sensible comparison would be the Gerald R Ford class since it's more up to date. In both cases the American carriers simply carry more planes, more munitions and need less refuelling all of which are important for sustained high capability operations against a potential peer power.
NTA but i'd bet he's just trying to say it can output a decent sortie rate not trying to one up the best the US can put out. Like no shit a ship with 4k crew & 80 planes is going to outsortie the one with 1.5k and 40... The HMWHS is neat tho cos it basically means the RN have like 2/3 of a ford for under 1/2 the capital and crew costs.
2/3 of a Ford still easily puts them comfortably in the "best non-Nimitz/Ford class". Consider it has fewer crew than the Charles de Gaulle but carries more planes of a higher quality which sortie more regularly and for longer sustained operations due to deeper magazines. It's a pretty cool ship.
Yeh I'm not saying the QE2 is a bad thing at all it's just built for the specific niche the RN has. Punches above their weight for such a small nation.
>Yeh I'm not saying the QE2 is a bad thing at all
You said >these carriers are designed for simple power projection not maximum efficiency
which is nonsense; they absolutely will project a great deal of power
AF08-4156 is the F-22 flight demo team's work horse, you disingenuous shitskin. They don't try to keep it in pristine conditions, as its sole purpose is to travel around ripping the sky apart for people to enjoy.
Just read the archives and argue with yourself. You're a glorified parrot, that says the same exact shit every thread, no matter how many times you get BTFO.
https://desuarchive.org/k/search/text/F22%20has%20no%20missiles/
>helmetfag shows up again
The SU-57 is a shit aircraft armed with shit missiles that could be destroyed by an F16 flown by a dog. The J20 is not a 5th gen design either and has already been humiliated by the F35. You cannot challenge US fighters on either quality or quantity so you cope about a fucking HELMET.
[...]
Just read the archives and argue with yourself. You're a glorified parrot, that says the same exact shit every thread, no matter how many times you get BTFO.
https://desuarchive.org/k/search/text/F22%20has%20no%20missiles/
[...]
embarrassing.
i should inform your parents that this is what you spend their electricity bill on, they don't deserve you anon, you should've been swallowed.
Upwards of 10+ F35C embarked upon HMS Queen Elizabeth
F-35B you mean
The UK doesn't own/operate F-35C. Only the US does.
The C variant requires a catapult and the UK's carriers are ramp launched with no catapult.
B, youre correct
Target to field 24 by next year
They're balancing training and operational requirements and the expected delivery dates
All in all, it's actually pretty good
We went to war in 82 with about thirty-five Harriers all told
>It's not like it's landing on the ramp
They practice that too
>we
You're brown
Did they have to change the landing gear for the ramp or is the F-35 ramp ready from the factory?
Don't believe so, HMS QE was envisioned with F35 as its primary aircraft so I think they just took standard delivery of the navy variant
It's a STOVL aircraft so its landing gear is designed for that, so I assume that's good enough for a ramp run.
It's not like it's landing on the ramp.
The F-35C has a much larger front landing gear in comparison the F-35B.
Your picture doesn't show a B variant
You can look at B varients, it's the same as the A.
But I'm lazy and I wanted you to spoonfeed me.
and before you get pedantic, I know the B and A aren't IDENTICAL, but they're pretty similar and one isn't super obviously beefed up compared to the other.
Unlike the chunky double-wheel C.
>or is the F-35 ramp ready from the factory?
Always has been.
Here's my question about harrier-style variable jet nozzles: why do they angle them down 10 degrees or so during takeoff (while still rolling down the runway)? Surely the most efficient angle would be pointing straight back for best acceleration and to turn them just as you are about to rotate, but in every manual I read they want a downwards angle the whole way. At first I assumed it was to save the flaps on the harrier from exposure to the blast or something, but that wouldn't be an issue on the lightning.
> It is to avoid the mid-body lift fan from lifting the front of the aircraft, rotating it in the main landing gear and damaging the rear of the aircraft.
> Most tricycle gear aircraft have the main gear just aft of the center of gravity. At takeoff, even before rolling, the lift fan is at full power. Without a counter-balancing rear lifting force, it would rotate on the main gear and smash the tail on the aircraft on the deck.
> You'll notice that just before the end of the takeoff roll, the nozzles swivel to full back position, for just a second (then resume to 45° down position again). This allows the lift fan to raise the front of the aircraft to a nose high attitude for climb out. I suspect that the f-35Bs rear exhaust swivel mechanism is integrated with elevator for this low speed takeoff flight mode.
Cheers mate
>Ski Jump Test
No landing on skis on ice/snow field
My hopes are dashed and day is ruined, where is my sexy snowbunny F35Ski
>snowbunny
Unfortunate choice of words, anon.
The B was developed for a ramp from the start. I know there's at least one video of the then JSF jumping off a ramp set up on a land based runway.
This taken during storm Ciarán or whatever its called
>camera angle makes the copeslope less obvious
kek
it's so ugly though
The Atlantic is such an ugly ocean. No wonder the Limys sailed the world to get away from it.
Nice ski jump, dweebazoid
UK bros... where did it go so wrong?
wonder how much use those cessna 208s get
They might have some very specific niche use that has them operating frequently.
>Comparing anyone with the US
I wonder how many world air forces can actually field 150+ aircraft with the capability of the Typhoon FGR.4/F-35B pairing and with adequate tanking and ISAR.
Bet you can count them on one hand.
Japan is literally an aircraft carrier.
Yup, the JMSDF has so many maritime patrol aircraft on order it's probably making china a bit annoyed.
Neat. So between them, UK & France that makes 3. I have 5 digits on my hand.
this one too
NTA but the Saudi air force doesn't count since they basically have to hire western mercenary pilots to fly combat missions.
Italy is secretly europe's underrated military power. Compared even to Germany who are far more of a paper tiger/arms dealer than they are a competent, experienced military.
>shitaly
No
This is italy but their title is cut off.
>Air force alone has ordered over 1600 F35's
What the fuck, how many did the Navy and Marines order?
Not pictured is another 13 F-35C's the Navy has for training.
>Navy has fewer F-35's than the Marines
WAT
Does the Navy have any carriers yet for those F35Cs?
Yeah, they work fine on all current carriers. My guess is that the Super hornet is still relatively new whereas the USMC Harriers are ancient and starting to be well over air frame hours. Essentially the Navy is going to do a slow rollout of the F35 as F18s wear out, just like they did with the F14 and F18->super hornet.
F-35A and B has export customers, only the USN and USMC will be using the F-35C, so the F-35C got pushed back so the F-35A and B could be finished first.
The Super Hornet is still a relatively new aircraft too so that's also why C was last.
Was the newest fighter in inventory until the 35 came along. I suspect we won't see it fully gone until those air frames are toast.
Yeah, the oldest airframes aren't even 25 years old yet.
The longer the navy waits, the more updated model they get, since as production continues they keep getting better upgrades installed from the factory.
True. There's training considerations too. They just spent the last 2 decades getting all their pilots and crews trained on the super bugs and developing tactics and operations around that aircraft. Throwing all that work/money down the toilet just so you can switch over to a new aicraft years/decades sooner than you needed to would just be dumb. Besides if the Navy needs the capabilities the F-35 provides in the meantime they have the Muhrines they can lean on.
I think it's somewhere around 2450 all said and done.
Having 6 times the population helps
what is the website?
it's a PDF
https://www.flightglobal.com/download?ac=90688
much appreciated
>19 J-20s for China
Haven't they made nearly 250-300? Do they take a long ass time from manufacture to active service?
Holy shit we really have 286 active A-10s?
Soviet Union collapsed, we got complacent when we shouldn't have.
the yanks should go home so that the government actually start building some shit
For a country of only 60 million that's a decent bit of firepower, mate
Yeah but even if you compensate for population, the US has ~5.5x more population, multiply the RAF airframes by ~5.5x and you still aren't all that close to the US.
Now adjust further for defence spending and GDP.
Brits feeling like a first world power again. It's charming tbh.
We cant operate our carrier outside of a US carrier group
its americas carrier really
Europe as a whole could assemble a european CSG if the other european nations felt like chipping in.
Even excluding France which is capable of fielding their own surface group for their carrier.
the uk is practically at war with france, we will never unite with europe because we have too many differences and the yank menace would never allow it
>the uk is practically at war with france
Are you retarded
they are using migrants as a weapon
Who? France?
Ok you're actually retarded.
Why are bongoloids always like this?
>youre retarded hehe
not an argument stupid yankoid
migrants are how 'friendly' countries damage eachother these days
>not an argument stupid yankoid
I'm french bong anon.
>scallop wars
Wtf are you talking about?
Situation
>some seafood is being over exploited by some english fisheries which makes some french fishermen angry.
Reaction of the english:
>"this is war billions must drown into the channel"
Wew.
>weaponised migrants
France is not doing this to the UK. France actually retains the migrants, France is trying to stop them from entering France through Italy and got accused by italians of not doing its part of taking its fair share of illegal migrants. So WTF? These migrants cause chaos in France, they steal boats to cross the channel, the french gendarmerie maritime runs after them constantly, they try to freeload through the channel tunnel, and so on. Whose fault it is these fucks want to join the UK? Is it France that made your country a desirable destination for them?
>trade wars
Anon, France, just like every other EU nation, is only applying the brexit as it should be. That's not a trade war. France is not responsible for the european politics on the matter. Brexit means Brexit, there are no more trade wars between France and the UK as there are between France and Switzerland, both countries being NOT in the EU and therefore not able to claim the same status as an EU member regarding trade. It's not rocket science. Either you're in or you're out. Don't you think France has some very real reasons to hate the EU too? Except the french are not as dumb as to demand to exit the EU completely over this kind of stuff.
Or do you think Macron of all people is dictating its policy to the EU in terms of trade regulations?
Loyer gratuit/rent free.
I forgive you froganon
>scallop wars
>weaponised migrants
>trade wars
britain and france arent friendly and never have been
I read that in Brian Blessed's booming voice
That was the idea kek, when he dies I will unironically be upset.
It's a horrible tragedy that Brian Blessed and John Rhys-Davies have never been cast in a movie together.
>He thinks the nuclear deterrent is aimed at russia
It's aimed at any and every one
It's actually aimes at the extra dimensional ayys. Massive shockwaves combined with EMPs absolutely shred the astral plane. It's why UFO sightings have gone through the roof since the first atomic bomb test.
I believe it.
But would Sunak press the button?
>He thinks the nuclear deterrent is aimed at russia
Considering the UK and France cooperate on the maintenance and lifecycle of their respective nukes, notably through the Teutates program, based on the joint exploitation of the french Airix/Epure X-ray radiography installation dedicated to imaging the interior of nukes to validate their performances, I find your opinion regarding the possibility of a nuclear war between France and the UK for the sake of scallops fishing very telling of your mental illness, granting you the special title of Grand Bongoloid Master, courtesy of His Majesty King Charles.
>https://europavarietas.org/csdp/fr/csdpblog/installation_franco_britannique_valduc
>https://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/index2.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-lmj.cea.fr%2Ffr%2Fprogramme_simulation%2Fepure.htm
>thinking the US would have to lift a finger to stop the EU from federalizing.
You motherfucker spent centuries murdering each other and only stopped when the US ended WW2. You can't even build a fighter together, and you think a centralized euro military can happen.
>the uk is practically at war with france
MY PENIS CAN ONLY GET SO ERECT
If I were Grand Admiral of the EU I would want a CSG for both the Mediterranean and North/Baltic Seas, plus one on standby in the Atlantic if there's room in the budget. Would probably need to get the UK back in to make that happen though.
>We cant operate our carrier outside of a US carrier group
We already have. Neither QE class has been attached to a US CSG.
>We cant operate our carrier outside of a US carrier group
We already do you tard
all I see is a ramp
>The british technically have a larger fleet of carrier capably F-35s than the US navy.
>all that water
Oh, I'm getting a bit thirsty
>QE carrier already looks worn and rusty without actually having done anything
>it looks completely fine and not rusty
Ok warriortard
Are the bongoloids actually going to install EMALS on this thing? I thought they designed the hull so that the ramp could be removed and a catapult put in. It's been a while.
They would need to train airwings for CATOBAR when they always used STOVL since the Harrier. The increased range would also necessitate new doctrins for carrier operations. Better keep doing what you always did.
In theory I think it could be done years down the line when they get a major refit. In practice these carriers are designed for simple power projection not maximum efficiency. Less for potentially fighting china and more for having the ability to park off the coast and blow up sandnaggers/argies/african rebels as appropriate.
Any SHTH scenario with China you'd probably see the USN and RN coordinate, if not outright joint, operations anyway.
Exactly. From the RN's point of view it's 'can we pay for two good-enough carriers with upgrade capacity' and a minimal carrier strike group vs 'one ultra-effective carrier and no capability when it's in for maintenance'. The latter is more or less the situation the French are in with the CdG and have been for decades.
It was partially that, and the American EMALs at the time were unreliable and expensive when building them, so they put the upgrade further down the line rather than risk major breakdowns every 400 launches since they only have two.
The ramp is literally Americas fault and I hope they fix it so they can sell it to bongs properly.
>In theory I think it could be done years down the line when they get a major refit
Look how much trouble the USN had with EMALS and the huge reliability issues that came with it. Waiting a couple years for the technology to mature just makes sense.
I HATE STOVL I HATE STOVL I HATE STOVL.
I HATE LESS RANGE AND PAYLOAD
>With the automated weapons handling system the QE's sortie rate can match a Nimitz, and unlike the Harrier the 35B and 35C differ only very slightly in range and weapons carriage
The Nimitz class is a far older design hence the lack of automation the sensible comparison would be the Gerald R Ford class since it's more up to date. In both cases the American carriers simply carry more planes, more munitions and need less refuelling all of which are important for sustained high capability operations against a potential peer power.
NTA but i'd bet he's just trying to say it can output a decent sortie rate not trying to one up the best the US can put out. Like no shit a ship with 4k crew & 80 planes is going to outsortie the one with 1.5k and 40... The HMWHS is neat tho cos it basically means the RN have like 2/3 of a ford for under 1/2 the capital and crew costs.
2/3 of a Ford still easily puts them comfortably in the "best non-Nimitz/Ford class". Consider it has fewer crew than the Charles de Gaulle but carries more planes of a higher quality which sortie more regularly and for longer sustained operations due to deeper magazines. It's a pretty cool ship.
Yeh I'm not saying the QE2 is a bad thing at all it's just built for the specific niche the RN has. Punches above their weight for such a small nation.
>Yeh I'm not saying the QE2 is a bad thing at all
You said
>these carriers are designed for simple power projection not maximum efficiency
which is nonsense; they absolutely will project a great deal of power
>the sensible comparison would be the Gerald R Ford class since it's more up to date
Your mind is set in a child's game of top trumps. Fix that.
muh rust bucket
That looks like a bird strike
and for context, the damaged picture is from an airshow in 2019
Here it is in 2021
and 2023
Clearly not a major issue
AF08-4156 is the F-22 flight demo team's work horse, you disingenuous shitskin. They don't try to keep it in pristine conditions, as its sole purpose is to travel around ripping the sky apart for people to enjoy.
Did you mean to reply to
?
No. I assumed you were the shitskin trying to be sarcastic, like he usually does.
Then you're retarded.
Why would I post several pictures of the same aircraft in near-pristine condition as sarcasm?
Because that is exactly what that retard does constantly. Will post the same demo team F-22, claiming all F-22's look like that.
Just read the archives and argue with yourself. You're a glorified parrot, that says the same exact shit every thread, no matter how many times you get BTFO.
https://desuarchive.org/k/search/text/F22%20has%20no%20missiles/
>helmetfag shows up again
The SU-57 is a shit aircraft armed with shit missiles that could be destroyed by an F16 flown by a dog. The J20 is not a 5th gen design either and has already been humiliated by the F35. You cannot challenge US fighters on either quality or quantity so you cope about a fucking HELMET.
What's the cope for the fact that Russia has lost more aircraft to friendly fire than their SU-57 has (supposedly) shot down in almost 2 years of war?
embarrassing.
i should inform your parents that this is what you spend their electricity bill on, they don't deserve you anon, you should've been swallowed.