CVF and Carrier Strike thread

[whitecity]

Nothing much, just that we will end up going where America tends to go, having an aircraft that doesnt require a specific kit to land or take off would make working together easier.

When will you get it in your head that both the Harrier and the F-35B need VERY SPECIFIC vessels to land and take off from.

[whitecity]

Just a heads up for you, the United States Navy has nothing to do with STVOL stupidity. They buy only CTOL jets.... Exhibit B: F-14, F-18 and now, F-35

Clever.

Standing by. Clock running.

[Squip]

So how did you manage to leap from that to:

1) the Harrier was the best bit of Gucci kit around hence why it was sent to the Falklands - it's the effing opposite of what you're now saying!;
2) the Phantom was operable from Hermes in 1982; and,
3) the RAF were to blame for not allowing Phantoms to go south on Hermes?

Remember, your words:


My bold: your pathetic attempt to sound clever seems to have backfired somewhat!

I dont believe the Harrier is a gucci bit of kit, just that it was relatively new at the time, its still in use now updated, and has seen action in Afghan with both RAF and fleet air arm and i didnt hear of it failing in any way.

I believed that Hermes has a similar system as Ark royal, was proven wrong and admited it, im happy to appologise for that again.

The blame thing was what i believe Sunnoficarus was explaining, about how the RAF like to be the ones in charge of air, meaing capability was taken from the RN to bolster the RAF, if i understood it.

The F-4 varient capable of carrier take off was in service in 1982, my mistake, which i appologised for was thinking the RN maintained the Squadron. I appologise for that again.

Just a heads up for you, the United States Navy has nothing to do with STVOL stupidity. They buy only CTOL jets.... Exhibit B: F-14, F-18 and now, F-35C

Thats interesting, so why did they trial it? Just for export?

[whitecity]

The blame thing was what i believe Sunnoficarus was explaining, about how the RAF like to be the ones in charge of air, meaing capability was taken from the RN to bolster the RAF, if i understood it.

The capability was not "taken" from the RN; they simply didn't have anything to fly it from other than their land bases. Moreover, being strapped for cash and needing to finance their FRS.1s, they couldn't justify preventing the quite sensible move of them into RAF 'ownership'. Same applies to the Buccanneer.

Thats interesting, so why did they trial it? Just for export?

Flash to bang 3 minutes. Proof that a 5 minute google was not even attempted. Pathetic!

[Guns]

When will you get it in your head that both the Harrier and the F-35B need VERY SPECIFIC vessels to land and take off from.

Not according to terikdag - you can do it off a Type 23. Apparently.

[whitecity]

Not according to terikdag - you can do it off a Type 23. Apparently.

And a fleet of swarming MTBs with 10x10 mexifloats in tow, allegedly.

[sunnoficarus]

Christ but my head hurts...

Thats interesting, so why did they trial it? Just for export?

See them amphibious ships? They belong to the United States Navy,

See them STVOL do dads that fly off them? They belong to the United States Marine Corp.

The give away is MARINES painted on the side of all the STVOL do dads

[redshift]

Christ but my head hurts...

Give the guy a break (and yourself, while you at it), will ya?

[tekirdag]

"…Although there is the slight problem that HMS Queen Elizabeth is now being fitted to carry helicopters…"

Yeah, because it needs 'modifications' to an aircraft carrier to land a fucking helicopter on it's big flat deck.

You will probably find that some daft pr*tt in the MOD specifications dept made the lifts too small to take a Merlin. It will be something prattish like that.

Ahh, that's not your department, is it Suno??

.

[sunnoficarus]

Heeeeeeeeeere's Teki!!!!M!