I have no place here...

[WarSong]

The American planes could possibly be the F/A-18, or even the JSF.

 

[God Loving Cowboy]

More then likely they are the F/A 18s. If he could get a pic, we could probably tell him more.

 

[opus_dei]

it's the future jsf / f-35. british carriers to do not have a catapult system and fixed wing craft must have STOVL capabilities.

an f/a-18 would fall into the sea.

 

[God Loving Cowboy]

an f/a-18 would fall into the sea.

Really?

Maybe someone who is in the RAF or at least has trained w/the the RAF can verify this.

 

[WarSong]

F/A-18 are not living up to their expectations. Granted, the Navy and Marines made them work...because they had no choice.

 

[God Loving Cowboy]

I'd really like to see you say that to a Naval Pilot or a Marine Pilot...wooo...talk about the butt chewing there partner

 

[opus_dei]

[/color][/font]

Really?

Maybe someone who is in the RAF or at least has trained w/the the RAF can verify this.

er, you don't necessarily need to be it raf nor trained with the raf to make the statement (claim, if you prefer) that i made above.

the hms invincible, and her sister ships were initially designed for ASW operations and not for fixed wing flight. as such, they do not have catapults or arresting cables. with a straight, rather than an angled deck they are not capable of supporting simultaneous lanch / recovery operations for non-vertical landing enabled airframes.

the dimensions of the flight deck (full) are 194m x 33.6m. the deck (with runway) dimensions are 170m x 13.2m. in feet, it's 561 x 43.56. now, beyond the fact that there is no space on the deck to park any conventional aircraft during combat operations, the ship's elevators are in the center of the flight deck (cannot be used in concert with takeoff / recovery), and beyond the fact that without launch / recovery gear it's a physical impossibility to takeoff or land conventionally, the wing-span of the f/a-18 is, at maximum, almost 45 feet depending on the model. field landing specifications for the non-carrier enabled hornet are at least 4-4.5x the total lenght of the usable decking. even if it were carrier enabled, the brits don't have any method by which to stop them as mentioned above.

the harriers use between 80-100m of deck to takeoff in their SVTOL configuration. further, they cannot even carry a full warload because they would have not have enough power to make it off the deck.

and on and on and on.....

oh yeah, and the brits are dumping mucho dinero into the JSF and several iterations of the "future carrier" are being designed with JSF operations in mind.

 

[WarSong]

I'd really like to see you say that to a Naval Pilot or a Marine Pilot...wooo...talk about the butt chewing there partner

I'm old school mechanic, which means I don't like Aircrew...so bring 'em on!

And there's always old fashioned service rivalry...."my jet's better than yours "

edit: ah...I don't not like aircrew. Just professional rivalry. Come to think of it, I think my job has beef with everyone else.

 

[jhollas]

er, you don't necessarily need to be it raf nor trained with the raf to make the statement (claim, if you prefer) that i made above.

True. Although, ideally you'd like to be Fleet Air Arm, who are our Navy pilots. (I'm just being picky! )

the hms invincible, and her sister ships were initially designed for ASW operations and not for fixed wing flight. as such, they do not have catapults or arresting cables. with a straight, rather than an angled deck they are not capable of supporting simultaneous lanch / recovery operations for non-vertical landing enabled airframes.

the dimensions of the flight deck (full) are 194m x 33.6m. the deck (with runway) dimensions are 170m x 13.2m. in feet, it's 561 x 43.56. now, beyond the fact that there is no space on the deck to park any conventional aircraft during combat operations, the ship's elevators are in the center of the flight deck (cannot be used in concert with takeoff / recovery), and beyond the fact that without launch / recovery gear it's a physical impossibility to takeoff or land conventionally, the wing-span of the f/a-18 is, at maximum, almost 45 feet depending on the model. field landing specifications for the non-carrier enabled hornet are at least 4-4.5x the total lenght of the usable decking. even if it were carrier enabled, the brits don't have any method by which to stop them as mentioned above.

the harriers use between 80-100m of deck to takeoff in their SVTOL configuration. further, they cannot even carry a full warload because they would have not have enough power to make it off the deck.

and on and on and on.....

oh yeah, and the brits are dumping mucho dinero into the JSF and several iterations of the "future carrier" are being designed with JSF operations in mind.

We're putting so much money into this because the civilians in Whitehall are extremely short-sighted, and have no idea what the Toms on the ground want (or Sailors/Aircrew). I have a horrible feeling that this may go the same way as the Apache:
A complete waste of money.

 

[Billnew]

Hey, someone check warsong's restricted area badge!!
age old rivalry, We love to harrass anyone in the restricted area.(hey, boredom gets the best of you)

USAF security police.

I haven't studied RAF low level planes, but I have seen the A10. Warthogs rule!!!!!
The Gatling gun sounds like a buzz saw and when they hit it sounds like rain.

I've heard those RAF pilots can dogfight and not spill their tea?lol

 

[jhollas]

I've heard those RAF pilots can dogfight and not spill their tea?lol

Of course!
And watch "Neighbours" at the same time.