tomas

i didn't know the F-35 was a VTOL and what about the harrier that is where is that its the best air craft ever to come out of Britain and the VTOL part of it is sweet.
:D :D :sniper :taynk

__________________
two wrongs dont make a right but three wrongs do. ;D

join my games site
fragsgames.forumer.com

bigross86

The USMC version of the JSF is S/VTOL

__________________
You're a naughty girl, go to my room!

Ironduke

Yeah, the F-35B is the S/VTOL version, which is going to replace all of the Royal Navy and USMC Harriers.

tomas

makes sense but i think the harrier would still be good now

Ironduke

The UK needs a replacement SVTOL fighter and F-35B fits the bill.

tomas

true and i would like to see this new plane it sounds cool but i would still fly a harrier if i got or get the chance.

:D :D :sniper :taynk

Anon

"Snipe,
I had no idea aircraft such as the A-10 was given stealth coating and features, let alone the -15,-16 and -18.
Do you have any details from open sources regarding this?"

Ask Goose, Mudd, or Dice over at the Whiskey Tango.

I'm sure they have much better info on it than me.

During ODS the USAF fitted LO leading edge RCS reducing applique strips on all of it's tactical aircraft, and the newer F-16's have RCS treated canopies and such.

Jay

luckily the chart didnt include ratings on planes that have stealth "paint" :LOL

__________________
A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

Jay

Considering the fact that we have one of the longest coast lines to protect, that really makes sense.

Also an armoured thrust from China and Pakistan is very limited coz of the terrain!!

Take care of IOR well, you can do some wonders :roll

Officer of Engineers

So does China but the PLA is still a land force centric force. However, the lack of a sustainable blue water air-refueling capability would limit the InN and the InAF AO.

__________________
Chimo

Jay

Sir,
Blue water re-fuelling capability? can you explain it a bit. IAF already has mid air re-fuelling tankers and expertise to do it.
What more do we need than this?

Praxus

I think he means the ability to refuel an aircraft far out into the sea.

Officer of Engineers

You need the ability to launch refuelers from the carrier deck and to find friendly planes far out into sea without any land reference.

The point is can the InN and the InAF maintain a combat package airborne 24/7 far out into the Indian Ocean and away from the Indian mainland?

If not, how far closer do you need to the Indian subcontinent to be able to maintain 24/7? That is the AO limit.

Jay

Sir,
Thanks for the explanation.
India has Andaman Naval Base in the East. Its on the mouth to South China Sea, which essentially means stationing couple tankers there would solve the problem that can cover whole of East IOR.

Not sure about West IOR. May be we can secure rights from Maldives or develop air strips in Lakshadweep .

Also note that IL 76/78's that India acquired has a range about 3107 Miles (5000 kms), and I think that should be enough to cover the whole IOR.

I dont think we'll have carrier landable mid air refuellers in near future, Gorshkov and Viraat have smaller decks. Not sure whether they can land a tanker there.

Officer of Engineers

I am aware of those assets. The two things I was stressing were "sustainable" and "24/7". How long can those planes and tankers be kept up into the air and kept working before men and machine had to rest?

Something else comes to mind though, with the exception of the USN and possibly the RN, the InN wouldn't need 24/7. However, for intents and purposes, that would restrict the InN carriers to a strike package role instead of a dominance role.