The landing ship "Uosp" will be the first mobile naval base F-35B

The USS Wasp naval assault ship will be the first combat unit equipped with the F-35B front-line fighter squadron. In August, a single-type ship, the USS Essex (LHD 2), welcomed the F-35B on board during the sea trials of the aircraft to receive a certificate for deck operation off the coast of Southern California, reports "Military parity" with reference to the portal navyrecognition.com

F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter on the deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Essex (LHD 2), 19 August 2017

Earlier this week, the USS Wasp (LHD 1) left the Norfolk Naval Station and headed for Sasebo Base (Japan), where it will take on the mission of the 7th flagship fleet USA by USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6).

Shortened takeoff / vertical landing capabilities allow F-35B aircraft to perform wider tasks at a range inaccessible from coastal airfields. This means that if the target is too far, the landing craft approaches it within the combat radius of the fighters.

F-35B Lightning II - one of the three modifications of the newest fighter-bomber F-35, created specifically for the US Marine Corps. A key feature of the F-35B is the short take-off and vertical landing capability, which allows these planes to be used on helicopter carriers and universal landing craft equipped with a flight deck.

Comments

[tiredwithall]

Battle ship Usop. Peace be upon him. There he is dear.

[Alex777]

Demons surround ...

[NEXUS]

But is the deck version of the F-35 already brought to mind? After all, this is the most problematic version of this miracle of aircraft manufacturing.

[tiredwithall]

It is important to put on combat duty and this account for the money spent. Fine-tuning then for a fee.

[NEXUS]

Quote: tiredwithall

It is important to put on combat duty, and then fine-tuning.

Putting weapons on alert that can even smite their own ... is at least stupid.

[tiredwithall]

Quote: NEXUS

Putting weapons on alert that can even smite their own ... is at least stupid.

You are well versed in military matters, and here you can see the financial. I'll tell you a secret! They, in democracies, take into account only financial issues, and everything else is deeply concomitant and insignificant.

[NEXUS]

Quote: tiredwithall

You are well versed in military matters, and here you can see the financial. I'll tell you a secret! They, in democracies, take into account only financial issues, and everything else is deeply concomitant and insignificant.

This is relevant until the moment that a serious shukher has begun .. By the way, the B version is 25 million more expensive than the A version ... while in terms of performance characteristics it is much inferior to the base version.

[tiredwithall]

Quote: NEXUS

This is relevant until the moment when a serious shukher has begun.

Over the past century, a serious schucher was announced twice in 1914 and 1939. At the same time, the owners of the money were not interested in either the degree of readiness of the countries for war, or losses as a result of wars. They achieved their goals, and everyone else, fumigated by their propaganda on both sides of the fronts, was proud of their victories, longed for revenge and licked their wounds. And only the USSR stood until 91 as a bone in the throat of the Fed. That's all in the union, the paternalistic state, and they thought like you that they did not have a document.

[NEXUS]

Quote: tiredwithall

Over the past century, a serious schucher was announced twice in 1914 and 1939. At the same time, the owners of the money were not interested in either the degree of readiness of the countries for war, or the losses resulting from wars. They achieved their goals, and all the others, fumigated by their propaganda, were proud of their victories, longed for revenge and licked their wounds.

You are missing a very significant point ... in the current realities, taught by bitter experience, now even the Papuans are trying to buy air defense systems ... and now, not even a global conflict, can very much reduce the number of military units in the US Air Force ... in the manner of Vietnam .

[tiredwithall]

Quote: NEXUS

, now even the Papuans are eager to buy air defense systems ... and now, not even a global conflict, can greatly reduce the number of military units in the US Air Force ... in the manner of Vietnam.

And there is. Buy air defense systems. But there are questions: how long will these ks last during the fighting with a strong enemy? The yugis held out, if memory serves, for a month. The Viet had full carte blanche from the USSR.
And on the topic: there is no war now, and they decide primarily the replenishment of pockets, and then the combat readiness.

[Michael newage]

So this is a vertical, of course it will be inferior and cost more at the same time because more difficult.

[iwind]

Quote: NEXUS

But is the deck version of the F-35 already brought to mind?

Yes.
Do not finish the F-35C.
Full readiness F-35B since September 2017 /
Already headed to the APR zone on combat duty to supplement the F-35b which in Japan
This ship will be the core of the first EUG

The layout of the F-35B in UDC. in the amount of 16-20. For use in various missions, etc. as part of the concept of a light aircraft carrier, time on deck in flight, etc.

[NEXUS]

Quote: iwind

The layout of the F-35B in UDC. in the amount of 16-20.

This is all very informative ... but in addition to the fact that the B version is inferior to the base machine in almost everything, from the amount of fuel to such moments as refueling in the air ... I am interested in the answer to such a question as ..

When the first F-35B landed on the deck of the UDC, it immediately became clear its next (already which account for?) Flaw. Unlike the deck F-35C, the “vertical” has no wing folding mechanism, which makes it difficult to base it on board ships. Partly, the solution to this problem is facilitated by the small size of the fighter, but, anyway, the wing span of the F-35B on the 1,5 meter exceeds the wing span of the Harrier II or Super Hornet in the folded position.

[iwind]

Quote: NEXUS

This is all very informative ... but besides the fact that the B version is inferior to the base car in almost everything, from the amount of fuel to such moments as refueling in the air ... I’m interested in the answer to such a question

What how?
The fact is that this does not change. All tests and exercises have already been conducted. can accommodate and use 16-20 F-35B with fishing rod

This is not the future, it is now.
What at times increases the strength of the us fleet

Quote: NEXUS

The version is inferior to the base car in almost everything, from the amount of fuel to moments like refueling in the air

And much better than any other vertical. Yes, and air refueling is there a problem?

Using a different system? So in the Russian Aerospace Forces use it.

[NEXUS]

Quote: iwind

The fact is that this does not change. All tests and exercises have already been conducted. Vidio can accommodate and use 16-20 F-35B

The vertical does not have the option of folding the wings, which for deck versions is by and large very desirable, due to lack of space ... In the version, this option does not, and therefore, quantitatively, it can be placed less on the ship than say version C, in which then the wings are folded, and which by TTX exceeds the vertical ...

Quote: iwind

And much better than any other vertical. Yes, and air refueling is there a problem?

So what? I will say more, it’s even better than a sea-based helicopter, but ... this modification is inferior to the same version C (and significantly), and with the praised stealth, not all thanks to God because of the rotary nozzles and engine dimensions ... that is, in In terms of version, this vaunted concept of Stealth does not work as efficiently ... but besides stealth, the F-35 has nothing to boast of.

Quote: iwind

Yes, and air refueling is there a problem?

Refueling in the air of the C and A versions takes place through the rod, and refueling is faster than through a hose with a cone, which is charged with the B version.

[iwind]

Quote: NEXUS

Refueling in the air of the C and A versions takes place through the rod, and refueling is faster than through a hose with a cone, which is charged with the B version.

No, it’s impossible for so many years .... to stay .... well, at least a little respect about the F-35 before writing
F-35 ONLYAA barbell
"NAVAL AIR STATION PATUXENT RIVER, Md., Aug. 23, 2013 - On Aug. 20, an F-35 Lightning II carrier variant (CV) refueled from US Air Force KC-135 for the first time.

Quote: NEXUS

In the version, this option does not, and therefore, quantitatively, it can be placed on the ship less than, say, version C, which has folded wings, and which in terms of performance characteristics exceeds the vertical ...

Lord, how can the F-35C land or take off from the UDC ?????????? you can then compare even larger bombs and ranges with the B-52. or F-22 or F-15E.
These are different planes.

Quote: NEXUS

So what? I will say more, it’s even better than a sea-based helicopter, but ... this modification is inferior to the same version C (and significantly), and with the praised stealth, not all thanks to God because of the rotary nozzles and engine dimensions ... that is, in In terms of version, this vaunted concept of Stealth does not work as efficiently ... but besides stealth, the F-35 has nothing to boast of.

MDA ....
And in numbers, how much does stealth differ or is it so in the photo? where does the nozzle? digits to wait or is it? According to the photo?
boast....
EW. range of action. situational awareness, combat load.

[NEXUS]

Quote: iwind

ONLY F-35AA boom

Seriously? And what is it then, do not enlighten the dark?

Quote: iwind

Lord, how can the F-35C land or take off from the UDC ?????????? you can then B-52 and shoot it even larger bombs and ranges.

You apparently did not understand my thought, dear ...
But what do 5-10 under-planes mean when the Nimitz with a full wing is on the traverse? After all, Americans are proud of the number of their aircraft carriers; it is simply unbelievable that such a ship would not be nearby during a combat operation.

Quote: iwind

And in figures on the chip stealth differs or is it so in the photo?

By the way ... about the inconspicuity of the F-35 ... the data of INDEPENDENT sources in the studio ... otherwise mattresses, knowing their love for PR, and 0,0000000000001 m can announce.

[iwind]

Quote: NEXUS

Seriously? And what is it then, do not enlighten the dark?

Version F-35A
Attention to the wings.
F-35C only cone. In the Navy and ILC only the cone.

Quote: NEXUS

What do 5-10 under-planes mean when the Nimitz with a full wing is on the traverse? After all, Americans are proud of the number of their aircraft carriers; it is simply unbelievable that such a ship would not be nearby during a combat operation.

More aircraft is always a plus.
More ships that can provide an air defense umbrella is another plus.
The ability to strike without calling Avik is another huge plus.
That is, a total of plus 10 more ships with aviation. A raid 40-50 F-35B for any fleet will be unpleasant.

Quote: NEXUS

By the way ... about the inconspicuity of the F-35 ... the data of INDEPENDENT sources in the studio ... otherwise mattresses, knowing their love for PR, and 0,0000000000001 m can announce.

I did not bring them.
This is where you started to compare at the end of xs of what.

[NEXUS]

Quote: iwind

Version F-35A

You wrote in black in Russian, NIGHT FILLING F-35S ... what are you sitting up inventing?

Quote: iwind

More aircraft is always a plus.
More ships that can provide an air defense umbrella is another plus

From the point of view of efficiency and simple expediency, a dozen F-35Vs will not do great weather if Nimitz is standing next to it with an air wing of 80 F-35S.

Quote: iwind

I did not bring them.

So you, a lover of this miracle of aircraft construction and the like, tell you on every corner about the fabulous stealth of this aircraft ...

[iwind]

Quote: NEXUS

You wrote in black in Russian, NIGHT FILLING F-35S ... what are you sitting up inventing?

Vidio on YouTube
It’s also written on the fence, but you touch the tree
On some left channel ... This is an argument. And the fact that the US fleet in its never used the barbell. These are trifles.

Quote: NEXUS

From the point of view of efficiency and simple expediency, a dozen F-35Vs will not do great weather if Nimitz is standing next to it with an air wing of 80 F-35S.

Will do.
So there will be other planes in it.

Quote: NEXUS

So you, a lover of this miracle of aircraft building and the like, tell you on every corner about the fabulous stealth of this aircraft

Where I wrote about stealth.

[donavi49]

By refueling. Suddenly, videoconferencing - they use only a system like the F-35B.

And yes - this is an order. If the customer rested on the bar, screw the bar. However, the customer has a lot of cash machines refueled by a hose cone and its norms.

[donavi49]

And even the decommissioned Harrier, to replace which F-35V came. So this is not a bug, but a feature

[NIKNN]

Quote: iwind

And much better than any other vertical. Yes, and air refueling is there a problem?

Honestly? I was impressed ..., The vertical line is cool ..., taking into account that takeoff from 2/3 of the deck ..., it will take its load of almost 7 tons, really ... Of course there are drawbacks, and the drive and fan are almost a quarter useful the volume is gone and the fuel is not enough ... but the supersonic vertical line is not inferior in flexibility to the brothers ... In general, it was impressive ... Well, for some reason they have in the F35C, I thought "A" will be the coolest ... though according to Israel, not everything is completed, maybe it will be the coolest of all as a result ... But "B" impressed ...

[Alexey-74]

A good target for our Caliber2 and Onyx ............

[bouncyhunter]

Quote: NEXUS

But is the deck version of the F-35 already brought to mind? After all, this is the most problematic version of this miracle of aircraft manufacturing.

Hi Andrew ! Pay attention to the case:

U.S. Navy landing ship USS Wasp will first unit

It will become, and not become. And about the timing when he becomes a word.

[NEXUS]

Quote: bouncyhunter

It will become, and not become. And about the timing when he becomes a word.

Hello Pasha!
Yes, I just ... you won’t believe it. I’ll explain why ... firstly, this modification is 25 lyam more expensive than the base one, while the performance characteristics are about 25% worse than version A. Plus, due to the rotary nozzles and the large size of the engines, the stealth F-35V is much worse than the F- 35A. At the same time, he takes 2 tons less fuel, the radius, respectively, is also smaller, even refueling in the air does not occur through the rod (where the refueling speed is higher), but through the hose with a cone ... it can take a long time to list ...
In general, let them take it, definitely.

[bouncyhunter]

So this, I do not mind too - let it go. Whatever the child would entertain ...

[voyaka uh]

Plus, due to the rotary nozzles and large dimensions of the engines, the stealth F-35V
much worse than that of the F-35A "///

In flight - exactly the same. Tennis ball for the radar. Of course, when it hangs in the air above the ship with a nozzle lower, visibility is greater.

[NEXUS]

Quote: voyaka uh

In flight - exactly the same. Tennis ball for the radar. Of course, when it hangs in the air above the ship with a nozzle lower, visibility is greater.

Compared to version A and C, version B is the most controversial, if not unnecessary. Despite the fact that all the "sores" and problems of his older brothers, the B version successfully adopted and added his own. The thrust-weight ratio is less, the radius is smaller even in comparison with the C version, the price of 25 lemons is more ...
I have no complaints ... only FOR, let them buy.

[iwind]

Quote: NEXUS

Version B is the most controversial, if not unnecessary.

It’s indisputable as there is no alternative.
And turning their UDC into light aircraft carriers is a great temptation. And Spain and Italy and other Udk operators already want them.

[voyaka uh]

Their fleet will receive two new light aircraft carrier with a full squadron.
fighter-bombers on each.
At the same time, emergency and emergency take-offs / landings of the F-35B are capable of
from almost any U.S. Navy (or even civilian) ship with a helipad. Such a luxury does not have conventional deck aircraft.

[NIKNN]

Quote: NEXUS

The thrust ratio is less

What a fright ...
Type ................................ F-35A ... F-35B ... F-35C
Thrust-to-weight ratio ....... 0,74 ..... 0,81 ...... 0,70

[Pan_hrabio]

Of course, the F-35В is much worse than the F-35A, but in general it is the same modern and, in general, a good fighter. So from my bell tower we have that after switching to the F-35B, even an ordinary landing ship, of which 9, is comparable in its capabilities with Kuznetsov’s aviation.

As for the deadlines, sooner or later they will bring it. In no case do I want to offend anyone, but looking at reality, I personally believe the declared terms of Russian gunsmiths much less.

[NEXUS]

Quote: noviczok

Of course, the F-35В is much worse than the F-35A, but in general it is the same modern and, in general, a good fighter. So from my bell tower we have that after switching to the F-35B, even an ordinary landing ship, of which 9, is comparable in its capabilities with Kuznetsov’s aviation.

Knowing the tactics of mattresses, do you really admit that next to this wretched UDC some Nimitz with a complete F-35S air wing will not hang out? And from here the question is: Why then do you need version B?

[Pan_hrabio]

Hmm, that's right too. I suspect that there is only one meaning: the KMP fundamentally did not want to be left without their aircraft, and you won’t place normal decks on their ships. So yes, there is no real need.

[True]

Quote: NEXUS

Knowing the tactics of mattresses, do you really admit that next to this wretched UDC some Nimitz with a complete F-35S air wing will not hang out? And from here the question is: Why then do you need version B?

A friendly visit to Odessa will cause.

[True]

Does it go through convention irrigation? If yes, then as an option: the empty will drop in, and there they will fly off from the vicinity

[Aaron Zawi]

Quote: NEXUS

Quote: noviczok

Of course, the F-35В is much worse than the F-35A, but in general it is the same modern and, in general, a good fighter. So from my bell tower we have that after switching to the F-35B, even an ordinary landing ship, of which 9, is comparable in its capabilities with Kuznetsov’s aviation.

Knowing the tactics of mattresses, do you really admit that next to this wretched UDC some Nimitz with a complete F-35S air wing will not hang out? And from here the question is: Why then do you need version B?

Watching where? Understand once again that any aircraft and fleet are intended for local wars, and here the UDC is quite in place. And if it comes to nuclear weapons, then everything will not matter.

[NEXUS]

Quote: Aron Zaavi

Understand once again that any aircraft and fleet are intended for local wars, and here the UDC is quite in place.

Out of place ... F-35В can at least somehow show itself only if these aircraft are covered (taking into account their truncated performance characteristics) with an air wing of full-fledged aircraft carriers with F-35С on board. Version B is not capable of essentially conducting an air battle ... unless using its "long arm" and that moment is very controversial ... and, accordingly, such a UDC will initially look like that suitcase without a handle. At the same time, he will draw resources, cover and support ships onto himself ... and the exhaust will be an order of magnitude less than that of an aircraft carrier’s wing.
Already, all countries that are pressed by the United States and are seriously addressing the issues of purchasing air defense systems ... coastal defense systems have also become relevant. And in light of all this, answer me, what will be the effectiveness of this UDC?

[Aaron Zawi]

Quote: NEXUS

Out of place ... F-35В can at least somehow show itself only if these aircraft are covered (taking into account their truncated performance characteristics) with an air wing of full-fledged aircraft carriers with F-35С on board. Version B is not capable of essentially conducting an air battle ... unless using its "long arm" and that moment is very controversial ... and, accordingly, such a UDC will initially look like that suitcase without a handle. At the same time, he will draw resources, cover and support ships onto himself ... and the exhaust will be an order of magnitude less than that of an aircraft carrier’s wing.
Already, all countries that are pressed by the United States and are seriously addressing the issues of purchasing air defense systems ... coastal defense systems have also become relevant. And in light of all this, answer me, what will be the effectiveness of this UDC?

Why is she she can’t air combat? Normal exterminator for all performance characteristics in the air. And if the ILC can, having independently concentrated the 2-3 UDC together with other landing ships, turn into even more mobile rapid reaction forces, this will allow us not to distract the carrier groups from strategic duty.

[NEXUS]

Quote: Aron Zaavi

Why is she she can’t air combat?

An air battle can be fought by a corn-hacker, but what will be the effectiveness of this? The vertical a priori is inferior to the TTX to any fighter with both short take-off and ground-based fighters ... And its much-praised stealth will not help him here.
I want to convey to you one simple idea that with the presence of 11 aircraft carriers, these UDCs are a waste of money, like the development of the F-35B, which is more expensive than the basic modification. That is, in fact, we are not talking about increasing the effectiveness of the ILC, but stupidly about shame ... that is, a good show, better than any money.

[Aaron Zawi]

Quote: NEXUS

An air battle can be fought by a corn-hacker, but what will be the effectiveness of this? The vertical a priori is inferior to the TTX to any fighter with both short take-off and ground-based fighters ... And its much-praised stealth will not help him here.
I want to convey to you one simple idea that with the presence of 11 aircraft carriers, these UDCs are a waste of money, like the development of the F-35B, which is more expensive than the basic modification. That is, in fact, we are not talking about increasing the effectiveness of the ILC, but stupidly about shame ... that is, a good show, better than any money.

Absolutely disagree.

[Snakebyte]

Maybe instead of wasting time on empty scribble a little read?
The ILC is a Navy independent structure. And marines to the bulb, how many aircraft carriers the fleet has. In World War II, the KMP also had its own aviation, despite the presence of 15 naval heavy aircraft carriers and heaps of light / escort, which covered the landing on the islands.
UDC - not aircraft carriers, which follows from the abbreviation itself. Their concept was born just from the experience of landing operations of the war.
The purpose of the F-35B is operational aviation support for landing operations. It replaces the AV-8B, which is superior in all respects.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: bouncyhunter

Pay attention to the case:

Pasha, especially for Belarusians: this is not a “fall”, but a “tense” of the verb.
In this case, the "future is simple." Yeah.

[bouncyhunter]

Thanks for the amendment, Alexander! The school was finished long ago ...

[Boa kaa]

Quote: NEXUS

But is the deck version of the F-35 already brought to mind?

F-35B has reached initial availability. This is their troubles with F-35С, deck for AVM, and worked for the Marine Corps, even UK acquires Elizabeth for his.

[voyaka uh]

"But is the deck version of the F-35 already brought to mind?" ///

F35B - The very first. Got initial combat readiness even earlier than the base F35A
Only the F35C remained until next year.

[NEXUS]

Quote: voyaka uh

F35B - The very first. Got initial combat readiness even earlier than the base F35A

The disappearance of the built-in 25-mm gun "Equalizer" did not pass without a trace. At present, the designers of Lockheed Martin offer a compromise in the form of a suspended cannon container. It will create additional resistance in flight, with all the ensuing consequences, and will also be a factor in the sharp increase in the ESR of the aircraft, compared with the base model. But, alas, no other solutions to this problem have been proposed.
Interesting, right? ..

Why is the F-35B a cannon armament if it is contraindicated in participation in maneuver battles? The available overload of the F-35B is only 7g (versus 7,5g for the deck modification and 9g for the ground-based fighter) - with such characteristics, the vertical plane will not be able to catch the tail of most modern fighters. Even a slightly lower wing load and greater thrust-weight ratio, in view of the lower take-off mass of the VTOL aircraft themselves, are not able to correct the situation - the F-35B is categorically unable to conduct close air combat.

And this begs the question ... why is this miracle necessary? Marine Corps support? So attack helicopters, which are much cheaper, can handle this.

[voyaka uh]

"offer a compromise in the form of a hanging cannon container" ///

It's right. But the container is removable. If you need a stealth bomber mission,
they will fly without a container, and if the usual support for the marines is with a cannon.

"with such characteristics" vertical line "will not be able to go to the tail of the majority
modern fighters "////

This is not an air conquest aircraft. Melee is a rare, exceptional option for him. But despite the fact that on the enemy’s radar it is displayed at the last moment, you don’t even have to go tail. The surprise factor is on his side.

[Aaron Zawi]

Quote: NEXUS

But is the deck version of the F-35 already brought to mind? After all, this is the most problematic version of this miracle of aircraft manufacturing.

The initial combat readiness of the F-35 was announced back in the 2016 year.

[Thunderbolt]

Quote: NEXUS

And this begs the question ... why is this miracle necessary? Marine Corps support? So attack helicopters, which are much cheaper, can handle this.

And what do you mean by "Marine Corps Support"? Helicopters will also provide air defense to the marines?
In general, there isn’t much fire support, and if this plane is being poured here on the site, I can only explain this by saying that similar concepts (which the USSR was still trying to deal with) in the modern Russian Federation cannot be embodied in iron for a whole range of reasons. and all the hatred for this plane (and not only for this; and not only for the planes --- everyone spits on it!). Hatred that masquerades as a mask of good-natured condescension: they say what these gays come up with again, it’s clear that for the sake of saw, another unsuccessful model, in that kih quantity purchased by the American allies because d.SEM twisted their hands! What a combat readiness --- his wings do not fold, but they must! The helmet is expensive, probably made of gold ... well, etc.
I don’t even want to argue that this was a useful and demanded aircraft that turned out to be in full accordance with the concept of modern warfare! I’ll wait for tomorrow and just scream how they will once again spoil it in the comments

[NEXUS]

Quote: Thunderbolt

Helicopters will also provide air defense to the marines?

With such performance characteristics as the F-35V, what are you talking about? He a priori is not able to conduct close combat. And its radius is small, as well as the fuel in the tanks, in comparison with the C version. What does he purify there?

Quote: Thunderbolt

in the modern Russian Federation, for a whole range of reasons, it cannot be embodied in iron in any way.

But why should we not explain the vertical line in the current conditions? Of course, if you wish, you can teach the hare to smoke, but the question is, why?

Quote: Thunderbolt

I don’t even want to argue that this is a useful and sought-after aircraft that turned out in full accordance with the concept of modern warfare!

Then explain to me wretched, what the UDC will be needed with its 10-15 F-35V, if there will be an aircraft carrier nearby, without which mattresses do not go anywhere at all, with a full-fledged air wing?
If you mean that the UDC data will be considered as light aircraft carriers that need escort, support ships, then answer me if such a connection (without Nimitz or Ford) will be able to effectively at least protect itself, taking into account the radius of action of these "lightning bolts" and limited fuel resources?

[iwind]

Quote: NEXUS

With such performance characteristics as the F-35V, what are you talking about? He a priori is not able to conduct close combat. And its radius is small, as well as the fuel in the tanks, in comparison with the C version. What does he purify there?

for other planes this is the norm. And for this F-35B is bad? interesting..
and much more AV-8 which quite well fought well.

Quote: NEXUS

Then explain to me wretched, what the UDC will be needed with its 10-15 F-35V, if there will be an aircraft carrier nearby, without which mattresses do not go anywhere at all, with a full-fledged air wing?

They go
By August 18, the number of attacks by the UDC "Wasp" air group on targets in the district of the city occupied by the militants of Sirte reached 65, including.
In local conflicts "Under such a scenario, UDCs from 16 F-35s can provide 14 sorties within 40 hours, the expeditionary group will be able to independently attack ground targets to conduct reconnaissance of targets with suppressing air defense positions"
To strike from different directions.
Provides air defense and missile defense is able to induce missiles SM-6

[NEXUS]

Quote: iwind

To strike from different directions.
Provides air defense and missile defense is able to induce missiles SM-6

Yes, God is with him in a dispute ... You better tell me against which country? Against Guinea Bissau? So there will be helicopters out of sight ... and if against, say, the Russian Federation ... they themselves must understand that these troughs will be drowned quickly without noise and dust.
And if you take the Middle East, so who else have they not gouged there? Iran?
About S. Korea, I generally said nothing, maybe there full-fledged aircraft carriers kissed the door in a hickey.

[iwind]

Quote: NEXUS

Quote: iwind

To strike from different directions.
Provides air defense and missile defense is able to induce missiles SM-6

Yes, God is with him in a dispute ... You better tell me against which country? Against Guinea Bissau? So there will be helicopters out of sight ... and if against, say, the Russian Federation ... they themselves must understand that these troughs will be drowned quickly without noise and dust.
And if you take the Middle East, so who else have they not gouged there? Iran?
About S. Korea, I generally said nothing, maybe there full-fledged aircraft carriers kissed the door in a hickey.

Against whom I will send.
Like other planes. and why is it someone quickly and without dust?
it is better than current US planes, and if you add that there are almost 300 of them by 2020
over 600

[NEXUS]

Quote: iwind

it is better than current US planes, and if you add that there are almost 300 of them by 2020
over 600

I’m talking about F-35V about these UDCs, dear ... and you didn’t answer me, specifically against which country? If it’s against the Papuans, then the question is why is such expensive crap needed against the Aboriginal people ... and if against a country with good air defense, then there are full-fledged aircraft carriers for this.

[iwind]

Quote: NEXUS

I’m talking about F-35V about these UDCs, dear ... and you didn’t answer me, specifically against which country?

Any. Who is the F-16 against? same

Quote: NEXUS

If it’s against the Papuans, then the question is why is such expensive crap needed against the Aboriginal people ... and if against a country with good air defense, then there are full-fledged aircraft carriers for this.

This is not instead of but in addition to the aircraft carriers that can additionally cover the landing troops.
And sometimes you can send UDC with F-35b and not drive AB. As they do now with the AV-8, but the same F-35b will do better.
It is possible to increase the number of aircraft in the attack on the enemy, this must be used.
Not to mention that ocean control will grow

[NEXUS]

Quote: iwind

This is not instead of but in addition to the aircraft carriers that can additionally cover the landing troops.

Now ... then why were you not happy with version C? Or does a religion not allow building a light aircraft carrier with an air wing (20-25 units) for the same tasks? And they will receive an output light aircraft carrier with F-35S, whose TTX is better than version B.

[iwind]

Quote: NEXUS

Now ... then why were you not happy with version C? Or does a religion not allow building a light aircraft carrier with an air wing (20-25 units) for the same tasks?

And what about the costs? When the fleet already has UDC and they will be.
A light aircraft carrier for the F-35C (which by the way is not cheaper than the F-35B), you need a catapult and an aerofinet + a place on them + energy is expensive and goodbye landing capabilities.
So we are building both the UDC and the light aircraft carrier. Plus F-35B can work with expeditionary sites

[bald]

Until they feel a dozen scorpions under their ass, and this depends on us, this muck will continue its bastard work. "politicians, your dog’s mother, what are you doing so that you die, and what else remains to be done."

[Herculesic]

And why is it not put on the last American aircraft carrier? There they seem to fit more?

[viktorch]

it makes no sense, on a normal aircraft carrier you can throw 35th with a normal radius of action, the range is more important than the number of aircraft, moreover, it is not a fact that they will fit more.

and the meaning of the F-35B is rather foggy, on the one hand the BDKs get the opportunity to inflict no worse than an aircraft carrier, on the other, the BDK doesn’t go to combat alone, even against the Papuans, in short it’s not clear what kind of doctrine they have if instead of shock turntables to support the landing strike fighters are put on the BDK - a strange moment.

on the other hand, the machine’s export capabilities are gorgeous, any NATO member with any trough, a typical aircraft carrier, will love these miracle cars, this is not a useless ferret, but a full-fledged strike aircraft.

[NEXUS]

Quote: Herkulesich

And why is it not put on the last American aircraft carrier?

The aircraft carrier is F-35S ...

Quote: Herkulesich

There they seem to fit more?

No ... the C version has wings ... and the Version doesn't ...

[Aaron Zawi]

Quote: Herkulesich

And why is it not put on the last American aircraft carrier? There they seem to fit more?

Tula designed by F-35C.

[Alexey-74]

It looks beautiful, but the target is excellent .... big!

[FLOOD]

Performance characteristics
Type "Wasp" (Wasp)
Displacement: 41 150 t.
Dimensions: length 253,2 m, width 31,8 m, draft 8,1 m
Power plant: twin-shaft steam turbine (two turbines) with a capacity of 70 liters. with.
Speed: 22 knot
Navigation range: 9500 miles with 18 ties.
Crew: 1208 people.
Landing capacity: 1894 people.
Cargo capacity: 2860 m3 for the main cargo and 1852 m2 for equipment.
Planes and helicopters: AV-8B, AH-1W, CH-46, CH-53 and UH-1N, the number depends on the task.
Armament: two eight-shot launchers Mk 29 of the Reigeon company for missile launcher Sea Sparrow with a semi-active radar guidance system, two launchers Mk 49 of the company General Dynamics for missiles RIM-116A (infrared guidance system); three six-barreled 20-mm ZAK “Vulkan-Falanks” MK 15 of the General Dynamics company (two on the LHD-5-7), four 25-mm AC Mk 38 (three on the LHD-5-7), four 12,7- mm machine gun.
EW / REP facilities: four or six six-barreled launchers for the Mk 36 SRB0C false target setting system of the Loral Highcor company, SLQ-25 Nixi sonar counters, Sea Gnat false targets, AN / SLQ-49 buoyed false targets , EW system AN / SLQ-32.
REV: radar - OVTS AN / SPS-52 (or -48) and AN / SPS-49, OHUAN / SPS-67, navigation and firing control, receiver URN-25 of the TACAN radio navigation system.
Steep trough however ...

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

Good, you can’t say anything ... Such an aircraft multiplies the capabilities of helicopter carriers ... It wouldn’t hurt either ...

[irazum]

Logically, if the decked version can take a little time, then the ILC aviation has long been in need of updating. "Harrier" is not eternal.

[Kyzmich]

Quote: NIKNN

Quote: iwind

И

Honestly? I was impressed ..., The vertical line is cool ..., given that take-off from 2/3 of the deck ..., he will take his own load of almost 7 tons, really ...

7 tons is you very optimistic!
Given that there is no springboard on these UDCs, it can be assumed that it does not take off with full tanks and a combat load of the order of 1000-1500 kg with a combat radius of 200 km.