Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
johns624 wrote:It depends if countries keep building carriers without catapults.
IADFCO wrote:During the Cold War, one of the rationales for the Harrier was that it would be able to operate without needing a runway, under the assumption that many runways in Western Europe would be rendered inoperable in the first few hours of a conflict. Of course there are other ways to address the issue, such as adapting stretches of highways to be used as runways, and some European countries did just that, but the rationale still stands today.
Max Q wrote:johns624 wrote:It depends if countries keep building carriers without catapults.
Well that’s kind of backwards, VSTOL fighters such as the Harrier and F35B came first, then the RN and a few other nations realized they could be operated on much smaller ships without arresting gear or catapults
No one’s going to build a ‘carrier’ just for a VSTOL fighter if no such aircraft is being built anymore
All you have then is a big helicopter carrier
WIederling wrote:There will be no conflict in style of what was expected in the 60ties.
With drones and better airfield protection ( and more standoff range via refueling ) the use case diminishes.
Max Q wrote:I'm not talking about "smaller ships". I'm talking about the QE-class. They could've easily made them CATO ships and bought the C model, but didn't.johns624 wrote:It depends if countries keep building carriers without catapults.
Well that’s kind of backwards, VSTOL fighters such as the Harrier and F35B came first, then the RN and a few other nations realized they could be operated on much smaller ships without arresting gear or catapults
No one’s going to build a ‘carrier’ just for a VSTOL fighter if no such aircraft is being built anymore
All you have then is a big helicopter carrier
GalaxyFlyer wrote:Smaller than what? It's bigger by a lot than the French Charles de Gaulle and about the same size as the Forrestal. It isn't some LHD. It could've easily been equipped with cats.The QE-class is a smaller ship.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:Nimitz-class carriers, Ford-class
johns624 wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:Nimitz-class carriers, Ford-class
They are still large fleet carriers.
RJMAZ wrote:
I think there will be a subsonic stealth VTOL multi role aircraft in a few decades time. It will replace tilt rotors, combat helicopters, black hawk, A-10 etc.
IADFCO wrote:Possible technically, but not economically. Hover efficiency drops dramatically with increasing disk loading, see Harrier/F35B vs tilt-rotor vs helicopter.
You can't beat physics.
texl1649 wrote:With super carriers becoming increasingly indefensible vs. hypersonic/stealth/drone/space-based attacks, it’s unlikely a future joint program a la F-35 could be committed to a VTOL concept, nor could one plausibly sustain development costs as a stand alone platform. Niche roles, sure, but not a real all around fighter/strike tactical platform (at least, a manned one).
par13del wrote:The market is small and with the F35B just coming into use, there's really no reason for another one to be developed yet.I just think the industry is not really interested in a Harrier replacement.
LightningZ71 wrote:Forward deployment, while putting your airfields at greater risk, allows you to accomplish missions with decreased logistics chains.