So, just how useless are the European NATO members?

[Hauldren Collider]

I saw a video where they were testing a refueling module for the V-22. Perhaps Britain could use those? Could probably also mount a radar on it.

[regexcellent]

They use other Hornets to tank the Hornets.

That doesn't work at large scales at all for a number of very good reasons.

First of all, each jet only carries enough fuel to increase the flight time of two other planes by about an hour, or 30 minutes round-trip--in itself not an impressive figure (this is back of the napkin math but I think it's roughly accurate). That means you need to reserve 1/3 of your fighters for tanking duty. Except that if there's a mechanical failure on one of the tankers, or one gets attacked and has to drop its tanks, you need a spare to launch to cover the gap so fighters don't fall into the sea from fuel starvation. So you need more than that.

This is worse than having fewer planes carrying bombs. It means every strike you launch has to be more than 50% larger. Coordinating runways for large sorties is difficult even at normal airbases on land and it's a ****ing nightmare on an aircraft carrier.

And, to top off the **** sundae, the five-wet configuration on a Hornet (four fuel tanks, one fuel tank/refuel drogue) is extremely heavy. It increases the maintenance load and reduces the airframe's life.

None of this buddy refueling helps the RAF or Fleet Air Arm in the slightest, because the F-35B doesn't have buddy refueling.

I saw a video where they were testing a refueling module for the V-22. Perhaps Britain could use those? Could probably also mount a radar on it.

V-22s only carry ~10 tons of cargo, which is actually less than the F-35B's internal fuel load. Plus (and granted I'm not sure this is an issue, but it could be) the V-22 is not pressurized so it can't fly above 10,000 feet.

[Hauldren Collider]

You're not seriously saying the F-35B carries 10 tons of fuel...?

EDIT: Wow, I guess it does. That's a lot. Wow.

EDIT 2: Wiki says the refueling module for the v-22 carries 12,000 lbs of fuel.

[regexcellent]

Actually I was wrong, not 10 tons, it carries about 9 tons of fuel according to wiki, so the V-22 in between its normal internal fuel load and maximum internal cargo load does carry more gas than the F-35 without drop tanks.

Still, that gets you two jets. I don't think Britain is willing to spend the money for V-22s anyway though.

[ColdWizard]

That doesn't work at large scales at all for a number of very good reasons.

Pffftt. Carriers aren't used for large scale strikes. It's why strategic bombers exist.

None of this buddy refueling helps the RAF or Fleet Air Arm in the slightest, because the F-35B doesn't have buddy refueling.

They won't need refueling to take on anyone that's both willing and able to invade the Falklands, which is about all the RN might be good for since they can't even muster a decent showing for royal jubilees.

[Lonestar]

Pffftt. Carriers aren't used for large scale strikes. It's why strategic bombers exist.

I think you mean

THE TLAM SWARM

[ColdWizard]

I think you mean

THE TLAM SWARM

Those are just to make the poor suckers stuck on tin cans feel useful.

[Lonestar]

THEY SHALL BLOT OUT THE SUN

[ColdWizard]

WAIT WAIT! WE'RE NOT DONE! WE JUST HAVE TO UNREP REAL QUICK!

[Hauldren Collider]

WAIT WAIT! WE'RE NOT DONE! WE JUST HAVE TO UNREP REAL QUICK!

Can they actually replenish tomahawks at sea?

[C0ckney]

ken: i have read your post a few times and i can't really work out what you are trying to say.

you recognise the problems of colonialism and the damage it did to those peoples, but you want to impose a solution on those same peoples from without; only this time with noble motives, because that makes all the difference!

you say you support interventions, but then go to list (some of) the reasons why they don't work.

you want democracy for all but then bemoan how attempts to impose it always turn out in reality.

etc.

[ColdWizard]

Can they actually replenish tomahawks at sea?

Shhh! Don't discourage them! They might quit and then the USN won't have enough redshirts.



(No.)

[kittenOFchaos]

It won't be long before Australia's navy is more powerful than Britain's, despite having a quarter of the population.

The Royal Navy is going through a period of renewal with plenty of new ships and submarines having been commissioned or coming soon.

In terms of submarines the Astute class is replacing our older Trafalgar submarines.

The Type 45 Destroyers are very modern indeed and a significant upgrade.

In a few years time the Queen Elizabeth II aircraft carriers will be up and running and should (fingers crossed) make the Royal Navy more capable than ever.

Of course many of us would like the Royal Navy to be larger, but I certainly don't see how that the Royal Australian Navy can be considered to be growing into a more powerful entity than the Royal Navy now or in the near future. You'd need to explain that.

[Elok]

That sounds good, except I have a hard time taking a ship called "Astute" seriously. Especially as a replacement for something as badass as "Trafalgar." "Famous naval victory" >>> "Why yes, we did ace the Verbal SAT!" (Or whatever Britain has instead of the SAT)

EDIT: Before you ask, no, I don't have anything non-inane to contribute to the thread at present.

[kittenOFchaos]

Yeah, let's **** over old people to buy tanks and bombs we don't actually need.

The same logic that has taken us into two World Wars with serious deficiencies. Had we spent more in peacetime, perhaps we wouldn't have had to sell the family china at bargain basement prices when the **** hit the fan.

There is logic to the saying "Those who love peace should prepare for war" and I am concerned that there isn't sufficient preparation for conflict with Russia and an over-reliance on American intervention. A future US President and/or Congress may not be willing to risk a nuclear war for the sake of mainland Europe and ultimately why should Europeans ask them to?