Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

Never under estimate the importance of 'politics' in military decisions. If the USMC are going to keep dedicated USMC air after Harrier they need F-35B. 'Seamlessly' running Harrier into F-35B makes the chances of having that kind of, important, air support cut far less likely.

Yep, at those levels decisions are every bit as much influenced by political factors as military ones ... hopefully the military factors take priority but as we've seen far to often this isn't always the case.

[jp10]

You might want to wait to buy a ticket for an F-35 ride yet.

276 faults found in F-35 jets.

"THE MAIN ISSUES

Fixing the 25mm cannon which vibrates excessively
Way it is targeted by the aircraft’s ‘virtual reality’ helmet needs work
Overheating, premature wear of components in the vertical tails and vulnerability to fire also an issue
Aircraft’s ‘objectionable or unacceptable flying qualities’ while crossing the sound barrier – for which there are currently no plans for a fix."

http://dailywesterner.com/news/2017-...combat-system/

[shahadi]

Now the fate of the F-35B may well be enhanced now that SecDef James Mattis, a decorated USMC general, considered as a scholar assumes authority of the department of defense.

Let's hope he influences Lockheed Martin in the best interests of the MAW's and the land element marines.


=====

[jp10]

Ever see a General without decorations? It's like a Christmas tree without ornaments. Without them, you are just a tree.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by shahadi

Now the fate of the F-35B may well be enhanced now that SecDef James Mattis, a decorated USMC general, considered as a scholar assumes authority of the department of defense.

Let's hope he influences Lockheed Martin in the best interests of the MAW's and the land element marines.
=====

Him and Trump both.

I don't see any indication either plans to shut down the F-35, in spite of those that claim it should be. But rather they plan to get the bloated and inefficient military-industrial system under control, long overdue.

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Him and Trump both.

I don't see any indication either plans to shut down the F-35, in spite of those that claim it should be. But rather they plan to get the bloated and inefficient military-industrial system under control, long overdue.

I don't mean to quibble, but I did say "enhanced."

=====

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

My purpose with the next is very basic, simply it is to provide general information on who is currently operating carriers in the world now and what their capabilities are in regards to combat aircraft and air assault troop capabilities or a combination of both as many listed have. Why? To allow for these options to be available in the game and for scenarios that amphibious assaults are part of the mix. It hasn't been just about "landing craft" for a very longtime now. A minor point that might add a new dimension to the game or your scenarios. The upside you wouldn't even need to show/or build the ships after all these are over the horizon operations in the first place.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...raft-carriers/
http://www.military-today.com/navy.htm

I leave you the main site that covers 10 main topics as noted in the left side column. They do cover a lot of ground and is well researched. I'd hate to lose this site like a couple of others so if you think about click on it "traffic counts" are real important to defense sites due to the "niche" market they serve.
http://www.military-today.com/index.htm

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

Thanks... got the New Japanese 8x8 APC from the link

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

That wasn't my intention!?! Would you believe I've already been tracking the replacement for the TYPE 97 APC? I'll give you what I have in the "right thread" for that information which is fairly new.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I forgot to add to the above about the carriers, they would not serve any other purpose in the game much as an airfield doesn't. I could see the argument maybe why some would say there should be a plenty for a carrier. If that should be the case, and just for "food for thought" such penalty should be at either 250 or no more then 500 points plus the cost of the assets involved in jets and air assault troops. But again no penalty for airfields should apply to carriers. A nice picture of the vessel, aircraft/helos fitted for close air support, available from turn one dropping all ordnance, with a ten turn delay between sorties of the pairs as used allowing for recovery, rearming and return, yes as fully loaded aircraft. It can be done after speaking to a retired USN "AO". This assumes a near over the horizon capability of the carrier 100NM off the coast with the jet returning at a speed of 700 knots, flight time would be less than 8.57 minutes. I'm assuming sortie times and delay only because I'm going by memory, that each player turn is 6 mins long? I also only see six to ten pairs being available (Less where limited to available aircraft.) for use based on "other missions in the area" off map. Helos might incur around 12 turn cycle, however their support ships would be at least or could be well inside 50NM from shore.

Air Assault - I think were Jets and possibly AH Helos would fall under the artillery phase to allow for the turn delays. Regular Assault helos might not allow for the return to ship to bring in additional troops and might just have to sit in low altitude hover out to sea on the map unless there is a way to fly them off the map and be able to bring them back on the board when inland progress is being made and using them to lift the troops further inland. Don't know, that's beyond my expertise out here.

Other issues - How hard would it be or can it be done to rearm the recovered jets and attack helos. Or do you just use KISS increase the pairings slightly and simply once they appear on the map and drop all their ordnance, we assume if not shot down they return to the carrier to support "other ops" and NOT return to your AOR.

If your going to suggest something you gotta present the Pro and Cons as far as you can see them. Just me I guess. But I think the concept could open another dimension to the game beyond just landings to maybe include coastal countries as well either locally i.e. Brazil, France (As demonstrated in the Middle East.) or more of world wide projection which in reality might only mean the U.S. and maybe the UK. I can see this for China in the not to distant future as well and India somewhat more operating in the Asian AOR.

Just my thoughts all from a harmless conversation with a retired "AO". That last (AO) is the homework part!


Regards,
Pat