Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "What We Can Expect From Britain’s New Carriers | Forces TV" video.

  1. ***** its really the Falklands war why the RAF is opting for STOVL. the capable of planes like the Harrier and F-35B to go from ship to shore with little preparations is huge combat ability
    4
  2. HenryDavidT the UK would have gone with CATOBAR if EMALS and AAG were ready at the time the QE was being built however neither was even right now, the AAG is still not quite ready The UK can interoperate with the US on its LHA/D class ships with the F-35B but not on CVNs like the French Rafale.  The root of the problem was the Eurofighter. If they had agreed for a carrier capable of the EF, France would have stayed in that project.The result would be a carrier capable EF that UK could have used for its QE class. It would have given the UK similar capability like the US and France and allowed UK planes to train and operate on US CVNs like the French do Hell right now , French and US is looking at 18 Rafales possibly operating of a US CVN while the De gulle is repair
    2
  3. The UK going to STOVL over CATOBAR saves them money at the cost of capabilities. as far as training, the French make use of US carriers and training centers no reason the UK cant do the say as for STOVL vs CATOBAR CATOBAR always has the advantage.
    1
  4. Fedaykin24 The F-35B can operate on US CVN however it is not preferred. The decks of US LHA/D are treated for VTOL and be retreated to handle the F-35B http://aviationweek.com/awin/us-navy-details-ship-mods-required-f-35 CVNs decks dont have same treatments. Harriers have landed on CVNS but not conducted sustained operations is what you are missing. the F-35B can operate on those ships but as mentioned, the decks will have to be treated so it can conduct sustained operations. France leaving is why there the carrier version of the Eurofigther never got off the drawing board
    1
  5. ***** wow you are clueless first even with CATOBAR, the SU-30 would have never been a choice period first look at size Length/Width the F-35B 50/35 Mig-29K 57/34 F-18E/F 60/44 Su-33 69/48 Su-30 72/48 next is size of the carrier The US operates the 100,000 plus CVNs so size of planes is never problem however the Russia carrier Kuzentsov at max is able carry 25 Su-33 due its large size hence the decision to add the MiG-29K and reduce the number of Su-33  the UK QE class is able to carry to 50 F-35s however its similar in size to Russia carrier so adding the Su-30 would cut the carrier's wing size by half or less lastly, is capability the Su-30 is able to carry 8 tons of weapons however it lacks many modern featurs no link 16, targeting pod,  its bombs and missiles are hopeless outdated example the UK uses US JDAM and PAVEWAY IV is dual mode laser/GPS whereas the Russian KAB series is single mode the Su-30s general purpose missile is 690 KG and is able to carry 6 KH-29 whereas the UK uses 48.2 KG brimstone and the F-35B carries up 18
    1
  6. ***** "No I am not clueless Britain is only buying 48 F35's anyway" no you are clueless Britian has  42 on order with 138 planned the other half of the RAF being 160 Eurofighters with 137 delivered to date. The land basing the F-35 means what exactly? nothing The F-18 is used by 8 countries , only 1 actually uses it on carrier. buying a carrier capable plane and land basing it nothing new been done since the 40s "people underestimate Russian military jet capabilities" there is no underestimating, Russia jets are just crap The MiG-35 has been available on the market since 2007 yet to date only one country outside of Russia brought. India was given the choice of the MiG-35 in the MRCA and they passed in favor of deciding between the Rafale and Eurofighter the Su-30 you mentioned earlier the largest operator is India who builds it under license as the MKI. it has more western  technology than Russia built in it the Chinese MKK model also has more Chinese than Russia tech so countries with the capability to gut the Su-30 waste no time doing it
    1