MILITARY MUSCLE: British F-35Bs Will Soon Fly Middle East Combat Missions From HMS Queen Elizabeth (ROYAL NAVY IS BACK)

[LeGenD]

British carriers are weaker than Chinese carriers.

Both have similar displacement with STOBAR (Ski-jump) launch system.

British Queen Elizabeth class is equipped with much more powerful radar system* and propulsion** however.

*S1850M LRR (technical ability to track up to 1000 targets at a range of around 400 KM)

**Rolls-Royce MT30 x 2 (makes it possible for the host ship to cover distance of around 10,000 nautical miles)

F-35B is no match for J-15 for example.

Is this a joke? F-35B is on another level of combat capability in comparison to any Flanker type in existence with VLO-compliant design, top-of-the-line sensor systems and VTOL engine design.

Not to mention British navy lacks large warships like Type 055.

This is true.

 

[Goritoes]

Impressive

 

[KAL-EL]

The HMS Queen Elizabeth looks like a mighty ship.

Would love to see it on maneuvers side-by-side with the very mighty USS Gerald R Ford

 

[UKBengali]

The HMS Queen Elizabeth looks like a mighty ship.

Would love to see it on maneuvers side-by-side with the very mighty USS Gerald R Ford

Remember that the 2 QE class carriers were built for but not with EMALs.

When they are due to have their mid-life upgrades in the 2040s, expect the ski-jump to go and EMALs fitted.

Naval UK Tempest 6th gen fighter and US E-2X AWACs will then be possible on the QE Class carriers.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

British Queen Elizabeth class is equipped with much more powerful radar system* and propulsion** however.

This is arguable. The Chinese carriers equipped with Type 346B AESA panels shared with Type 052D and Type 055 destroyers are no slouch either.

Is this a joke? F-35B is on another level of combat capability in comparison to any Flanker type in existence with VLO-compliant design, top-of-the-line sensor systems and VTOL engine design.

We'll need to see in real world performance to validate the stealth claim.

 

[LeGenD]

This is arguable. The Chinese carriers equipped with Type 346B AESA panels shared with Type 052D and Type 055 destroyers are no slouch either.

AESA exist in all shapes and sizes and performance levels vary.

Liaoning has Type 382 Sea Eagle 3D Search Radar. It is good radar system but nowhere close to performance levels of S1850M LRR as per information in public domain.

We'll need to see in real world performance to validate the stealth claim.

It works everywhere. You are discussing military themes and but do not have even basics right.

 

[Leishangthem]

1- USN
2-ROYAL NAVY
3- PLAN

Both have similar displacement with STOBAR (Ski-jump) launch system.

British Queen Elizabeth class is equipped with much more powerful radar system* and propulsion** however.

*S1850M LRR (technical ability to track up to 1000 targets at a range of around 400 KM)

**Rolls-Royce MT30 x 2 (makes it possible for the host ship to cover distance of around 10,000 nautical miles)


Is this a joke? F-35B is on another level of combat capability in comparison to any Flanker type in existence with VLO-compliant design, top-of-the-line sensor systems and VTOL engine design.


This is true.

Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force is more powerful than the little Royal Navy .

Lol UK is building destroyers since decades ànd you're just started to build destroyers from scratch since late 90s go live on your fairytales ànd fantasy world that TYPE- 55 IS BETTER THAN TYPE 45

Type 055 destroyer has x/s dual-band active phased array radar, while type 45 is only equipped with a single-band radar and is a passive phased array. Only one Gerald Ford class in US navy, has dual band x-s radar.055 can track and attack more aircraft at same time.


0ld and small-tonnage TYPE 45 hull cannot provide more energy to the larger radar ( There is no more space for gas turbine installation) . The VLS unit of 055 is much larger than that of type 45, which is 850mm*850mm*9000mm,it enables 055 to carry larger missiles that including hypersonic missiles in the near future. 055 is equipped with type 1130 CIWS with 11 * 30MM barrel,type 45 ,2*30 mm barrel. Type 45 Destroyer underpowered with only a 48 VLS cell, China type 055 has 112 VLS cells, and USN Arleigh Burke has 92

type 55 is also stacked better than the Arleigh Burke class. Type 55 is probably the best in its class there's no place to lump the type 45 as better one in affirmation of western supremacy against type 55.

 

[UKBengali]

Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force is more powerful than the little Royal Navy .

Type 055 destroyer has x/s dual-band active phased array radar, while type 45 is only equipped with a single-band radar and is a passive phased array. Only one Gerald Ford class in US navy, has dual band x-s radar.055 can track and attack more aircraft at same time.


0ld and small-tonnage TYPE 45 hull cannot provide more energy to the larger radar ( There is no more space for gas turbine installation) . The VLS unit of 055 is much larger than that of type 45, which is 850mm*850mm*9000mm,it enables 055 to carry larger missiles that including hypersonic missiles in the near future. 055 is equipped with type 1130 CIWS with 11 * 30MM barrel,type 45 ,2*30 mm barrel. Type 45 Destroyer underpowered with only a 48 VLS cell, China type 055 has 112 VLS cells, and USN Arleigh Burke has 92

type 55 is also stacked better than the Arleigh Burke class. Type 55 is probably the best in its class there's no place to lump the type 45 as better one in affirmation of western supremacy against type 55.

Let us at least get some basics right.


No Japanese Navy is not better than the UK's RN as they have no SSNs and lack the 2 large 70,000 tonne carriers that the UK has in service.
Just these 2 carriers can hold up to 100 F-35Bs and still be efficient at flight ops.


As an example of how good the UK's RN is going to get, check out the below upcoming Type-26 "frigate":

It is 8000 tonnes at full load and so as heavy as a lot of destroyers out there.


There are 12 cell VLS for 48 25km range CAMM SAMs and the 24 Mk 41 VLS can hold a mix of Tomahawk land/anti-ship cruise missiles, VL-ASROC, or quad-packed CAMM/ESSM(50km range) SAMs.

8 of these are coming into service and 5 more lesser capability frigates will also join the fleet to replace the 13 Type-23 frigates in service now.

As for the Type-45 destroyer, no it has an AESA radar and is 8500 tonnes at full load. It currently has 48 VLS cells for 48 Aster 15/30 SAMs but there is space for another 24 which has not been taken up. It also has space to carry 8 Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Yes the UK RN may be small in terms of overall numbers but the quality and firepower of its vessels are only matched by the USN in the Western world.

 

[SpaceMan18]

Let us at least get some basics right.


No Japanese Navy is not better than the UK's RN as they have no SSNs and lack the 2 large 70,000 tonne carriers that the UK has in service.
Just these 2 carriers can hold up to 100 F-35Bs and still be efficient at flight ops.


As an example of how good the UK's RN is going to get, check out the below upcoming Type-26 "frigate":

View attachment 743015


It is 8000 tonnes at full load and so as heavy as a lot of destroyers out there.


There are 12 cell VLS for 48 25km range CAMM SAMs and the 24 Mk 41 VLS can hold a mix of Tomahawk land/anti-ship cruise missiles, VL-ASROC, or quad-packed CAMM/ESSM(50km range) SAMs.

8 of these are coming into service and 5 more lesser capability frigates will also join the fleet to replace the 13 Type-23 frigates in service now.

As for the Type-45 destroyer, no it has an AESA radar and is 8500 tonnes at full load. It currently has 48 VLS cells for 48 Aster 15/30 SAMs but there is space for another 24 which has not been taken up. It also has space to carry 8 Tomahawk crusie missiles.

Yes the UK RN may be small in terms of overall numbers but the quality and firepower of its vessels are only matched by the USN in the Western world.

The thing is that does Japan even need an SSN since nuclear powered submarines are generally known to be louder than conventional diesel powered electric subs ? I mean SSN are used due to having a longer range

And yes the Brits have 2 70,000 ton carriers which is amazing , also idk why America prevents Japan from making aircraft carriers though

 

[UKBengali]

The thing is that does Japan even need an SSN since nuclear powered submarines are generally known to be louder than conventional diesel powered electric subs ? I mean SSN are used due to having a longer range

And yes the Brits have 2 70,000 ton carriers which is amazing , also idk why America prevents Japan from making aircraft carriers though

True SSNs are noisier but you cannot really use diesel subs offensively as they are slower and anyway making them trying to go fast like SSNs increases their noise levels dramatically.

Japanese do have aircraft carriers but calling them " cruisers" They have 2 of 27,000 tonnes each and they will both be able to carry 20 F-35Bs at maximum war-fighting mode. Japan has orderd 42 F-35Bs for this purpose.

The next logical step is for the Japanese to drop any pretence and build 2 aircraft carriers the same size as the UK, 70,000 tonnes each, has done and then China will really have something to worry about!

 

[Invicta]

Let us at least get some basics right.


No Japanese Navy is not better than the UK's RN as they have no SSNs and lack the 2 large 70,000 tonne carriers that the UK has in service.
Just these 2 carriers can hold up to 100 F-35Bs and still be efficient at flight ops.


As an example of how good the UK's RN is going to get, check out the below upcoming Type-26 "frigate":

View attachment 743015


It is 8000 tonnes at full load and so as heavy as a lot of destroyers out there.


There are 12 cell VLS for 48 25km range CAMM SAMs and the 24 Mk 41 VLS can hold a mix of Tomahawk land/anti-ship cruise missiles, VL-ASROC, or quad-packed CAMM/ESSM(50km range) SAMs.

8 of these are coming into service and 5 more lesser capability frigates will also join the fleet to replace the 13 Type-23 frigates in service now.

As for the Type-45 destroyer, no it has an AESA radar and is 8500 tonnes at full load. It currently has 48 VLS cells for 48 Aster 15/30 SAMs but there is space for another 24 which has not been taken up. It also has space to carry 8 Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Yes the UK RN may be small in terms of overall numbers but the quality and firepower of its vessels are only matched by the USN in the Western world.

There is a reason why the famed and much better USN happily allows Type 45 to tag along in its carrier strike group. They are insanely capable vessels, only ignorance will have you believe otherwise.
Their area denial capability for short range is much better than anything USN has, the only reason A.Burke Class has over Type 45 is ballistic missile defence and ASW capability.

In short A.Burke is a jack of all trades destroyer, Type 45 has one job only and it does it extremely well.

 

[SpaceMan18]

True SSNs are noisier but you cannot really use diesel subs offensively as they are slower and anyway making them trying to go fast like SSNs increases their noise levels dramatically.

Japanese do have aircraft carriers but calling them " cruisers" They have 2 of 27,000 tonnes each and they will both be able to carry 20 F-35Bs at maximum war-fighting mode. Japan has orderd 42 F-35Bs for this purpose.

The next logical step is for the Japanese to drop any pretence and build 2 aircraft carriers the same size as the UK, 70,000 tonnes each, has done and then China will really have something to worry about!

I guess , Japan has to name their " carrier " destroyers or something to evade the laws that the U.S put against them and yes they need to build actual carriers hopefully.

But the thing is that the Chinese can just spam CMs at the carrier which can be devastating sadly ( also I'm not sure if Chinese subs are that good ) but they can be a serious threat to these carriers also

 

[Leishangthem]

Let us at least get some basics right.


No Japanese Navy is not better than the UK's RN as they have no SSNs and lack the 2 large 70,000 tonne carriers that the UK has in service.
Just these 2 carriers can hold up to 100 F-35Bs and still be efficient at flight ops.


As an example of how good the UK's RN is going to get, check out the below upcoming Type-26 "frigate":

View attachment 743015


It is 8000 tonnes at full load and so as heavy as a lot of destroyers out there.


There are 12 cell VLS for 48 25km range CAMM SAMs and the 24 Mk 41 VLS can hold a mix of Tomahawk land/anti-ship cruise missiles, VL-ASROC, or quad-packed CAMM/ESSM(50km range) SAMs.

8 of these are coming into service and 5 more lesser capability frigates will also join the fleet to replace the 13 Type-23 frigates in service now.

As for the Type-45 destroyer, no it has an AESA radar and is 8500 tonnes at full load. It currently has 48 VLS cells for 48 Aster 15/30 SAMs but there is space for another 24 which has not been taken up. It also has space to carry 8 Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Yes the UK RN may be small in terms of overall numbers but the quality and firepower of its vessels are only matched by the USN in the Western world.

UK warship radar is not dual band AESA x - s array radar,just s band,only one G.ford class has that for now.Inferior in almost every speck from radar to stealth.

Imagine having the stomach to gloat about royal navy being better than PLAN fleet ;these folk are like Indian
gloater on twitter.

Japan has 26 destroyers,some of which are defecto aircraft carriers that can carry up to 28 aircraft each.
Japanese navy is superior than the UK navy with 6 destroyers. Unless you pull the nuclear card,but that's a whole different ball game.
Japanese navy made short work out of the British ones during ww2,the western warmongers were no match for Japanese navy.

 

[UKBengali]

UK warship radar is not dual band AESA x - s array radar,just s band,only one G.ford class has that for now.Inferior in almost every speck from radar to stealth.

Imagine having the stomach to gloat about royal navy being better than PLAN fleet ;these folk are like Indian
gloater on twitter.

Japan has 26 destroyers,some of which are defecto aircraft carriers that can carry up to 28 aircraft each.
Japanese navy is superior than the UK navy with 6 destroyers. Unless you pull the nuclear card,but that's a whole different ball game.
Japanese navy made short work out of the British ones during ww2,the western warmongers were no match for Japanese navy.

Dude, did you even bother trying to read and understand the lengthy post I made.

Yes the two "assault ships" of the JN can carry 28 aircraft each but this pales into comparison to 60 of each of the 2 QE Class carriers.

As for the RN's surface combatants, the 8 Type-26 "frigates" that will start coming into service from the latter part of this decade are as powerful as most destroyers due to their size and weapons load. You can even put long-range SAMs in theory into the 24 Mk-41 VLS cells they will have!

JN is good as a defensive force but cannot compete in the open ocean with a true blue-water navy such as the UK's RN.

 

[Leishangthem]

Dude, did you even bother trying to read and understand the lengthy post I made.

Yes the two "assault ships" of the JN can carry 28 aircraft each but this pales into comparison to 60 of each of the 2 QE Class carriers.

As for the RN's surface combatants, the 8 Type-26 "frigates" that will start coming into service from the latter part of this decade are as powerful as most destroyers due to their size and weapons load. You can even put long-range SAMs in theory into the 24 Mk-41 VLS cells they will have!

JN is good as a defensive force but cannot compete in the open ocean with a true blue-water navy such as the UK's RN.

I simply said JSDMF is better navy,which it is .Neither UK military is an effective attack fleet nor an effective defensive fleet. JSDMF has larger fleet and does the job it's supposed to do more proficiently.

Atleast people here stopped pushing the baselss notion that 1 .USNAVY 2 ROYAL NAVY (LOOOOL) 3 .PLAN

bc it englaaND1