Re:
Please enlighten me as to the range of the T42's radar compared to the 400 mile range of the T45? Also critically during the Falklands the T42 could not determine friend from foe, which meant they had to remain outside the box dedicated to Harrier. Also the intense level of 'clutter' in and arounf the Islands would have tested even the most advanced ships sensors in 82. The T45 can track 100's of targets simultaneously and (assuming the right equipment is fitted) determine friend from foe and engage accordingly.
Type 965 - detection range 220nm (400km). That's to tackle exocet missiles with 38nm ranges. Today, its tackling much longer ranged anti-ship missiles like 156nm ranged Brahmos or 215+nm range YJ-62s which outrange the Aster 30s. The detection vs missile range ratios have significantly dropped since '82 even as detection range has gone up to 345nm. The EW capabilities on aggressor aircraft have improved (when there were none in Falklands). Ingress speeds have increased and so have detection ranges of maritime patrol a/c. That's not even counting the fact that a/c load-outs have increased massively so instead of single exocets, we're talking about multiple bogeys from multiple vectors. The amount of early warning time may not be significantly enhanced (and may indeed be reduced) from '82 once one takes into account these factors.
The Type 42s had IFF. In fact, that pretty standard since 1942 even in the ww2 sheffields CLs.
The optimism on the Type 42 capability demonstrated during the early 80s appears to be now replicated with the type 45. Ultimately, my point is rather than looking at absolute capabilities, it also has to be relative to the potential aggressor's capabilities. And shipborne radar still suffers from the standard inherent disadvantages of ground/surface based radar.
No doubt, the Type 45s are more effective than the Type 42s. But can they deal with current air threats more effectively than the anti air warfare Type 42s could do with their adversaries? You are entitled to your optimism but my views are tainted by the '82 experience.
And when has an Invincible ever carried 18 Harriers in an operational context from the get go, never? Let's separate fantasy from reality, sustaining operations is more than simply cramming airframes inside a hanger, what about crewing, logistics, maintenance cycles and the other rotary assets required (AeW & S&R.), which have to be carried.
The total aircraft complement of the Invincibles have been maxed out ie 22/23 in the Falklands (just that it was with 9 sea kings). The question is whether 6 F-35Bs exceeds the max a/c complement when operating with just 4-8 sea kings.
What exactly is fantasy is stating 6 F-35Bs + a complement of 8 sea kings will need more pilots and maintainers than what the Invincible can operate.
Same thing with logistical requirements eg fuel, spares, logistical footprint etc. Maintenance cycles have absolutely nothing to do with ops at sea and even then, to state that 6 F-35Bs can't be maintained on the Invincibles is again not borne by any objective analysis. As to rotary assets, that's according to mission. As you can see, surge mission for the CVF entails only 4 helos to allow 36 F-35s to be based. Same thing can be done with the Invincibles.
Ultimately, the statement that the Invincibles can't operate even 6 F-35s on a sustained basis is not supported by fact but only unsubstantiated assumptions.
