Could NATO survive without US backing?

[43096]

equipped the new Carriers with catapult as was the first idea

The carrier design at the outset was flexible and could have taken catapults or STOVL, depending on what aircraft design was chosen.

 

[Railwaycat]

The RAF, when it had the harrier, could disperse to edge of woods, clearings, and would be hard to track down, and destroy, but Due to the complexities the F35 that we have despite having VTOL, still need very complex back system maintenance, that would be hard in the field,

It's not vertical take off, just landing - STOVL, short take off vertical landing.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Apr 2026 ==

Even if detection technology improves, today's stealth aircraft is going to be harder to detect than today's non-stealth aircraft.

You don't know that though - they might become the same or similar.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Apr 2026 ==

If your argument is that we should only buy things that won't become obsolete, then we shouldn't buy anything.

I'm not arguing anything, just making an observation. The F35 is expensive and, apparently, complicated - should we be buying cheaper aircraft in larger quantities and equipping them with longer range missile systems so that radar detection isn't a problem? If you can only use the internal weapons bay to avoid detection then I think that's poor value for money.

 

[JamesT]

I'm not arguing anything, just making an observation. The F35 is expensive and, apparently, complicated - should we be buying cheaper aircraft in larger quantities and equipping them with longer range missile systems so that radar detection isn't a problem? If you can only use the internal weapons bay to avoid detection then I think that's poor value for money.

Wasn’t that the mistake the US made before Vietnam? Deciding the future was basically firing stand-off missiles. But found out you do actually need to close to visual range to confirm your target so something that can dogfight is much better.

 

[najaB]

You don't know that though - they might become the same or similar.

Absent the invention of new physics, it's virtually certain. Non-stealth aircraft are detectable by 1950s radar sets in addition to whatever advanced technology comes next.

 

[Dave61]

Wasn’t that the mistake the US made before Vietnam? Deciding the future was basically firing stand-off missiles. But found out you do actually need to close to visual range to confirm your target so something that can dogfight is much better.

That was the US Navy F-4 Fhantom but in those days they were doing dogfights down to 500 feet which is not todays way of doing things.

 

[The exile]

Absent the invention of new physics, it's virtually certain. Non-stealth aircraft are detectable by 1950s radar sets in addition to whatever advanced technology comes next.

Ah but will new detection technology make them any more detectable? I think the point is that if non- stealth craft are already fully detectable, even cleverer detectors aren’t going to change anything for them, but might /will reduce previously “stealth” craft to a similar level of detectability. A bit like the introduction of a really effective armour piercing shell removes one of the advantages a tank has over a horse.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A major Achilles heel we have is the nuclear submarine deterrent (Trident) being a hybrid UK/US programme.
France does not have the same dependence on the US for its nuclear deterrent.

 

[cactustwirly]

A major Achilles heel we have is the nuclear submarine deterrent (Trident) being a hybrid UK/US programme.
France does not have the same dependence on the US for its nuclear deterrent.

The only thing US is the launch mechanism, the actual warheads and submarines are UK designed and made