Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Former USN Chief Suggests DOD Should Cancel F-35A  
User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2732 posts, RR: 4
Posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7088 times:

According to Flightglobal the DOD should cancel the F-35A requring the Air Force to by the C model.

Quote:
Roughead says it makes sense to have the US Air Force adopt the C-model jet because it can operate from land bases as well as from the US Navy's 11 "big deck" aircraft carriers, whereas the A-model cannot. "The reason that I said to go with the C is because you will still want to be able to use the JSF from aircraft carriers," he says. It also has greater range than the USAF's A-model aircraft.

Another source denies this being considered:

Quote:
Retired US Marine Corps Lt Gen Emerson Gardner, a former deputy director of CAPE, says that he has not heard of any study to eliminate the F-35A, but he offers a potential explanation: "This is the normal time of year for CAPE to do longer-term studies and analyses outside of the time pressures of the fall program review." He adds that if CAPE is doing this particular analysis it could be a drill to provide data for discussions in the Quadrennial Defense Review or to be prepared for the programme review of the service's programme objective memorandum 2015 later this year.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...f-35a-in-favour-of-c-model-383969/

What do my friends and co-members of airliners think abort this scenario?


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7040 times:

Quoting oykie (Thread starter):
What do my friends and co-members of airliners think abort this scenario?

Are we going to train the USAF to land on the carriers as well? Might as well get rid of the USAF and just expand the USN air wings then.....

This is not a serious proposal. Why would you cancel the model that is the furthest in development, has had the least issues, other than about 40NM extra range is the most capable and has the highest number of orders?


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7026 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 1):
Are we going to train the USAF to land on the carriers as well?

   I don't know how much money this would save at this point. Might have been a good idea a decade ago, especially seeing as how the Aussies, Swiss, Canadians, and others do just fine flying Hornets from land, which was originally pissed off NG.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days ago) and read 6951 times:

That is the most inane idea I have ever heard. This Marine airpower favoritism is pathetic! If any version should be cancelled, it is the the F-35B. Next in line for cancelling should be the F-35C. The F-35A is going to be bought in the most numbers by far, and its air to air performance is significantly better than either the B or C. Hell, the Marines don't need their own damn air force anymore, and the F-35C is a pig compared to the F-35A.
  

Anyhow, I think the article makes it clear that cancellation of the F-35A will never happen unless the entire program is canned.

Roughead clearly sees the F-35 as nothing but a bomber. Period. Only then would the C make sense.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6894 times:

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 3):
That is the most inane idea I have ever heard. This Marine airpower favoritism is pathetic! If any version should be cancelled, it is the the F-35B.

Disagree. The B is doing very well with development. There are strategic reasons why the B should continue on. Having the B allows the USN to essentially double the available carriers that they have to include the amphibs, as a sort of a Sea Control Ship. We see this in its full fruition in the America-class LHA's, which are essentially mini-aircraft carriers as they have eliminated the well decks in them. Essentially, they can allow the bigger Nimitz and Ford class carriers to be tasked for other duties, increasing operational flexibility.

Before you bemoan the lack of a well deck on the America-class LHA's, do note that the number of well decks is actually going up; heavy equipment will be transferred ashore by other LHA's, LHD's, LSD's and LPD's, along with the new Mobile Landing Platform's, which can offload equipment from Military Sealift Command's RO-RO ships directly onto LCAC's. The new MLP's can handle 3 LCAC's.


User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6778 times:

I'm not saying the B can't do what its supposed to do, rather, I have issues with the need for a STOVL aircraft period, considering how much that capability compromises the other performance aspects of the aircraft in terms of complexity, range, weight, g-loading, maneuverability, etc.

Sure, its nice to have in some very specific situations, but its not an absolutely necessary aircraft like the F-35A is. And given budget realities, it could even be considered in some ways to be irresponsible.

The ability of the USAF to be anywhere in the world in a relatively short time (thanks to hundreds of forward bases and inflight refuelling) is rendering the need for Marine, and I dare say Naval airpower irrelevant. Just look at the % of sorties and bomb tonnage dropped by naval and Marine air power in all the conflicts since the first Gulf War. It's not only disproportionately small compared to the Air Force, but the expense of carrier based aircraft and the carriers themselves is beyond ridiculous. The cost of a carrier and air wing has doubled in the past 20 years alone.

As it is, the AF is not going to get the numbers of F-35's it needs, and that should be the first priority.
I was in the Navy, and this is just my take on things. I personally believe the future of seapower is (or should be) submarines, and I don't mean those POS Virginia's.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6607 times:

Really, the B model should go. For the small numbers ordered yet big problems, if it wasnt for the A and C models, there is no way the program could be have gone forward alone with only 340 units. The jump jet concept was something that was meant for another era... an era that has passed. The USAF has strategic bases all over the world, USN has a fleet of super carriers with much more capacity than the gator navy, and attack helicopters can operate off of all these platforms. A super sonic stealth 5th gen fighter that can pop up anywhere is a really expensive asset that can be replaced with cheaper, existing platforms, or modified tactics.

IMO there is no reason for the USMC to be flying pretty much anything (including the F-35C), and just shows a lack of co-operation between the branches of the DoD. The USMC is a completely independent full military force within the largest military in the world. While it does support unique capacities, those abilities could be absorbed into the other services. Not saying to abolish the USMC... just return it to its original purpose, 'an infantry force that specializes in naval operations'. There was a time when a large USMC was justified... it was called World War II.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days ago) and read 6492 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 6):
Really, the B model should go. For the small numbers ordered yet big problems, if it wasnt for the A and C models, there is no way the program could be have gone forward alone with only 340 units

Well the C model currently has a projected order total of 360, less than the B model and frankly the B model has a far greater chance of getting export orders.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 6):
The USMC is a completely independent full military force within the largest military in the world.

The issue with this is the Marines do CAS better than the USAF and US Army. Marines talking to Marines makes a significant difference, so much so I see no way they would reduce or remove their air power and rely solely on USN and USAF assets. The marines have had air power longer than the USAF and almost as long as the USN, I can't see them giving it up now.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6444 times:

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 5):
The ability of the USAF to be anywhere in the world in a relatively short time (thanks to hundreds of forward bases and inflight refuelling) is rendering the need for Marine, and I dare say Naval airpower irrelevant.

That's dependent on the availability of foreign bases. If you don't have foreign bases available, sometimes the only realistic basing available is out at sea from an aircraft carrier. Operation El Dorado Canyon is a good example of this; F-111's had to fly from the UK, around France and Spain because of a lack of overflight permission and required multiple refuelings due to a lack of air basing and overflight permission. This also cut into the available payload of the F-111's.

Aircraft from USS Saratoga, USS America and USS Coral Sea provided the bulk of the strike package during the raid over Libya. Imagine if the UK denied basing or overflight for El Dorado Canyon; the strike package would have only consisted of carrier-based naval aircraft.

How about Operation Praying Mantis? Entirely handled by USN naval assets including the USS Enterprise, and the LPD USS Trenton. No aircraft basing rights came from any of the Gulf nations.

The ability to drop an airbase anywhere around the world where there is an ocean without worrying about basing and overflight rights is a value that cannot be underestimated.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4763 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6398 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ozair (Reply 7):
Quoting Oroka (Reply 6):
The USMC is a completely independent full military force within the largest military in the world.

The issue with this is the Marines do CAS better than the USAF and US Army. Marines talking to Marines makes a significant difference, so much so I see no way they would reduce or remove their air power and rely solely on USN and USAF assets. The marines have had air power longer than the USAF and almost as long as the USN, I can't see them giving it up now.

Theres a reason the Marines still make their aviators go through The Basic School and train as infantry officers before going to Pensacola for flight school. Cuz no one except a marine aviator understands what a grunt in the mud needs.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6348 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 7):
The issue with this is the Marines do CAS better than the USAF and US Army. Marines talking to Marines makes a significant difference, so much so I see no way they would reduce or remove their air power and rely solely on USN and USAF assets. The marines have had air power longer than the USAF and almost as long as the USN, I can't see them giving it up now
Quoting trex8 (Reply 9):
Theres a reason the Marines still make their aviators go through The Basic School and train as infantry officers before going to Pensacola for flight school. Cuz no one except a marine aviator understands what a grunt in the mud needs

Yeah, that is the exact line that is used every time. What I hear is that there is a communication and training deficiency in regards to interservice cooperation. The USAF doesn't get it's own navy and army because it takes an airman to truly know what a pilot needs.

What is needed it training and communication rather than giving a marine force a whole self contained military.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6332 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 10):
The USAF doesn't get it's own navy and army because it takes an airman to truly know what a pilot needs.

More like the USAF doesn't care. They'd spend billions upon billions on fighters and strategic bombers while having to be force fed CAS planes and transports. To be fair, the Navy isn't big on their transport ships either, but that sort of "organizational essence" and inter-service politics is a very real factor.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offline737tanker From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 262 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6281 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 1):
Are we going to train the USAF to land on the carriers as well? Might as well get rid of the USAF and just expand the USN air wings then.....

We didn't train the USAF to land on carriers when they got the F-4, which was originally a USN aircraft.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6104 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11):
More like the USAF doesn't care. They'd spend billions upon billions on fighters and strategic bombers while having to be force fed CAS planes and transports. To be fair, the Navy isn't big on their transport ships either, but that sort of "organizational essence" and inter-service politics is a very real factor.

And that is the old pissing contest that is guzzling billions of dollars that could be saved. The USAF, USN, and US Army should all integrate seamlessly. When was the last time there was any signifigant operation that didnt involve atleast 2 of the main branches of the US military? Looking at other services not as comrades but as competitors is counter productive and dangerous.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days ago) and read 5999 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 13):
Looking at other services not as comrades but as competitors is counter productive and dangerous.

Except that competitors is exactly what they are when it comes to battles on the hill. New tanks for the Army costs the Air Force ten fighters. A new helicopter program for the Marines means that the Navy can't get a frigate.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4763 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5843 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 737tanker (Reply 12):
We didn't train the USAF to land on carriers when they got the F-4, which was originally a USN aircraft.

Or the A7!


User currently onlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12137 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5828 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 7):
Quoting Oroka (Reply 6):The USMC is a completely independent full military force within the largest military in the world.
The issue with this is the Marines do CAS better than the USAF and US Army. Marines talking to Marines makes a significant difference, so much so I see no way they would reduce or remove their air power and rely solely on USN and USAF assets. The marines have had air power longer than the USAF and almost as long as the USN, I can't see them giving it up now.

Actually, the USMC is far from independent, they are officially part of the USN, and their budget is part of the navy's budget.

That "it takes a Marine to understand the needs of a Marine " is a bunch of crap. The USAF provides the bulk of the CAS to the Marines, as well as the US Army. The F-35B will not be as good at the CAS mission as the A-10 is, and the Marines are now trying to get their own AC-130s, the KC-130J through the palletized Harvest Hawk system, that has to be loaded onto the KC-130J. It is really an identical system the USAF uses on their MC-130W Dragon Spear pallets.

Marines still call for CAS from the USAF.

The Marines like to withhold their aircraft from providing other missions that are needed, such as bombing and CAP missions. This has proven to place a strain on USAF and USN assets, when other missions need to be flown.

BTW, the USMC will not provide CAS missions to the US Army, unless forced to by the area commander.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 8):
Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 5):The ability of the USAF to be anywhere in the world in a relatively short time (thanks to hundreds of forward bases and inflight refuelling) is rendering the need for Marine, and I dare say Naval airpower irrelevant.
That's dependent on the availability of foreign bases. If you don't have foreign bases available, sometimes the only realistic basing available is out at sea from an aircraft carrier. Operation El Dorado Canyon is a good example of this; F-111's had to fly from the UK, around France and Spain because of a lack of overflight permission and required multiple refuelings due to a lack of air basing and overflight permission. This also cut into the available payload of the F-111's.
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 8):
Aircraft from USS Saratoga, USS America and USS Coral Sea provided the bulk of the strike package during the raid over Libya. Imagine if the UK denied basing or overflight for El Dorado Canyon; the strike package would have only consisted of carrier-based naval aircraft.

Actually, it was only France and Italy that denied overflight rights to the El Dorado mission aircraft (including the tankers). One F-111F landed in Spain with an emergency after the bombing mission. The USAFE (18) F-111Fs carried a total of 134,000 lbs of which about 96,000 lbs was of the GBU-10 weapons, and the rest were Mk. 82 GPBs. The USN (18) A-6Es and (6) F/A-18s carried 90,000 lbs of Mk. 82 GPBs and CBUs, along with Shrike and HARM missiles. The USAF also flew (4) EF-111As, KC-10As which refueled the strike packages, and KC-135A/E/Q/Rs which refueled the KC-10s. The USN provided the "delouse" aircraft CAP.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day ago) and read 5789 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 15):
Quoting 737tanker (Reply 12):
We didn't train the USAF to land on carriers when they got the F-4, which was originally a USN aircraft.

Or the A7!

Adm Roughead indicated he preferred the F-35C for the USAF because it would be capable of landing on the carriers. I doubt when the USAF operated the F-4 or the A-7 that they maintained them to the standard that allowed them to be carrier capable. In that case, why limit the USAF to the F-35C when the F-35A is generally more capable and is cheaper to acquire and operate?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
That "it takes a Marine to understand the needs of a Marine " is a bunch of crap. The USAF provides the bulk of the CAS to the Marines, as well as the US Army.

I did not say the Marines provide the bulk of their own CAS. What I indicated, and has been well established from experience in Afghanistan, is that Marine CAS to Marines occurs quicker and smoother than it does when the USAF gets involved. You would also know that different services apply different implementations of VMF which complicates the CAS mission and slows down the process.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
The F-35B will not be as good at the CAS mission as the A-10 is

No one says it will be but then the Marines don't operate the A-10. They will be replacing the AV-8B and the F-18D with the F-35B, which will provide significantly greater capability and survivability than both previous platforms.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4763 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 22 hours ago) and read 5767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ozair (Reply 17):
Adm Roughead indicated he preferred the F-35C for the USAF because it would be capable of landing on the carriers. I doubt when the USAF operated the F-4 or the A-7 that they maintained them to the standard that allowed them to be carrier capable. In that case, why limit the USAF to the F-35C when the F-35A is generally more capable and is cheaper to acquire and operate?

I suspect Rougheads point is that given given limited resources, getting rid of one version makes sense. Since there is nothing else really to replace the AV8B, the B stays. The C while more expensive and "less capable" is still good enough for the AF and unless the US is getting out of the carrier business or operating VSTOL planes off LPHs etc the B and C needs to stay.

The AF didn't want the F4 or A7 either initially.


User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8491 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 18 hours ago) and read 5706 times:

The entire F-35 program should be eliminated entirely. Its leaders should be indicted and jailed for the rest of their careers. It isn't an aircraft program, it is a financial fraud program.

User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 17 hours ago) and read 5696 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 19):

The entire F-35 program should be eliminated entirely. Its leaders should be indicted and jailed for the rest of their careers. It isn't an aircraft program, it is a financial fraud program.

Gonna have to do better then that.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 15 hours ago) and read 5663 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Actually, it was only France and Italy that denied overflight rights to the El Dorado mission aircraft (including the tankers). One F-111F landed in Spain with an emergency after the bombing mission.

Spain too. The F-111's had to fly through the Strait of Gibraltar because of this. Of course, aircraft in distress should be and will be given permission to land at a suitable friendly airbase afterwords. For Spain to deny a aircraft declaring an emergency landing rights would be very much frowned up by anyone.

The mission was definitely at the limits of what was and is possible for endurance; the multiple refuelings were a major risk due to timing requirements to maintain a element of surprise, and flying 13 hours in a single mission would increase the risks of crew fatigue. I believe 28 tankers were involved in El Dorado Canyon, to support 18 F-111's.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5462 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 18):
Since there is nothing else really to replace the AV8B, the B stays.

There was nothing to replace the SR-71, because it wasnt really needed anymore. The Harrier was designed with use from roads and parking lots in the event of large bases getting nuked. Later governments got the idea to put them on small aircraft carriers so they didnt have to buy and maintain carriers large enough to support normal naval fighter jet designs.

How often does the USAF perform disperse base drills or operate from a Walmart parking lot just for practice? Never, because the Harrier is being used as a souped up attack helicopter from a ship by the marines.

The USN has 11 big carriers... there is no real need for 13 'amphibious assault ships' that can operate 20 F-35B off each. The US effectively has 20 carriers in active service, eventually 24.

I will capitulate to KC135TopBoom on the USMC being a branch of the USN. The USN does not need its own army and secondary navy to support a secondary airforce that only supports the USNs army.

Clear as mud.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5423 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 22):
How often does the USAF perform disperse base drills or operate from a Walmart parking lot just for practice?

The USAF doesn't; their aircraft needs runways and that limits where they can operate. The USMC does practice aircraft dispersal drills, and does so regularly.

FYI, during the initial invasion of Afghanistan, the Marines hacked a airstrip out of the middle of nowhere eventually named FOB Dwyer so they can bring up Harriers for CAS duties at close range to attack a town. By building a 4,000 foot strip out there, they then flew in KC-130s loaded with supplies to hot rearm and refuel the Harriers. Without FOB Dwyer, the Marines would have to take off from our main base half an hour away, stay over the target and drop the bombs quickly, then quickly make the 30 minute flight back to base to rearm and fuel. With FOB Dywer, the Harrier's had a 5 minute flight to be over the target, and another 5 minutes, they could drop back to the FOB, be refueled and rearmed without ever shutting down the engines, then launch and be back overhead 5 minutes later. In short, 10 Harriers operating from a FOB was essentially worth 40 conventional aircraft operating from a regular base because of how close the aircraft were to the target.

Also, during Desert Storm / Shield, Harriers were the most forward-based fixed wing assets in-theater and were amongst the first forces to arrive in Saudi Arabia. USMC Hornets arrived at nearly the same time but remained based in Bahrain. This was when no one was sure whether the Iraqis were going to come further south and the 82 Airborne was considered a speed bump as the force build-up continued. 86 jets operated out of the abandoned King Abdul Aziz naval base airfield, while the pilots and aircrew lived out of a soccer stadium. USMC pilots in their Harriers could take-off, fly north, bomb the Iraqis and then land and then be back in the air again over Kuwait in about 2 hours. Could other conventional aircraft operated out of that base eventually? Probably, but not at the time they were needed because the airfield condition was so lousy initially that it precluded other jets.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4458 posts, RR: 19
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5158 times:

I suggest cancelling the A,B and C versions..


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
25 Powerslide : You should pass on your great ideas to the DOD and Lockheed Martin, because complaining on an internet forum won't do squat.
26 Oroka : Point being, the job could be done with other assets. Could the AH-64 or maybe AH-1 have done the job? They dont even need a runway for initial opera
27 Post contains links ThePointblank : No, because in Afghanistan, the hot and high conditions really limit the performance of the AH-64 and AH-1. Came in over land. The Marines needed to
28 Post contains links ThePointblank : There is a video below from actual operations of Harriers off FOB Dwyer, includes a hot refueling video. You can see that the base is literally in the
29 Max Q : I don't think they need my input, they will cancel the program on their own before long. Ah yes, the magnificent Harrier, Simple, rugged, reliable an
30 BMI727 : Rugged and reliable? I haven't followed closely, but I thought the Harriers were very maintenance heavy.
31 Max Q : Try researching their record in the Falklands, they basically flew every one they had whenever weather conditions allowed.They just didn't break. It
32 seahawk : The question is if the expensive F-35B will ever operate from rough FOBs. The engine downwash is way stronger than that of the Harrier, the RAM coatin
33 Post contains links ThePointblank : Considering that the DOD and the Pentagon have moved to reallocate the cuts to F-35 from sequestration to other programs, not likely. Also an incredi
34 Max Q : With the right training it has proven to be an excellent Aircraft, challenging, yes, but it can fly 24/7 while the lemon is still stuck in the hangar
35 ThePointblank : 1. Yet to be proven that the F-35 is a maintenance hog. Operational testing has just started. 2. Yes, the Harrier is also known for being a very dang
36 Post contains links Oroka : Every one of your posts are pure flame bait, nothing but biased hate. The F-35 WILL NOT be canceled... no rabid fanaticism against the F-35 will chan
37 Post contains links tommytoyz : http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-309 F-35 operating and support costs (O&S) are currently projected to be 60 percent higher than those of the ex
38 ThePointblank : The GAO also notes that they are actively engaged in evaluating opportunities to reduce F-35 life-cycle sustainment costs, such as basing and infrast
39 Max Q : No, with the incredibly compromised performance the F35 brings to the table it will be the cause of the US becoming a second rate military. Far bette
40 Post contains links ThePointblank : That's your opinion, and the Navy and Marines disagrees with you: http://defense.aol.com/2013/04/08/ge...-essential-but-procurement-consti/
41 Oroka : Are you kidding me? Really? Anyone who would describe the F-35 as 'incredibly compromised'... really? It is not a F-22, it was never meant to be a F-
42 737tanker : The people saying that the F-35 is a lemon and should be cancelled sound just like the people who said that the M-1 Abrams was a lemon and should also
43 NeutronStar73 : Okay, I can tell you that this is a categorically incorrect statement, through and through. In AFG, the VAST majority of CAS was provided by Marine a
44 KC135TopBoom : No sir, The vast majority of CAS for the USMC and US Army is provided by: USAF A-10s USAF AC-130s US Army AH-64s USAF F-16s USAF MC-130s USAF B-1s US
45 ThePointblank : Unless you are dealing with a Marine MEU, which is an entirely self-contained force with organic air assets. For example, the 11th MEU has 12 CH-46E'
46 Post contains links and images Devilfish : So, with the F-22 and 4th Gen fighters around, could the USN and USAF bide their time until this makes its entry?..... http://www.flightglobal.com/Ass
47 Post contains links ThePointblank : No: http://defense.aol.com/2011/08/25/ma...imit-when-will-they-begin-to-fail/ http://forthecommondefense.org/2011/...arsenal-needs-expensive-face-lif
48 Max Q : I think that makes the most sense. In fact, since the F35 is so compromised for the VSTOL capability perhaps this is the version worth keeping. Its d
49 Powerslide : Great thing about the internet is you don't have to substantiate anything!
50 Max Q : All it takes is a little research Pslide and you'll find all the substantiation you need !
51 ThePointblank : Substantiate and prove this please. We know that the F-35 is required to have 12 MMH/FH as a threshold and 8 MMH/FH as objective. The AV-8B Harrier I
52 kanban : congratulations, we have had another F-35 thread locked because of entrenched belligerent postings and rehashing of the same old off topic materials.
53 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : That is the goal for the F-35A, not the "B" or "C" models. That MMH/FH ratio is a pipe dream for any modern military aircraft. The F-35 will never ge
54 Powerslide : Why not reopen the F4 line as well, that airframe is actually battle proven with kills under its belt. We can build 5-6 F4's for every F-22, good luc
55 ThePointblank : However, the goals for the F-35B and C will be close to, or identical to the F-35A. We are moving from maintenance by milestone, it will be maintenan
56 Post contains links and images KC135TopBoom : The F-4 was not a CAS airplane. What does the kill ratio have to do with the CAS mission.....nothing. Are you saying the A-10 is not 'battle proven'?
57 ThePointblank : Don't laugh: a USN rear admiral is the deputy chair of the JSF project office, and is responsible, amongst other things, logistics and technology. Th
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Former USN Chief Suggests DOD Should Cancel F-35A
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Japan's Military Chief Says F-35 Is "best Fighter" posted Wed Mar 27 2013 11:23:09 by LAXintl
USN Grounds 4 Carrier Air Wings [sequestration] posted Sun Mar 3 2013 08:45:03 by cjg225
Boeing Gets New $1.9B Order For USN P-8A posted Sat Sep 22 2012 08:36:08 by KC135TopBoom
Norway Threatens To Cancel NH 90 Order posted Wed Jul 25 2012 11:00:02 by Mortyman
NK Deploys SAMs For USN/ROK Exercise posted Sun Nov 28 2010 10:03:14 by KC135TopBoom
USN Recieves New C40A posted Wed Nov 24 2010 09:14:01 by KingairTA
1st Production E-2D Delivered To USN posted Tue Aug 3 2010 14:36:17 by LMP737
Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way? posted Fri Jul 9 2010 15:11:01 by Lumberton
108 USN/USMC F/A-18's Grounded, Wing Cracks posted Tue Mar 16 2010 01:33:02 by ThePointblank
Airbus Threaten To Cancel A400M posted Thu Jan 7 2010 05:32:56 by Daysleeper

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format