Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
USN Argues With Usmc Over F-35B Vs. F-35C  
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7922 times:

As a former Marine I'll be the first to attest to the stubbornness of the Marines, but the USN paints a very logical case against an all F-35B buy and I just can't believe the Corps can't get this through their thick skulls?!

Quote:

In the briefing, the Navy aviation planners list more than a dozen ways the F-35B short-takeoff-and-landing version will “sub-optimize” aircraft-carrier operations. Among other things, they say the F-35B will:

* Offer poorer capability and sustainability at a higher price than the carrier-optimized F-35C. The Marines say the STOVL aircraft outperforms the C model in all kinds of missions except carrier-based ones.

* Reduce flexibility in carrier-deck operations. Marines: That won’t be known until flight tests begin.

* Carry only 70 percent as much fuel as the F-35C. Marines: That advantage will be reduced by the F-35C’s heavier weight, by the -B’s ability to fly from forward bases, and by the fact that the STOVL version doesn’t need to carry backup fuel in case it can’t trap aboard a carrier.

* Not carry a 2,000-pound bomb in its internal bomb bay. Marines: The F-35B can carry one externally, and weapon is needed for only 15 percent of missions anyway.

* Lack an internally carried, stand-off weapon that can hit enemy radar. Marines: That could be remedied with the under-development Small Diameter Bomb.

* Lack an internally carried, stand-off weapon that can hit enemy ships. Marines: It carriers the Joint Stand-Off Weapon externally.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...2007/04/defense_stovl_jsf_070430m/

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7927 times:

You could at least present the other POV from your source:

Quote:
That notion struck one aviation analyst as silly.

“I’ve never seen any definitive analysis that says a STOVL aircraft can’t be successfully integrated into a carrier wing,” he said. “I think what you have is this sort of culture in the Navy that says we just don’t do it that way. I’m not convinced [STOVL aircraft] can’t work with air wings.”

At the other end of the cultural debate, the Marines argue they didn’t join up to fly from carriers.

“The surface story of blue and green working together is great,” said Dakota Wood, a former Marine officer who is now an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “But the reality is that [in a carrier wing] you’re on Navy time, and the Marine Corps ground commander is saying, where is my tac air?”

The comparisons of the two JSF versions also struck Wood as “an unfair comparison. Each version has been optimized for the environment in which it’s to be employed.”

“The legitimate argument,” he said, “is how you’re going to use the airplane.”

If the Marine a/c aren't going to be optimized for the Marine mission, then what's the point in the a/c and crews being Marine rather than Navy? If the operational issues are insurmountable then it might be appropriate to reconsider the law requiring Marine air wings on carriers.



Where are all of my respected members going?
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7927 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
As a former Marine I'll be the first to attest to the stubbornness of the Marines, but the USN paints a very logical case against an all F-35B buy and I just can't believe the Corps can't get this through their thick skulls?!

The question I have is why are these issues being raised now? Shouldn't someone have rang the bell a while back if these issues are valid?



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7753 times:

When will the USN ever pull their heads out of their ass? The F-35B will fly from the LHAs and LPDs, not from the CVNs (that are another 250nm further out to sea) the F-35C flys from.

This is simply another way to put more F-35Cs into the fleet, aboard the CVNs. But, here it is at the expense of the grunts. What does the USN expect the USMC use for air support during forced and opposed incursions? USN TACAIR will be back protecting the carriers.

Perhaps the USAF will step up to the plate to help the Marines?


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7809 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7753 times:

This may sound dumb, but with STOVL, presumably you still need an airstrip, even if only for TO.

What are the runway requirements of the 2 varients, (assuming no catapults.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7582 times:

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 1):
If the Marine a/c aren't going to be optimized for the Marine mission, then what's the point in the a/c and crews being Marine rather than Navy? If the operational issues are insurmountable then it might be appropriate to reconsider the law requiring Marine air wings on carriers.

Remember that it is the F-35C which will be optimized to be used from a CVN, not the F-35B. F-35B's replacing AV-8B's is great, but when they are to replace existing Marine C/D Hornets and operate them off USN CVN's, their paying more money for a less capable aircraft whilst operating off a CVN. F-35B's won't be able to carry as much ordinance, loiter on station as long during CAS, won't be able to go as far, will screw up the CVN's decks, and all while costing the Corps more moeny up front as well as down the road in maintenance.

In my opinion given the USMC's budget for replacing everything in their entire Air Wing which has to be stretched to it's limits I think the most appropriate thing for the Corps to do is replace their leagcy Hornets with F/A-18F's just like the USN did, saving billions that have already been spent on the V-22 Osprey, and sharing a wealth of commonality with the USN. The Corps could place a healthy order for F/A-18F Block II's and EA-18G's, save a tremendous amount in taxpayer money that can used elsewhere within the Air Wing, and still obtain all the performance they will ever be able to use. Bone up on the latest on the F/A-18F II + EA-18G combo package that has the Aussies considering 2 or 3 more Super Hornet squadrons; Av Week 10/1 has another article on it's "cyber-kinetic" capabilites.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 2):
The question I have is why are these issues being raised now? Shouldn't someone have rang the bell a while back if these issues are valid?

Great question - now we're funding an all new class of LHA's that will feature NO WELL DECK for the grunts equipment so they will have a larger hangar bay and flight deck for the F-35B's - remind us all again why the MAW even exits? That's right, to serve the boots on the ground.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
When will the USN ever pull their heads out of their ass? The F-35B will fly from the LHAs and LPDs, not from the CVNs (that are another 250nm further out to sea) the F-35C flys from.

This is simply another way to put more F-35Cs into the fleet, aboard the CVNs. But, here it is at the expense of the grunts. What does the USN expect the USMC use for air support during forced and opposed incursions? USN TACAIR will be back protecting the carriers.

Perhaps the USAF will step up to the plate to help the Marines?

I don't think you understand the equation. F-35B's replacing AV-8B's who now deploy off of LHD/A's is one thing, but what about the USMC Hornets who since 2004 as the article points out are suppossed to serve with every carrier air wing on USN CVN's that are to as the Corps desires be replaced by F-35B's? It's stupid and illogogical - if you're going to operate off CVN's than you would be wise to use the variant at least optimized for CVN use, would you not? The Corps is trying to get too cute here, their forgetting their history, mission, and the little anchor on their emblem that denotes their inherent mission with the USN. And that old ploy of the USAF to operate F-35B's was even more ridiculous than F-35B's operating off of CVN's!


User currently offlineBeta From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 7445 times:



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 5):
The Corps could place a healthy order for F/A-18F Block II's and EA-18G's,

You have been arguing for the acquisition of this combo for some time. Could you please explain why the Marine Corps Air Wings need the EA-18G? My understanding is the first and primary mission of the Marines Tac Air is CAS to Marines on the ground, not interdiction, nor deep strikes which requires air defense jamming capability of the EA-18G. Besides both the Navy and Air Force would have to provide the electronic jamming anyway for their strike package. So why would the Corps need such redundant capability? Would it make sense to buy the Superbug, save the money on the EA-18G, to buy more F/A-18F or do something else? Additionally, I just do not understand the concept of having Marines aircraft flying off the CVN. Can someone explain to me? I thought the Marines air wing's sole reason for existence is to provide Marine commander a direct tac air asset, dedicated solely to the support of infantry Marines. Now with Marines aircraft flying off the CVN, would that put them under the direct command of the Navy, subject to Navy's plan and operations, and strip Marine commander off his air asset? I think the idea of joint Navy/Marine off CVN is a bad idea, cooked up by dreamy eyes politicians. I could be wrong.


User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 7395 times:

Quoting Beta (Reply 6):
Could you please explain why the Marine Corps Air Wings need the EA-18G? My understanding is the first and primary mission of the Marines Tac Air is CAS to Marines on the ground, not interdiction, nor deep strikes which requires air defense jamming capability of the EA-18G

I'm sure AirRyan will answer in turn, but EW and jamming are not the sole domain of interdiction or deep strike missions. I can tell you that the grunts on the ground appreciate air support more than anyone else in the world and the only way to have capable air support is to have unhindered air superiority over the battle area. EW is vital to preclude an enemy, to put it in layman's terms, from F***ing with your air cover. Besides, who's to say the battle on the ground where the Marines are won't be occurring in the same area where "deep strikes" are required?



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineBeta From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7276 times:

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 7):
I can tell you that the grunts on the ground appreciate air support more than anyone else in the world and the only way to have capable air support is to have unhindered air superiority over the battle area.

Achieving air superiority or battle air space dominance is the primary mission of the AF, and to a lesser extent Naval aviation. To do that they require the EW capability to bust the door open, and suppress enemy air defense network. I understand that. That's why both the Navy and AF are currently operating the EA-jamming aircraft. The Corps air wings currently don't, because that is not their primary mission. Why would the Corps want that capability now? Would that be a unnecessary duplication of capability, and the money be better spent elsewhere? The holy grail of CAS is shorten response time, prolong loiter time, ability to carry a lot of ordinance, precise targeting in all weather. If the F/A18F fits that bill, then good. But I'm just not sure the Corps really needs the EA-18G, which is not cheap by any means. The Corps is in chronic shortage of funding.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7267 times:

Check out page 42 of the latest October issue of Defense Technology International, they talk about EAW, EA-18G's, and how the USMC thinks they will single-handidly soldier on with the EA-6B untill 2020+ - I swear the Corps is so arrogantly stubborn sometimes it's like they can't even count or don't care to count! Just like their ignorant financial accounting on the H-1+ upgrades where they now are essentialy building all new-build H-1's at a much greater price then they exposed when they lobbied for the funds, the Corps actually thinks it can operate a handful of already aged Prowlers (so long as they don't send them aboard the boat!) when in all realities when you take into account how much money they are going to have to spend to keep a few small examples of the Prowler airframe in the air by themselves, they could signficantly increaase their EAW capabilities for pennies on the dollar!

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti1007/index.php

Quoting Beta (Reply 8):
The Corps is in chronic shortage of funding.

Which is exactly why the Corps needs to save moeny whenever they can and still retain combat effectiveness - 350 MV-22's at on average $75m-$100m a piece, KC-130J's, CH-53K's, and F-35B's to replace AV-8B's, they can save a boat load of money by buying F/A-18F's to replace Marine Hornets and EA-18G's to replace their Prowlers; with the USN already having worked out the bugs, set up the spares inventory, and Boeing looking to give dirt-cheap prices the Corps would be and will be fools not to patake.


User currently offlineBeta From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7267 times:

My question is: Would the Corps save even more money if they dumped all the EAW to the Navy, and essentially piggy-back ride on the Navy for this mission? Let the Navy buy the EA-18G (they would have to buy them anyway). That would save oodle of money to spend elsewhere.

User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7238 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 9):
350 MV-22's at on average $75m-$100m

Please don't use Time magazine as a reference for aerospace technical topics. Rolling in engineering development money already spent into the unit cost of production aircraft is a distortion of truth worthy only of rags sold between the National Enquirer and Globe at the supermarket check out line. The development money is spent, you cannot get it back.

When the CH-53K with a composite fuselage and fly-by-wire controls is finaly priced out, don't be surprised that it is not cheaper than a V-22.

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7150 times:

Quoting Beta (Reply 8):
The Corps air wings currently don't, because that is not their primary mission.

That's a surprise (although I'll readily admit I'm not up-to-date on the latest happenings). I thought the Corps had four VMAQ squadrons that operate the EA-6B Prowler, which is what the EA-18 Growlers were originally intended to replace (including the Navy's).

Quoting Beta (Reply 8):
Why would the Corps want that capability now?

Because they've always had that capability.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7093 times:

Quoting CTR (Reply 11):
Please don't use Time magazine as a reference for aerospace technical topics. .

No Time magazine here, my knowledge on this topic comes first hand thank you very much...

Quoting CTR (Reply 11):
Rolling in engineering development money already spent into the unit cost of production aircraft is a distortion of truth worthy only of rags sold between the National Enquirer and Globe at the supermarket check out line. The development money is spent, you cannot get it back.

The hell it is - the programs are sold to the taxpayer at grossly undervalued amounts and everyone save for the taxpayer at the time knows it - the V-22's are still going to be upwards of exactly what I just said and that's not taking into account the $15B+ already spent on the program. The USAF should be buying CV-22's for CSAR-X but because of politics between Bell and Boeing, what's best for the warfighter won't be making it to the front lines.

The same disservice was done with the B-2 and F-22's and it should be a crime - the USAF never would have gotten approval to spend the money they did on the B-2's if they told Congress that they were only going to buy 20 of them! The good thing is those that be beginning to catch on and the JSF which is all but assuredly to face the same cost increases and delays have forced others such as the RAAF to go with Super Hornets up front and JSF's if/when down the road when the bugs are remedied and the costs are finalized and stablized.

I'm not saying the Corps needs to axe theV-22 program at this point (assuming the safety-wire stays in tact whilst in Iraq and the thing isn't totally exposed) mostly because they have sunk in too much money as it is and a replacement would only set back the Marines on the front lines that much longer, but what I do advocate is that because they grossly overspent their budget on this category of aircraft they need to make responsible sacrifices elsewhere in the Wing and F/A-18F's instead of F-35B's operating off of CVN's would be a great place to save a lot of budget whilst not losing a whole lot of capability.

USMC:
AV-8B+ = F-35B
F/A-18C/D = F/A-18F Block 2
EA-6B = EA-18G

is a helluva lot more cost effective then:
F-35B's off of CVN's and decrepid money-pit EA-6B's until 2020+.....


User currently offlineCurt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7081 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 13):
The USAF should be buying CV-22's for CSAR-X but because of politics between Bell and Boeing, what's best for the warfighter won't be making it to the front lines.

First...I like the idea of the V-22, but it still remains to be seen if it will be an effective platform for any operational use...but I do wish the Corps and AFSOC well in this effort.

Second...V-22 was never a player for the CSAR role for just one reason...MONEY...not politics. The USAF needs to by more than a 100 new acft for CSAR and at $80+ million per acft...cost was a show stopper.

It will be interesting to see if the V-22 steps up and can handle itself in the field, if so...I suspect the combatant commanders will task them often rescue, CASVAC and MEDIVAC roles. After all...medical people never stop talking about the "Golden Hour" for getting treatment to injured people drastically improving chances of survival...and flying at twice the speed of traditional helo's...the V-22 could greatly aid in rapid response.


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7665 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7047 times:

I'll be a stuck record on this one. The 2004 plan / law was implemented to solve the US Navy's recruitment problem. The US Navy and congress are spending billions building aircraft carriers to patrol the seas, however, the Navy like the Army and Air Force cannot retain their personnel. Navy and Air Force pilots are leaving in droves as soon as their "hitch" is up, inducements not withstanding. The Army faces a similar problem with their personnel, more so since the VietNam war, the Army initially addressed their shortage with the Guard and Reserve, providing frontline equipment and training was the inducement to local states to get onto the improved program, most are regretting it now because the guard and reserve are shoudlering a "un-natural burden" during the last few years, the congress downsized the Army too much.

The US Navy ultimately controls Marine Corp aviation, when the Navy started falling short retaining their pilots they had two choices, fix the problem, or hide it until another day, they hid it by moving Marine Squadrons onto the carriers. Question for those in the know, prior to the 2004 change, how were the Marine suqadrons of F-18's used, were they all carrier qualified? The Air Force does not have carriers or carrier based a/c, I assume the Marine land based force functioned in a similar way, except they had the added option of foward deploying from carriers. Marine Corp aviation exist or was created to serve the grunts on the ground, that is / was it's ultimate purpose, the Navy and Air Force need to come out of the shadows and publicy state that they do not believe the Marines need their own air, and let the chips fall where they may.

This issue of one a/c type for Navy and Marine a/c on the carrier makes sense, saves money in maintenance, training, etc. etc etc, I'm certain in time the Navy will suggest that Marine Pilots stop wearing camo gear on their helmets to maintain compatibility with their Navy bretheren, stop spending time training in the mud with the grunts as they do now, etc etc etc. Having another Marine a/c where pilots can transfer to will not help the Navy ratain their Marine pilots to perform Navy jobs, so ultimately, even a Harrier replacement has got to go, without that option, all Marine pilots would love to serve strictly in the Navy, at least thats what I think the Navy believs. Question is, why would any one want to join the Corp to fly airplanes when they can just join the Navy, mind boggling question that one.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6942 times:

Given that the USMC has to pay upwards of $75m or so for the 320+ MV-22's that they want to buy to replace their Medium helicopter fleet, (their largest aviation asset in the air wing mind you) I think the Corps needs to look for viable alternatives to their Air Wing modernization plan. While I am all for the F-35B replacing the AV-8B+'s one for one, I would advocate that not a single Hornet be replaced by a JSF of any variant and that the USMC takes advantage of the cost savings afforded to them by the USN in the F/A-18F block II Super Hornets. Buying into the Super Hornet program would save the Corps BILLIONS over time and they would hardly lose any potency since the USN has already committed to the Super Bug to the tune of 500 or so already made and on order.

Boeing is currently offering the USN 150 more Super Hornets at $49.99m - that's cheaper than the USMC will ever get ANY F-35 for and they can buy them anytime they want. Throw in the cost synergies of then replacing their EA-6B's with EA-18G's just like the USN and it's a relative no-brainer. The USMC somehow thinks that they can single-handedly soldier on with the EA-6B long after the USN sends theirs to the bone yard and do so at just a handful in fleet size until 2025 or so - the Corps already has egg on their face in the H-1 upgrade program in which they told Congress they could save money by just upgrading their H-1 airframes but has since had to commit to more money and essentially all-new airframes because the fleet cannot do without the existing H-1's long enough to have them upgraded!

When you take into account the mission of the USMC and their role in combat air support, an F/A-18F is nearly just as good for a lot less money than the F-35B will ever be, and the F-35B's "stealth" technology will be outweighed by the F/A-18F's superior payload capability. I'm tired of seeing my Marines make stupid mistakes but really, other than the F-35B's replacing AV-8B's the F/A-18F is the much more logical choice for the USMC and I would challenge any of their bean counters to show me how they think they can either get all the funding that they seek under the current plan or how an all F-35B fleet would be worth the additional cost.

The USN's CVN's are all ultimately there to support the ground war and in turn the Marines on the beach - the argument that the USMC needs their own carriers because they don't like the USN telling them what to do and when and how to do it is bogus - with a dedicated naval variant operating off CVN's they can get to the grunts via aerial refueling if need be with plenty of ordinance whenever they have to - CVN's aren't ever too far from the ARG anyways for if they were the ARG's would be sitting ducks to an oppossing force. Super Hornets offer much greater punch for the dollar and would work perfectly in the USMC's mission - the only thing preventing this so far is USMC decision makers who cannot count and stay in the confines of their budget.


User currently offlineMichlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6878 times:

Quote:
Boeing is currently offering the USN 150 more Super Hornets at $49.99m - that's cheaper than the USMC will ever get ANY F-35 for and they can buy them anytime they want.

And I'm sure the fact that Boeing lost on on the JSF program has nothing to do with that.



If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6657 times:

Here's a good reason why the USN will eventually force the USMC to buy either F-35C's or Super Hornets because F-35B's do nothing but diminish the value of their beloved (and rightfully so) CVN's...


Defense Acquisitions: Navy Faces Challenges Constructing the Aircraft Carrier Gerald R. Ford within Budget

Source: US Government Accountability Office, GAO

Ref: GAO-07-866

Dated Aug. 23, released Sept. 24, 2007)

52 pages in PDF format


The U.S. Navy is investing over $3 billion to develop technologies for a new type of aircraft carrier--the Ford class--and it expects to spend almost $11 billion to design and construct the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78)--the lead ship of the class. New technologies are to improve the carrier's performance and reduce crew size.

GAO found that delays in technology development may lead to increases in CVN 78's planned construction costs and potential reductions in the ship's capability at delivery. CVN 78's success depends on on-time delivery and insertion of fully mature and operational technologies in order to manage construction costs and enhance ship capabilities. While the Navy has mitigated the impact of some technologies, such as the nuclear propulsion and electric plant, three systems--the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS), the dual band radar, and the advanced arresting gear--have faced problems during development that may affect the ship's construction costs.

The program, however, may face challenges completing more detailed phases of design because of the tight schedule remaining for development of the ship's critical technologies, which in turn could impede the design process--and construction--of CVN 78.

Costs for CVN 78 will likely exceed the budget for several reasons. First, the Navy's cost estimate, which underpins the budget, is optimistic. Second, the Navy's target cost for ship construction may not be achievable. The shipbuilder's initial cost estimate for construction was 22 percent higher than the Navy's cost target, which was based on the budget. Third, the Navy's ability to manage issues that affect cost suffers from insufficient cost surveillance. Without effective cost surveillance, the Navy will not be able to identify early signs of cost growth and take necessary corrective action.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi..._call_mod=reports&modele=jdc_inter


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic USN Argues With Usmc Over F-35B Vs. F-35C
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...
USN C-40A With Winglets? posted Wed Feb 28 2007 16:09:50 by AviationAddict

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format