Steve Davies Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 The USMC is not getting STOVL so it can get on ships. Since the F-35 will replace the AV-8B in Marine Corps service, it has no choice but to field the STOVL variant. Unless you know something I do not, being able to operate from the boat is a key element in the Marines' littoral duties - shore-based operations may not always be possible or adviseable. I understand they need to land on small decks however Right, so you understand that they need to land on the boat? In which case, you recognise that they have no choice but to get the STOVL variant. Afterall, the US Navy is responsible for carrying the Marines and they are not talking of buying the STOVL variant. Indeed - the US Navy has arrestor wires and angled decks. The British Royal Navy, which is also responsible for carrying the Royal Marines, is getting the F-35B because its carriers are more like an AAS than a CVN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CAVEMAN Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Right, so you understand that they need to land on the boat? In which case, you recognise that they have no choice but to get the STOVL variant. Actually they do. The US Navy is also getting F-35 with the necessary configuration (not the STOVL variant) for their CVN. Since the F-35 will replace the AV-8B in Marine Corps service, it has no choice but to field the STOVL variant. Unless you know something I do not, being able to operate from the boat is a key element in the Marines' littoral duties - shore-based operations may not always be possible or adviseable. Maybe I should ask you why they got the AV-8B then? It is because of the flexibility it grants. /end rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickhistory Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 The B model was a requirement by the Marines which was a requirement to achieve 'jointness' on the F-35. The Marines wanted the STOVL only because of their short decks. Don't blame either. If they gave up that capability, they'd lose their LHDs or whatever they're called. No Marines sharing part of the costs in the program when first developed = no JSF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fud Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 AirGuardian, What we need is another man like Col John Boyd to head up a reform movement, and get airplanes that actually deliver on the promised results. The problem also stems from politicians wanting to create jobs for their constituents, thus adding more "gold-plating" to the aircraft. I do not believe that the F-35 will be a very good replacement for the A-10, simply because it will fly too fast. You do not need radar to see tanks in a CAS aircraft, but you do need to be able to fly slow enough and loiter so the troops on the ground can bring the rain. I hate seeing aircraft like this put into production, because the stealth technology is not all it is cracked up to be, and it is really expensive. They need to have fly-off competitions like they did for the F-16. If you are not familiar with this concept, I will explain. The USAF contracted two companies to build prototypes for a flyoff many years ago. The companies came up with the YF-16 and the YF-17. The flyoff took place, and the USAF chose the F-16, which is probably the best dogfighting aircraft around, even now. The US Navy decided to choose the YF-17, added another engine, and it is now the F-18. This process met all the required needs of the politicians and the DoD, which was unprecedented at the time, and has not happened again since. The F-22 and the F-35 performed side-by-side in a competition, but the fighters are so expensive, that talk is now surfacing about killing the F-22. I'm sure most of you knew all of this history before, but it does help us learn some lessons so we can apply them in the future. (1) We need the DoD to foster competition amongst the contractors so that the troops on the ground get the best product. (2) We need to keep the mission sets of most aircraft separate (I wouldn't be surprised to see the next generation fighter have a refueling capability for itself and other aircraft). Finally, (3) the USAF needs to support the CAS mission and keep building aircraft like the A-10. While fighters, bombers, refuelers, and CAS systems all service different missions, and we all should be working together to support the infantrymen on the ground. I like to see cutting edge aircraft enter the scenes, but not at the expense of the airmen it takes to operate them. Technology has progressed to a state that some think we require less people to use it, but that is also not the case. The people are the mission, not the hardware and whoever believes these to be the other way around should be shit-canned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Davies Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Actually they do. The US Navy is also getting F-35 with the necessary configuration (not the STOVL variant) for their CVN. They don't if they want to maintain as much operational and financial independence as possible. You seem to have a problem grasping this point. Maybe I should ask you why they got the AV-8B then? It is because of the flexibility it grants. Who's arguing otherwise? /end rant That was a rant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickhistory Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 (edited) That was a rant? Steve, overlook him. He's 12... Edited January 29, 2009 by brickhistory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CAVEMAN Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Brick: If I understand you correctly, you are saying they basically rogered up on the F-35 to stay in the program. The Navy decided to get the Super Hornet and the Marines said no we want F-35's to replace our fleet (to include legacy Hornets). The Navy owns LHD's. Marines are just the passenger/cargo. Brick, do you like 12 year old boys? Steve: Do you think the Marines could not use their Harrier today off CVN's if the Navy decides they are restricting their fleet to the Nimitz Class(CVN)? We both agree on everything except what drives the STOVL concept. Is it the ability to land on small boys or the ability to land in austere conditions which also grants them the ability to land on a small boy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickhistory Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Brick: If I understand you correctly, you are saying they basically rogered up on the F-35 to stay in the program. The Navy decided to get the Super Hornet and the Marines said no we want F-35's to replace our fleet (to include legacy Hornets). Besides reduction in force, RIF stands for reading is fundamental. Ok, try this slowly: The USAF and USN agreed to the STOVL version to get the Marines to join in, thus sharing the costs, thus getting the program through its birthing pains. The Navy owns LHD's. Marines are just the passenger/cargo. While you are Captain Obvious on the ownership of the big gray boats, the only reason they exist is because of the Marines. The Marines effectively run that program within the Pentagon. They determine what toys go on/in it. The USN goes along because they get more big gray things along with the support elements. Brick, do you like 12 year old boys? The obvious answers are: A) Sure, with some butter and garlic, they grill up nice! B) No, why? Do you have some locked in your basement you can spare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenkspaz Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Brick: Is it the ability to land on small boys or the ability to land in austere conditions which also grants them the ability to land on a small boy? Heh heh heh... WHAT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoleIt Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 (edited) AirGuardian, What we need is another man like Col John Boyd to head up a reform movement, and get airplanes that actually deliver on the promised results. The problem also stems from politicians wanting to create jobs for their constituents, thus adding more "gold-plating" to the aircraft. I do not believe that the F-35 will be a very good replacement for the A-10, simply because it will fly too fast. You do not need radar to see tanks in a CAS aircraft, but you do need to be able to fly slow enough and loiter so the troops on the ground can bring the rain. I hate seeing aircraft like this put into production, because the stealth technology is not all it is cracked up to be, and it is really expensive. They need to have fly-off competitions like they did for the F-16. If you are not familiar with this concept, I will explain. The USAF contracted two companies to build prototypes for a flyoff many years ago. The companies came up with the YF-16 and the YF-17. The flyoff took place, and the USAF chose the F-16, which is probably the best dogfighting aircraft around, even now. The US Navy decided to choose the YF-17, added another engine, and it is now the F-18. This process met all the required needs of the politicians and the DoD, which was unprecedented at the time, and has not happened again since. The F-22 and the F-35 performed side-by-side in a competition, but the fighters are so expensive, that talk is now surfacing about killing the F-22. The USAF and DOD did have a fly off for both the JSF and the 5th Gen fighter. The YF-22 vs the YF-23 and the X-35 vs X-32. Do you not remember Boeing's hideous JSF "Guppy" concept? I have never heard of the F-22 and the F-35 being compared heads up by our DOD. The Australians kept saying they wanted the F-22 instead of the F-35 but quickly changed their mind now. Basically its only the people who aren't involved in the process that keep thinking the F-35 is a turd and the F-22 can do its job better. And the YF-17 was always twin engined, it was based off the F-5 to begin with. Where are you getting your information from? Edited January 29, 2009 by stoleit2x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CAVEMAN Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Besides reduction in force, RIF stands for reading is fundamental. The USAF and USN agreed to the STOVL version to get the Marines to join in, thus sharing the costs, thus getting the program through its birthing pains. brick, Where in your previous post did you mention anything about the USAF and USN jumping on the STOVL action? This is even my first time hearing that the Navy considered it. While you are Captain Obvious on the ownership of the big gray boats, the only reason they exist is because of the Marines. The Marines effectively run that program within the Pentagon. They determine what toys go on/in it. The USN goes along because they get more big gray things along with the support elements. True. At 12? You need to try much older kids. You are taking away their innocence!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fud Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 stoleit2x and everyone else, I apologize for mis-speaking/typing about the YF-17. I think I got the aircraft confused. I also did not mean to say that the F-22 and F-35 were flown head to head, but there were flyoffs. I got a better website for use on this as well. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0236.shtml Again, I apologize for the mistakes, but I was trying to point out the fact that all of these newer aircraft have so much technology that they will be doing way to many missions in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marjackson82 Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Looking forward, and considering additional export potential, India, Brazil and others may also purchase the type, and they will also require STOVL to get the jet back on the boat. It's as simple as that. I understand it's just an example but Brazil's carrier would not need STOVL. They are currently operating A-4s out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoleIt Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 stoleit2x and everyone else, I apologize for mis-speaking/typing about the YF-17. I think I got the aircraft confused. I also did not mean to say that the F-22 and F-35 were flown head to head, but there were flyoffs. I got a better website for use on this as well. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0236.shtml Again, I apologize for the mistakes, but I was trying to point out the fact that all of these newer aircraft have so much technology that they will be doing way to many missions in the future. Gotcha. Yea I agree, like the Navy retiring the F-14, A-6, and trying to retire the EA-6B thus trying to do every mission with just one air frame. The F-18 is a great multirole aircraft, but it doesn't excel in any one area. The A-6 could carry more ordinance as a strike aircraft, the F-14 could kick more ass further away as an intercepter, etc. Just seems that in todays lets do more with less military aircraft have to serve more than 1 role or they wont be considered. The F-22 couldn't just stay being an air superiority fighter, so they had to test it out with dropping JDAMs (which surprisingly did work). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fud Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Here are some more good articles on this subject as well...interesting reading if you ask me. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0216.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuck Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I'm sure the Marines love the fact that theirs doesn't sport a gun. Optional pod: No stealthy no more = no good. Cheers! -Stuck PS: More F-22s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AirForceZip Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 New article about the 35. Luke pilots selected for F-35 Joint Strike Force initial cadre Can you provide a link to this please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenkspaz Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Can you provide a link to this please? F-16 pilots chosen as first F-35 instructors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Can you provide a link to this please? F-16 pilots chosen as first F-35 instructors Thanks~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JarheadBoom Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Last I heard, the residents in the Eglin area are displeased about the noise issue (apparently the F-35 is gonna be significantly louder than the other hardware currently at Eglin), and are vigorously opposing the basing proposal. I think the environmental impact statement isn't done yet, either... but I may be wrong about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marjackson82 Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Why not Luke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Why not Luke? They say Eglin has noise complaint and encroachment issues..........Luke's lucky to avoid BRAC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duster Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 (edited) They say Eglin has noise complaint and encroachment issues..........Luke's lucky to avoid BRAC. http://www.azcentral.com/community/westval...15luke1215.html Apparently, Luke is still in the running to get the F-35. Edited February 1, 2009 by double d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 http://www.azcentral.com/community/westval...15luke1215.html Apparently, Luke is still in the running to get the F-35. The Phoenix area and Luke are trying to do what they can to keep Luke viable, since Luke has been hit by severe encroachment in the past decade. Sucks that a base with its history is potentially on the brink of going either direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenkspaz Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Here's a recent article about the future of Luke: Court case to decide future for Luke AFB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now