One of the most important aircraft of the 21st Century made its first flight last month — the F-35B Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the 5th generation Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Named Lighting II, the F-35B will provide a first-line fighter/strike aircraft for use from U.S. STOVL/helicopter carriers and from a half-dozen foreign aircraft carriers.
The Lockheed Martin F-35B made its first flight on 11 June, piloted by BAE test pilot Graham Tomlinson. A former Royal Air Force pilot, Tomlinson flew the aircraft in conventional takeoff and landing modes from the Lockheed Martin facility at Fort Worth, Texas. Transition to short/vertical takeoffs and landings and hover flight will begin early next year.
The F-35B was the second Lightning II to begin flight tests, following the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A, which first flew on 15 December 2006. That aircraft has made more than 40 flights to date. The F-35B is the second of 19 development and demonstration aircraft. The next variant to fly will be the F-35C, configured for aircraft carrier operations.
F-35 deliveries are to begin in 2010 and continue well beyond 2030. The F-35/JSF program is one of the few Defense efforts that has the full endorsement of the Department of Defense, the military services, and the Congress.
The F-35B STOVL variant will replace the AV-8B Harrier in U.S. Marine Corps squadrons, and GR (ground attack/reconnaissance) series Harriers aboard British aircraft carriers. Several other nations have “signed on” to the F-35B program, both for land-based operation as well as from existing and planned VSTOL carriers.
While the Harrier was inferior to most contemporary land-based fighter/attack aircraft, the F-35B will have the speed, electronics, and stealth characteristics of its land-based contemporaries. However, the F-35B will have a range of some 450 nautical miles on internal fuel compared to more than 600 nautical miles for the F-35A/C variants.
In the United States the F-35B will be able to operate from the Navy’s large amphibious ships of the LHA/LHD classes, which now operate detachments of Harrier STOVL aircraft. The later ships of these types are being specifically configured for F-35B operations.
To date the most negative aspect evident in the F-35/JSF program is the aircraft’s designation. Then-Secretary of the Air Force James Roche designated the aircraft as the F-35 because the JSF technology demonstration aircraft was the X-35. That research aircraft was not even a prototype JSF, but a scale technology demonstrator. The situation would be like having designated the tilt-rotor MV-22 as the MV-15 because its technology demonstrator was the XV-15.
According to the Department of Defense aircraft designation system, the next U.S. fighter aircraft should have been designated F-24. (The F-23 was the McDonnell Douglas competitive design to the Lockheed F-22 Raptor fighter.) The use of sequential numbers of each aircraft within a given category is spelled out in the official DoD instructions on aircraft designations. The instruction specifically states that the system “is mandatory for use by all DoD components.”
{ 33 comments… read them below or add one }
Where are the old Harriers going to be? I wonder if India would like to have some of these, if the US ever planned to sold them.
Point of information: the F-23 was a Northrop design, with McAir as a partner. The Northrop heritage is shown in its nickname Black Widow II, after the Northrop P-61.
I do not like the Marine Corps investment in the F 35B. First, the Harrier is an absolute POS! While the concept is nice, the reality is jet engines require pristine, object free runways. Once they suck something up, it shreds the blades. The History channel has a series called “Engineering Disasters” and it featured the Harrier on one episode. It has even been nicknamed the “Lawn Dart” by many in the Corps.
In my opinion the Marine Corps could use squadrons of A-10′s to provide the mission of grand support much more effectively than the Harrier or other high tech derivatives.
And the desire to operate fighter aircraft from an LHD is also mind boggling. Why would at best, 6 available aircraft (never that many due to maintenance) justify the need for this technology which limits the range and payload of the aircraft? It is a waste of money and capability.
I believe this technology is something we should let the Chinese steal so they can waste their time and material instead.
A-10s cannot operate from LHDs. They require twice the runway, especially if they carry full loads.
Harriers, and the JSF now, allow the ARG to apply immediate fire support (Harriers and JSFs are included in the squadron as a reinforced element) and are integral to overall operations.
While I am sympathetic to some criticisms, if you cannot see the power – and thus necessity – of airpower in this day and age, I don’t know what to tell ya, chief. Make sure you rag down that window after you stop licking it.
I seem to recall a Nova episode on this aircraft. It showed a prototype F-35 taking off vertically and then hovering. This was done several years ago. What is the difference now?
Yes I am well aware that A-10′s cannot operate from LHD’s. My thought is why do we need to operate fighter aircraft from LHD’s? They only deploy 6 Harriers on them now and they are never at full strength. There are always hangar queens. I doubt they will accommodate any more F-35′s and with the limited range and payload of the B variant what is the point?
Everytime we faced an actual air threat (see Iran in the Straits of Hormuz) we had carrier escort. So let A-10′s do the ground work and\or F-18′s \F-35C do ground and air.
Id rather see the money spent on more standard F-35 than this B version. Harriers had a high attrition rate for a reason, and I dont think that the F-35B is going to be much different once it comes to attrition.
The Harrier had a high attrition rate because it was difficult to handle during vertical landings. By all accounts, the X-35B demonstrated massive improvements due to the use of a modern FBW system. The F-35B should also be less vulnerable to engine failures thanks to the advances made in gas turbine technology since the Harrier’s Pegasus engine was designed in the 1960s. Still, the F-35B is certainly more mechanically complex than a regular aircraft, so lower reliability and higher failure rate has to be expected to some extent.
joeblow:
The difference is that this is a production line aircraft, the nova episode featured a “hand-made” prototype.
Pedistrian,
the AV-8B is scheduled to finally be retired from service in 2024…i doubt the airframes will be of use to anyone…
“The F-35/JSF program is one of the few Defense efforts that has the full endorsement of the Department of Defense, the military services, and the Congress.”
This may be true in a narrow technical sense, but really overstates the case. The JSF buy has already been cut repeatedly, and many honest critics have built a case for cutting it further without eliminating the program. I expect that there will be at least one more major cut in the scope of the program before it is all over.
The Navy is decidely lukewarm about the F-35C version, the last to come on line in the current project schedule, as they are relatively happy with the current F-18s. It isn’t beyond the realm of possiblity that this version could be cut entirely in favor of a combination of upgraded F-18s and UCAVs, and it is likely that the F-35C will be further delayed in favor of other parts of the program and in light of overall DOD budget constraints.
The Air Force has likewise appeared quite willing to sacrifice some of its units of F-35A purchases for more F-22s (which almost everyone agrees is or will be more capable in air to air combat than the more recently designed F-35A) and/or a small number of F-35Bs (for the sake of diversifying the force). The lukewarm attitude of the Air Force flows, in part, from the evaporation of most of the anticipated price advantage of the F-35A over the F-22. Six F-35As for one F-22 looks like a good trade. Three F-35As for two F-22s, coupled with a longer lead time before the F-35As are ready for action than the F-22s is a far less exciting trade off for the Air Force.
Also, I don’t think anyone in the mainstream of Air Force opinion when the JSF program was initiated had accurately foreseen just how much smart munitions would reduce the number of bombs that would have to be dropped to produce the same results by 2010. So the Air Force overestimated the number of aircraft, including F-35As, that the Air Force needs to deliver bombs. In short, increased bomb accuracy makes air to ground bomb payload capacity less important. But air to ground bomb load is the main virtue other than price that the F-35A has over the F-22.
Only the Marines and the foreign carrier fleets seem unflagging of their support, which is for the F-35B version. The Harrier AV-8B is aging and has no other ready replacement for foreign military’s with Harrier carriers. The F-18 is less well suited to Marine needs than the F-35B, unsurprisingly because it wasn’t designed for them.
There is wide support in Congress for building some F-35s, but the exact force level that has support waxes and wanes — reducing the number of F-35 units is an easy way to fund any other pet R&D project.
It also bears mention that one of the justifications for having three version of the same plane with high commonality of parts was to reduce maintenance costs. This was ill conceived.
In the Navy, the F-35C will increase maintenance burdens (until many decades in the future when the last F-18s are phased out) because it will have entirely different requirements for maintenance than the three basic types of F-18 (C/D; E/F; Growler EF-18) in the current carrier fleet now that the F-14 has been removed from service. There also seem to be few, if any, plans in place to deploy Marine F-35Bs from CV carriers that also carry F-35Cs.
Also, the usefulness of Air Force bases and Navy carriers being able to serve the maintenance needs of each others planes at the same bases now seems overstated.
And, the virtue of efficiencies in manufacturing and design now seems counterweighted by an all your eggs in one basket philosophy that has left us with no competition in the jet fighter market.
The U.S. has the largest fleet of modern jet fighters in the world and the current generation of planned purchases sustained this trend, so the need for the U.S. to standardize for economy of scale reasons, rather than having a collection of lower priced, non-all purpose designs, is weaker in the U.S. military than in any other country in the world.
One quite sensible option worth considering is to cut some of the planned F-35A buy in order to fund a purchase of a significant number of specialized, less capable and cheaper CAS (as an A-10 successor), and/or domestic security oriented inteceptor aircraft (like the now defunct Homeland Defense Interceptor designed to patrol the skies over U.S. cities against civilian aircraft based terrorist attacks), and/or UCAVs (which are making technological progress faster than many planners anticipated).
Keep in mind that the LHDs/LHAs aren’t exactly small ships – they’re actually similar in size to a WW2 Essex-class fleet carrier. What they’re lacking for convential carrier operations is an angled flight deck. Before the development of the angled flight deck, jet operations from a carrier were pretty dicey.
One last consideration is that rough-field capability is something lacking in most modern western combat aircraft. It’s nice to be able to deploy without having to find a nice 10,000 ft concrete runway…
George : when I said small ships I used quotes indicating a bit of sarcasm. I agree with the idea that they would need to angle the landing portion of the deck.
What do you think about the STOVL variant of F-35?
By that question I met the design with the drive shaft thing connected to the main engine and the lifting fan.
It looks like a train wreck waiting to happen to me.
Rough field capability is about the only thing that Russian aircraft have going for them.The F-35B(or will it be called the FV-35B?) is about the only fixed wing aircraft(other than the AV-8B Harrier & the CV/MV-22 Osprey) that offers rough field capabilities.As mentioned before,Israel wants to field F-35B’s because of the greatly reduced land mass(the thinnest point between the borders of Israel will be 7 miles apart,give or take.Someone please correct the exact figure,but I know that it will be very thin) of their nation if they completely give up the West Bank for the new Palestinian State.Israel is also expecting to be simultaneously attacked by Egypt,Jordan,Syria,Lebanon(Lebanese Hezbollah) from outside the borders,& Palestinians(from the West Bank & Gaza,plus the Israeli “Arabs” who live inside the borders of Israel) from inside the borders of Israel,who will sabotage the roads the reservists will have to travel to get to their units & equipment,& the airbases where conventionally launched aircraft will be prevented from taking off.Having the F-35B will allow them to take-off from the “rough” areas & get into the fight where range isn’t an issue.
Off-topic,you know this issue about what kind of weapons the U.S. needs to defend herself is simple to solve.Design weapons as if they were going to go against “U.S.” weapons.Design fighter jets as if they were going after “stealth” F-22s.If you make weapons to go against the “best”,you’d be able to go against the “inferior” aircraft of Russia,China,Pakistan,India,North Korea,& Iran.How can that idea be so wrong.By building weapons & training our forces to go against the “best(ourselves),” we will be properly armed to go against anyone else,no matter how “advanced” or primitive they are.I read somewhere about Sgt. York anti-aircraft gun & why it failed.Someone mentioned how that the only reason they didn’t add anti-aircraft missiles to the mix of weaponry on the Sgt. York was because of “prohibitive” cost.Now that’s very interesting that we couldn’t afford the best to make a weapon work(the Sgt. York design,if it worked,could have been transferred from an M48 chassis to an M1 Abrams chassis),but we have no problem whatsoever,even in today’s suck ass economy,funding pork earmarks & bridges to nowhere.It’s called priorities.That is the problem with our congress,the defense of our nation is not a priority to them.Sadly,the Pentagon goes along with it.
“They only deploy 6 Harriers on them now and they are never at full strength. There are always hangar queens. I doubt they will accommodate any more F-35′s and with the limited range and payload of the B variant what is the point?”
The point is that you don’t need to station an $6 billion aircraft carrier off every rinky-dink island you deploy Marines to. For one.
For two, you can have 12 possible extra carriers for the same price: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm
Which means, if WWW-III hits and we lose ALL of our Supercarriers, we just roll to the backups.
Three. Why not?
Defense procurement accounting is like Hollywood accounting, getting a straight answer isn’t always easy. My sources include the following:
The administration’s Supplemental Defense Appropriations request this past March put the cost savings associated with not buying two F-35s at $389 million, which is $194.5 million per plane. Full multi-role capabilities for the F-35 are likely to take until 2016 to achieve.
By comparison, according to Wikipedia’s sources regarding the F-22, as of December 18, 2007:
“By the time all 183 fighters have been purchased, $34 billion will have been spent on actual procurement, resulting in a total program cost of $62 billion or about $339 million per aircraft. The incremental cost for one additional F-22 is around $137 million; decreasing with larger volumes. If the Air Force were to buy 100 more F-22s today, the cost of each one would be less than $117 million and would continue to drop with additional aircraft purchases.”
Strategy Page in May 2006, before some of the most recent cost overruns in the program estimated a total cost for the F-35 of $113 million a unit including R&D (about half the price) and a production cost of an F-22 of $170 per unit exclusive of R&D. Development costs for the F-35A and F-35B are largely sunk costs at this point, but there are some development costs yet to be incurred for all three versions, and they are a significant share of the costs for the F-35C which is least far along in the development process. For example, according to a contract announced by the US Department of Defense in August 2007 a power generation defect in the original engine design won’t have an update ready for use until the end of 2009.
A March 2005 GAO report described by the Washington Post said: “it is now expected to cost $244.8 billion to produce a planned 2,400 planes. Development will cost $44.8 billion, including a $10 billion increase identified last year, the report said.” The price has gone up, not down, since then.
The manufacturer quotes a flyaway cost for the SM-27/47 Machete, already fully developed, of $15-$20 million each depending upon the model chosen. It is no stealth strike fighter, but would be quite appropriate as a supplement to the existing A-10 force. The cost for competitors like the AT-6B, the Wichita-based Hawker Beechcraft product that is often marketed as a COIN aircraft, the Embraer EMB-314 Super Tucano and the US Aircraft A-67 Dragon, ought to be in the same ballpark and likewise shouldn’t require meaningful upfront development costs since they have already been designed.
When Aviation Technology Group’s proposed Homeland Defense Interceptor the quoted cost in ballpark of $6 million per unit with about 30% of the operating cost of an F-16 (it didn’t get any military contacts and didn’t get enough civilian contracts, so it filed for bankruptcy this past Spring). Triple that price and its still cheap. A less ambitious plane, naturally, speeds up the time necessary to make it operational. You wouldn’t want one going head to head with another fighter, but this would be totally adequate for the Air Force National Guard when deployed against a hijacked commercial jet or terrorist controlled general aviation airplane operating in the territorial United States.
Do we ever use small fields to take off and land from or whatever to point of having STOVL is for?! Seems like a massive waste of money just to have a jet that can hover…
Brad: what crawled up your ass?
The STOVL is a freaking pipe dream. Yeah it can manhandle a non-airforce(a.k.a. your rinky-dink island) but any significant threat and it will need backup. The Marine Corps is throwing away a lot of money on technology that is not worth it.
Christ the best thing they could load on the Harrier was friggin’ cluster bombs in case of speed boat attack when we went through the Straits of Hormuz. We had a CVN and Arleigh Burke Destroyers escorting us through. The damn thing is a pig. I have more faith in Lockheed but they will still be dumbing down the jet so it can hover at airshows and land vertically on ships (big deal!). Redesign the LHD to cat and trap a F35 C\FA 18 and at least you get a better jet.
So why not do that?
They ARE redesigning the LHDs (adding two full hull sections for an extra 50-80 feet of hull length, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lhx-schem.htm ). And I have no illusions about the limitations of the Harrier. It is a lawndart.
But it also was the FIRST lawndart. The F-35 is nothing like the Harrier; it is far more capable.
If you want a catapult system on an LHD, you just about have to kiss the well deck goodbye, which kind of defeats the purpose of the LHD. Might as well ask: why don’t we take one of our supercarriers and throw an LCAC in the middle of it?
The answer, and I don’t want to be rude, is that the LHD is a light carrier class, basically. Congress isn’t going to fund 24 Supercarriers. So you have this light carrier and all this deck space, you have cargo and attack helicopters and you can mix and match it up however you wish: 24 CH-46s/Ospreys no attack, all attack. Etc. The Navy and Marine Corps both agree that a strike package is useful too and that’s why they bought the original Harriers.
Now 5 Harriers or JSFs won’t stop China or Russia in WWIII. But if you need to, you can take out the entire rotary element and go all strike: 20 JSFs. With that in mind, that LHD could seriously challenge – on its own – a small airforce like Venezvuela’s ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/venezuela/airforce-equipment.htm ). I’m not saying that is in the cards at all. But it is a snapshot of what is possible. With support, an ARG with normal complement can contest even moderate powers like Indonesia until reinforcements arrive.
MC513,
While I agree for the most part with your sentiments that V/STOL is not all it is cracked up to be ONE of the areas where it DOES excel is opertating from (relatively) small carriers.
The USS America (LHA 6) class are expected to have a standard airgroup of 10 F-35B, 12 MV-22, 4 CH-53E/K, 4 AH-1Z, 4 UH-1Y & 4 MH-60S. PLUS (like the previous Wasp & Tarawa classes) can be used as a Sea Control Ship – in such a role the USS America (LHA 6) class would operate 20 (or more) F-35B & 6 MH-60S.
Think “measured response”. ;) There are times when an Expeditionary Strike Group (with 10 or 20 F-35B) better fits the threat than a Carrier Strike Group.
***
ohwilleke,
The USN is NOT “lukewarm” about the F-35C. I guarantee there are those in the USN that are LITERALLY counting the days until they get their 1st opertional F-35C, their 1st operational F-35C squadron, the F-35C IOC & FOC. The USN has been waiting since the cancellation of the A-12 for a stealth strike aircraft & the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet was forced upon them as the only possibility at the time. While the USN is relatively happy with its F/A-18s it is also aware of the capability lost in its current all F/A-18 fleet. Don’t get me wrong, the F/A-18 is a fine muti-role light attack/secondary air defense-escort fighter but it is NOT the true air defense fighter a modern F-14 (or equivalent) would be nor is it the medium attack bomber an A-12 or modern A-6 (or equivalent) would be.
USN isn’t expecting its 1st UCAV squadron until 2025 & will likely have AT LEAST one full F-35C squadron in each CAW by then. That is still quite a ways off yet. The USN plans to replace its F/A-18A-D with F-35C & LATER replace its F/A-18E/F with UCAV. Note that the USN is calling its eventual UCAV the Unmanned Combat Air Systems (UCAS). It IS NOT looking at UCAVs instead of F-35C but as a supplement to its F-35Cs.
***
Roy Smith,
We have been through this before, Israel is looking at PERHAPS 1/4 of its desired 100 F-35 buy being F-35B. They want SOME F-35Bs to fulfill a SPECIFIC need not INSTEAD of the F-35As that will make the majority of (3/4) its F-35 buy. But yes given Israel’s geographical limitations, having some F-35Bs would not be a bad thing.
Brad: I was unaware of the expantion of the LHD’s which would of course accomodate more F-35′s so I see your point. I still think the technology is overrated though.
Also, as far as a catapult on a ship, they usually are under the bow correct? The well deck in the LHD’s do not extend to the bow(At least the one I was on USS Boxer). Although, I am sure they would have to give up other space\compliments to build one.
So, I guess for the most part, I have a wait and see attitude to the B variant. I want the best thing possible for the Corps I am just not sure I have faith in them getting it after experiencing the nightmare that is the Harrier.
So does anyone have any structural engineering background? If so, (or even if you do not) does that drive shaft in the B variant look sound to you?
Semper Fidelis
DA:
I like the OnStar concept and the F35 in general.
As far as cost benefit, that is probably up for some change just based on every other military procurement program that is vetted through Congress and new Administrations with new agendas.
I am UNHAPPY with the STOVL version for reasons I already specified.
DA:
One more thing on a related note:
I am for the V-22 for the same reasons I am against the F 35B. The V-22 has better performance overall. I am not sure about its survivability in combat though..but at the very least, it is faster and has better range\payload.
The only real advantage to the 35 B is it can operate from LHD\LHA’s. No offense to the small\rough field crowd, but outside of carrier qualified landing gear, we don’t build “tough” aircraft like the Russians.
Maybe I am totally wrong on the B model. I hope so. But once it is in the air, I would rather fly the A or C model.
Just my .02 .
Yep – you pay a price in weight for the VSTOL capability, which in turn impacts performance, range, and payload. Still, that VSTOL capability can be useful – certainly the Marines, the RAF, and the RN are convinced. The F-35B drive shaft technology also enables some really interesting future development. It’s possible to drive a powerful generator off the same type of shaft to operate electronic warfare equipment or directed energy weapons.
MC513, while I sympathize with some of your reservations – the V/STOL does reduce operational capability, that is real – the F-35 is a high performance stealth fighter. Even at 70% capability, it is more than capable of tangling with the world’s best fighters today and up-and-coming fighters like the Eurofighter and the Sukhoi series. The old Harriers could not stand against even the MiG 21, 23 series or the F-5s when it was designed. It was an attack plane through and through.
Having 6-20 F-35s per ARG (think six unless in time of full conventional war) gives the fleet extraordinary capability we’ve never had before, possibly four extra supercarriers worth.
Besides, with the V-22, the mission of that platform is over-the-horizon deployment; from the Mediterranean and into Damascus, for instance. THis is different from our current generation of helicopters which can deploy only out to sixty-hundred miles or so with cover from escorts and before needing to return. As there is no possibility to attach as escorts Cobra Zulus to a Osprey unit, the need for organic strike support is actually much greater. It’s the only way to zap AAA and SAM batteries, or enemy fighters, which could menace the cargo package.
Plus in any large mission, a Carrier Battlegroup or two will likely assist, as well as another possible ARG or two; you are looking at perhaps 140 first-rate fighters (stealth, too!) against any air defense grid and air force. Coupled with long-range bomber support, electronic attack, long-range fighters like Raptors from Europe, Japan, Diego Garcia, hell, Texas too, and there are very few, if any, national militaries that could contest that amount and sophistication of force.
AND with the Small Diameter Bomb (the F-35B can carry up to 8 internally and possibly another 20 + externally), that single stealth F-35 will be able to do the same job as a dozen multirole fighters even as recently as 2003 (think: no electronic attack support, no fighter support, up to 30 accurate bombs). This really is a powerful capability.
Brad: I agree with your post. I am excited that we are getting a replacement that is steathly and more capable against enemy aircraft.
I also agree that the Osprey has effectively out classed its escorts. Reminds me of the WWII bomber campaign prior to the introduction of the P-51.
So I think I have beat the horse enough on this topic.
Just want to thank everyone for their input. I have enjoyed having some intelligent discussions on this topic.
Take it easy.
“I have enjoyed having some intelligent discussions on this topic.”
Me too, MC513.
I hope I wasn’t too much of a jerk to start off, but any F-22/F-35/Osprey thread tends to bring out the Eurodouches (Oh, stealth is WAY overrated! The ten-twelve Eurofighters we have on the entire continent could easily annhilate your pathetic Raptor squadrons…etc) and the Larouchie Ron Paul maniacs that somehow work the Bilderburghers and Jews into any topic (OBVIOUSLY the F-35 is being built to appease AIPAC and throw the US into war with Iran…yadda yadda yadda). So I tend to shoot first and ask questions later.
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m36/InfoLandsknecht/Macros/internet_serious_mf_business.jpg
See ya…
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m36/InfoLandsknecht/Macros/
internet_serious_mf_business.jpg
While the F-35B STOVL is groundbreaking in many areas, that sad fact is that without a F-22 Raptor to fly cover, it will be vulnerable to the latest versions of the Flanker. Its less sophisticated stealth design can be seen by the latest Russian radar systems. It AESA radar does not have the range to fight an advanced Flanker in a BVR fight. In a visual dogfight it will be outclassed by the thrust vectoring engines and helmet cued weapons of the SU-30 through SU-35 aircraft. With 180+ Raptors trying to fly cover for hundreds of JSF, we are going to come out on the losing end of any large scale conflict (like a fight over Taiwan).
RSF
HAHA!JSF also means’Java Server Faces.’Therefore
CTR1 might be the one hacking me,from military.com
and strategypage.com and NSC…Especially from Yahoo.com…
Why get all out of shape over a plane you don’t
work on or fly?Its just like people arguing over
whose the best SOF unit…And copy every article and book in existence,and then trouble veterans…