The first production model F-35B arrived in the ‘hood last Sunday. BF-1 will begin the JSF’s developmental test program in the next few weeks, including vertical takeoffs and landings. Meanwhile DoD reports show the program is behind schedule and over budget – not a good place to be these days (just ask the F-22 or Presidential Helo guys). And adding to the bad press is a report from the UK Register that says both the V-22 and JSF have a problem with melting flight decks at sea. (Surprise … er, I mean, “No comment.”)
So enjoy this happy snap. We’re trying to get over to Pax to get some more before manned flight goes away altogether, which may be sooner than planned if the acquisition professionals don’t get their acts together.
(Gouge — NC)
– Ward
{ 78 comments… read them below or add one }
Seriously WTF. How could we be having this bad of a problem? Didnt anyone think to oh i dont know check to see what the heat tollerences were before?
Isnt there some type of composite that they could spray on the deck? Check with the space program.
yes there is something they could use. the thing that i'am thinking about is the fire blanket you use when you soldering copper pipes together when your to close to the wall to keep the fire from burning or catching you house on fire
question. How often does a harrier take off verticaly?
at airshows. thats about it. it is the landing where the vtol capability comes into play
Exactly. Can't we just slap some shuttle tiles on the flight decks?
While I'm sure someone has already thought of that, it amazes me that simple things like this can be overlooked.
Shuttle tiles would not take the abuse because they are brittle, imagine a tail hook slamming down on the deck. Kinda slippery too.
How much does a shuttle tile cost anyway? Very, very expensive? And you gonna have sailors walk across it and spit their chewing tobacco juice on it like they do on Carrier decks since time out of mind and will always do? Be realistic. Even if you didn't sell the stuff on the ship, they would have it sent to them, like they do they one shot whisky bottles…Oh wait minute! Scratch that last bit.. Spit on a shuttle tile. Cmon!
Ya know my whole 3+ years out of 4 (first was boot, A school then FRAMP) deploying on the Coral Sea I never saw any booze on board, nor anyone drinking. Tobacco? Everywhere, and back then everyone smoked. And you think it's bad when you reach for what you thought was your soda, and you took a pull off some guy's soda can spittoon? No, the bad part was that it's all one long string and you can't stop! As for the booze tho I can only compare it to the pot I saw onboard, which pre-"operation zero tolerance" was fairly common, if you didn't mind paying $25 a gram for crummy brown mex. Though I enjoyed it off duty and off base while at Miramar, onboard the ship I never touched it and as a crewleader in the AQ/AT shop would have placed my best friend on report if I knew he was drunk or stoned. We worked almost always at night on the flight deck, often during night ops, my last shift up there had me just as terrified as the first. Too many ways to die and you usually didn't see it coming. Besides, they basically kept lower enlisted too exhausted with 12-16 hour days to need anything to "unwind".
One time a lonnnng time ago I was assigned TAD to the MAAs on a ship. Well, getting bored, my partner and I went out to the garbage sponson to watch em throw trash overboard (hey, you gotta find your pleasures wherever you can, they sold out of Playboys in the store). So here comes a guy with a trash bag and as soon as he got ready to heave it overboard, the bottom fell out and a bunch of those 'one dollar bottles' I mentioned fell all over the sponson. So here I am, we're both looking at the bottles, but it would not be a 'good bust' (\”they told me to empty the trash, I don't know nothing\”) so I told him to clean up the mess. Oh yeah, on the Coral Sea, one time I went down into the Officer's mess for some reason and on the tables I saw wineglasses with a 'dark fluid' (Hint) inside. Now I don't know about you but using a wine glass with 'nothing' in it is very strange. I played like the Sergeant on Hogan's Heroes. \”I don't see nothing\”. Oh yeah, did any of your crew use NYQUIL (which is 25% alcohol) to uhhh, take care of their colds at night? I know, it's a secret. And so is the one about the Scope mouthwash in which the contents got changed, more kick. I'm not condemning or justifying, I'm stating facts. Now, I will admit that after we pulled out of port and I had the duty and I maybe didn't feel so great oncet or thrice, but drunk, No.
Use asbestos.
Good idea. Since the military is generally exempt from environmental laws. And if they get mesothelioma, that's their problem.
I lol'd
you know asbestos in most applications is perfectly safe. Most of the badly afflicted were old school brake maechanics and the bulk of them were smokers even. They'd blow out brake drums with compressed air a dozen times a day, and smoke as many or more cigarettes. You think that would give them lung cancer? huh? Trial lawyers actually played down that aspect greatly so the jury would identify with the victims- the old "it could happen to you just as easily" mentality.
Let me get this straight, 200M a plane now.
Wasent it supposed to be a lot cheeper than the better f-22?
Makes one wonder if they should have keep the f-22 in production becasue we all know they are not really going to be the 2000+ aircraft they stated.
Just like f-22 was what 600 then 300 then 187?
If JSF is going to cost more than the F-22, the AF should ditch their orders for JSF and stock up on raptors.
I wish people would stop pulling numbers out of their rear ends.
The F-35 flyaway cost is ALREADY less than $200 million. And SHOULD drop below $100 million ~FY2013.
Nice to see you here Mr pfcem, fed of wasting time with the losers, trolls and biased mods over at Key pub site i take it, can't say I blame you if so!
Any type of ceramic heat tile (similar to the shuttle) would be far too fragile to support the weight of a landing or taking-off aircraft.
I spent the last ten minutes thinking why it could never work, but what if you had designated landing area(s) where just the parts of the deck under the hot nozzles were covered in heat tiles? Or a zone with liquid coolant underneath? Or just lay down a few coats of ablative material every so often? Put a protective cover over those areas when not doing flight ops.
Only because the shuttle's tiles didn't need to support weight. A composite of several materials shouldn't be a big deal to develop. We're making mountains out of molehills here. Throw a little money at it and it'll go away. (tongue inserted firmly in cheek)
Can anyone explain why we even need VTOL now? I think the original justification for it was that it provided the US Marines the ability to operate from ad hoc runways (i.e. parking lots, etc.) if regular runways were rendered useless by Soviet attack (chemical, nuclear, runway cratering, etc.)
So, when do we forsee VTOL being used now? Maybe STOL from amphibious LHD ships…but is VTOL really even relevant today?
If there ever was a need, building a bunch of cheap LHD ships as mini aircraft carriers, armed with VTOL F-35s would be very plausible. With future liberal military budget cuts, the navy might just start to consider this while they are unable to build more aircraft carriers to maintain at least 10.
CAS aircraft could operate more "forward" (no need for giant long runways that can be hit with rockets/mortars), though VTOL doesn't say anything about their ability to operate in rugged or improvised landing areas.
Actually the operation of marine support aircraft from so called "ad hoc" runways as pitched to congress in the Harrier project was pure folly. FOD engine loss would have reared its head the first time they actually tried it. Vectorable thrust is good for increased maneuverability as well as V/STOL capabilities, and is vital for British marine use.
Hey whats goin on?! Why not employ people ? We have a lot of people who are unemployed. Train them and let them do the work to speed up manufacturing of this staff. Gear it up America! O-haa!
We need VTOL as the Amphib decks aren't big enough to allow a short landing, mp
The AV8's, F35's and V22's can take off in STOL, but you end up with space management issues similar to what Doolitle had with B25's on the Hornet, especially with helo's sharing the limited space.
SB
The fail is strong on this plane.
To the poster "Vitor" :
You wrote: "The fail is strong on this plane."
Hush, these are the best years in any defense contractor's life!
Also the good thing about VTOL is the posibility of basing them in remote location where we can build a huge airstrip.
Also our allies who are helping pay for it need them because they cant or dont want a full size carrier. Smaller carriers like the brits current or new classes and the japanese carrier classes.
Except no VTOL operator has ever used that capability and doubtful they ever would in the future, in short the whole 'lets land in the forest clearing and create a FARP there' is not an option and only exists for marketing purposes.
The whole "heat on the deck thing" seems to me like a big non-issue. A recent tv special they actually mentioned this in regards to the V-22. They even showed the fix on the show…..a 1/4in thick square of plate steel on the deck where the exaust was blowing.
The F-35 program is certainly gearing up, gearing up to be a catastrophe…
LOL yall should check out Cdr Salamanders page and his thoughts on the word…."Non-issue".
It’s a shame our government’s procurement process allows for the OVERspending of an OVERrated piece of equipment whose price tag clearly exceeds its usefulness.
It’s always amusing that the fan-boys think that a few quick fixes is all that is needed – spray “Mr fix it” on the deck being the latest one. Just shows how easy is to get the uninformed to dance to the contractors tune.
Whether it is 10 years to work out that the deck will melt or 20 years to develop a functioning deicing system it is clear from the GAO reports what the contractors are doing. They front load the project and cut out things like testing so that production can be ramped up as fast as possible to lock in the government.
That the testing then needs to be done later at a much higher cost and design changes need to be made at even higher costs is just gravy because they know once there are lemons in the inventory and jobs on the line then they have the suckers by the balls.
Those that can bail are doing it now. Pity the US government cant.
Hey! Wait a minute. We have heat issues with the exhaust? Just spray PAM on the flight deck when you have your morning FOD walkdowns… Yeah. that'll fix it !
Modern ceramics are not brittle. I have seen a ceramic hammer driving in a ceramic nail. There are also pocket knives that have 100% ceramic blades. Don't discount the possibility of a newly developed tough ceramic tile. They are also generally cheap by the way, so you could swap them out as needed.
Well there goes another few billion for tile develpment. Expect the tile to be overweight and underperfoming not to mention a maintainence nightmare.
take a few material and processes classes in college and then you just might be able to understand that there are many different kinds of composites. and also get your mind around strength and hardness and brittleness. if its that hard, then it is dense, and if it is that hard then it is brittle. supporting the weight of an aircraft would take something flexible. it will be solved easily but dont think that yoou can just assume all ceramics are good heat insulators
I thought Harriers put out more directed hot exhaust than the 35B? At least with the F-35B you have a giant fan pushing out cool air!
I thought that's why we gave the contract to Lockheed instead of Boeing! The fan!
Wonder why the 'prop V-22 is causing melting problems…
So, the F-35 will end up costing as much as a F-22, at the same time it's inferior in almost all aspects. This is so bizarre…
To the poster "Vitor" :
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Part I :
You wote: "So, the F-35 will end up costing as much as a F-22, at the same time it's inferior in almost all aspects."
Inferior against the much much cheaper (and better) Su-34's too…
The always loyal British lapdogs are already deserting:
"United Kingdom: F-35 or F-22?
As the unit procurement costs of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter progressively converge with the unit costs of the F-22A Raptor, and the F-35 becomes progressively less survivable as threats evolve, it is time for the UK to cut its losses, bail out of the JSF program, and opt for the F-22A instead.
…
(Continued)
Without stating so as fact one can only wonder if that was authored by the political opposition of that country's JSF proponents. They point out the JSF is "progressively less survivable as threats evolve". Is that supposed to be a valid talking point or an appeal to the dullard faction? I don't recall the deified Raptor to be immune to the same. The F-22 is not VTOL capable nor is it retrofittable to be so, we might as well call it the F-22 "Red Herring" if discussing it as a British alternate to the F-35B. This statement: "Large numbers of low performance fighters, including the F-35, are virtually useless against Russia’s new generation Su-34 and Su-35BM fighters." if one does not run away laughing, is "virtually" silly. In 1981 my Navy F-4J Squadron, VF-21, wore the Battle E for the Pacific Air wing after positively flogging both the F-14s from Miramar AND F-15 teams from Nellis in matchups there and at Fallon, smoking J79's and all. Aircrew confidence in a proven platform was vital in that.
Without stating so as fact one can only wonder if that was authored by the political opposition of that country's JSF proponents. They point out the JSF is "progressively less survivable as threats evolve". Is that supposed to be a valid talking point or an appeal to the dullard faction? I don't recall the deified Raptor to be immune to the same. The F-22 is not VTOL capable nor is it retrofittable to be so, we might as well call it the F-22 "Red Herring" if discussing it as a British alternate to the F-35B. This statement: "Large numbers of low performance fighters, including the F-35, are virtually useless against Russia’s new generation Su-34 and Su-35BM fighters." if one does not run away laughing, is "virtually" silly. In 1981 my Navy F-4J Squadron, VF-21, wore the Battle E for the Pacific Air wing after positively flogging both the F-14s from Miramar AND F-15 teams from Nellis in matchups there and at Fallon, smoking J79's and all. Aircrew confidence in a proven platform was vital in that.
Part II :
The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter is designed to defeat threats that will have been superceded well before this aircraft enters operational service. The performance of the F-35 is suffering seriously from the conflicting design requirements that it was intended to meet. As a result, the F-35 is shaping up to be a technological failure, a delivery schedule and 'affordability' failure, and a techno-strategic failure.
…
Britain remains the largest single overseas partner in the F-35 program, and as this program unravels, Britain stands to lose much more than the other partner nations in a sunk investment not producing any direct return, and in political embarrassment.
…
(Continued)
Part III :
The F-16E, F/A-18E/F and F-15E/SG do not qualify as credible substitutes given the proliferation of high technology Russian designed Flanker fighters and double digit SAMs on the global stage. None of these types can survive in such an environment.
…
About a decade ago the F-22A Raptor was proposed as an alternative to the domestically built Eurofighter Typhoon. Britain’s influential aerospace industry lobby killed that proposal, rubbishing the F-22 with some very dubious DERA JOUST simulations, which claimed the Typhoon was 81 percent as good as an F-22. Forensic analysis showed this was nonsense, an assessment since then borne out by the operational experience of the US Air Force flying the F-22 against a range of conventional fighters.
…
Cited numbers vary between 150 and 138 aircraft, although reports emerging from the UK late last year suggested a reduction to as few as 85 aircraft. This is a far cry from the euphoric speculation of early 2002, when senior RAF staff officers privately suggested to their Canberra colleagues that the RAF should be replacing its remaining Panavia Tornado GR.4s, Tornado F.3s, and earlier built Typhoons, with the F-35A JSF.
…
(Continued)
Part V :
It is worth observing that the character of developing Russian capabilities is very different from the Cold War era Soviet model. Rather than the vast numbers of mostly unsophisticated shorter ranging dumb bomb armed tactical fighters the Soviets deployed, Russia is emulating the US model of smaller numbers of highly sophisticated high technology long range aircraft armed with precision smart weapons. Large numbers of low performance fighters, including the F-35, are virtually useless against Russia’s new generation Su-34 and Su-35BM fighters.
…
Technological evolution and poorly thought out specification/definition of the F-35 design has seen to it that by the time the F-35 would deploy, assuming it survives its engineering, cost and schedule problems, the F-35 will be wholly uncompetitive against the new generation of Russian designed weapons. That margin will grow as Russian and Chinese weapons evolve over the next three decades, while the overweight, underpowered, over-packed and under-stealthed F-35’s built in design limits make it increasingly outmatched.
…
(Continued)
Part VI :
Whether Britain wishes to conduct expeditionary warfare in coalition or unilaterally, or participate in European NATO continental defence, its Eurofighter Typhoons and planned F-35 JSFs will likely be fodder for the latest Russian weapons, unless the opposing side is an undeveloped Third World nation. The prospect of Russian contractor (i.e. mercenary) aircrew, ground-crew and missileers being deployed to Third World nations with the available cash introduces uncertainties even in the latter circumstance. It has happened before.
…
The wisest strategy for the United Kingdom is to negotiate access to the F-22A Raptor and bail out of the F-35 program at the earliest. An even wiser strategy is to collaborate with the Americans on the development of a navalised F/A-22N Sea Raptor, to drive down costs for the US Navy, Marine Corps and Royal Navy.
…
(Continued)
Part VII :
This document identifies Australia, Britain and Canada as the three US allies who can be trusted without question to operate the F-22 and protect its technology.
…
Two to three full strength Fighter Wings comprising 50 to 70 F-22 Raptors each would provide enough deterrent capability and sustainable / survivable firepower to address Europe’s needs for decades to come.
…
The United States needs to think long and hard about how to redress Europe’s worsening strategic weakness, as it has the potential to soak up disproportionate US military resources in any serious contingency. Exporting a variant of the F-22 rather than the uncompetitive F-35 would solve much of that problem.
…
(Continued)
Part VIII :
With the long term future of the F-22 now the subject of intensive political, public and analytical community debate in America, and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter now showing the symptoms of an incipient technological “death spiral”, the time is right for the Obama Administration and H.M. Government to jointly explore the export of F-22 Raptor variants for the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, as an “escape strategy” from the F-35 program.
…
All that is needed is the political courage and strategic foresight to make a break from the past, well intentioned but fundamentally flawed, choice of the F-35.
…
…
Navalising the F-22 Raptor – Restoring America's Maritime Air Dominance [Click for more ...] "
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-240209-1.htm…
Please don't qoute APA nonsense. They have zero credibility except with 12 year old enthusiats.
Thanks.
Sorry, this was meant to be part of my multi-byte answer to the poster "Vitor". FUCK this goddamned new "Defense Tech" format!!!
The fix is not as easy as some would think. There is a lot more hot air getting directed downward by the F-35 than by a Harrier. Fan or not, it weighs significantly more–more weight means more thrust required.
As an aside, V/STOL is key to fixed wing being able to operate off an LHD, which is more important that it is made out to be. Harriers usually land vertically, but hardly ever takeoff vertically–the weight limitations are too restrictive.
At the same time, I sense a theme on this forum that new=bad, and that defense programs are always jacked up. Yes, they have their problems, but this is a radically better aircraft than what it's replacing. It may get delayed, but I think the end result will be good.
Part I :
To the poster "frogdiver" :
You wrote: "I sense a theme on this forum that new = bad, and that defense programs are always jacked up."
You only do R. & D. to plan the next generation of conventional weapons. It's been 56 years, though ( = since the Korean War), that the U.S. Armed Forces last fought a 100 % conventional war, without guerillas – and they lost even that one… Even the (conventional!) air raids against Iran and Lybia failed their main objectives. And there was no man on the Moon either. I know: Excuses, excuses… And more corporativism from you. ANYTHING but an unquestionable victory or technological success. Since 1953, your "new = good" U.S. Military technology has been CONSTANTLY defeated (in the end) by "old = bad" weapons.
(Continued)
Part II :
The U.S. Nazis aren't the only ones, though: Since China annexed Tibet in 1950, NO country managed to occupy another country successfully until today. The time of expansionism is gone, forever, thanks God.
The U.S.A. are merely the only ones who still try, and try, and try… And they still call themselves a "First" World country!
"O Death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" (1 Corinthians 15:55)
OMG, the project is overbudget and behind schedule, giving journalists something to write about and people to postulate on! How terrible! How unprecedented! Wait- no it's not. Wait till they crash one and people call it a deathtrap, a boondoggle. F-14, anyone? First prototype destroyed in its second flight? The A version in service nearly a decade was that deathtrap until the engine refit cured compressor stall woes. M1 Abrams? Everyone said "cancel that lemon" in '80 when you had to stop every MILE to clean sand out of the intake. Desert Storm proved critics wrong.
We'll make it work. Americans- no, Humans do that sort of thing.
The projects you mention all had great potential, unlike the F-35 which is destined to become a failure and a great embarrasment for US aerospace industry. LM better get used to being the laughing stock of the worlds aviation companies.
Well Jimbo, nothing personal (as it's your argument, not you I'll address) but it would be easier to not sit here bewildered as those projects were in fact widely lambasted during their development with crtitics seeing no potential, your faith in them is purely hindsight vision. Even more bizarre is your belief LM would become the laughingstock of its industry, when, (and I didn't see you promote it but assume you do or what else?) the knight in shining F-22 armour its critics demand instead is ALSO an LM product. I'm guessing your aviation knowledge exceeds your debate skills or you wouldn't be here. Rethink your arguments, my friend!
Part IV :
Britain’s long term strategic needs have been the focus of much of the criticism directed at re-equipment plans for the UK fighter fleet. Sadly much of this criticism has been myopic, concentrated on short term considerations relating to Counter INsurgency Operations (COIN) in the Islamic world. In this respect Britain has suffered from the same nonsensical very short term argument seen in the United States, and Australia.
…
Moreover, as Russia builds up numbers of the SA-21, it will be able to declare and effectively enforce permanent air exclusion zones up to 200 nautical miles outside its geographical borders – a Surface-to-Air-Missile-based buffer zone that would appeal to Russian fears of being subjected to attack by cruise missiles and conventional aircraft.
…
(Continued)
Mbt shoes are promotion now,Mbt sport shoes and Mbt m walk hot onsale
http://www.discountMbt.com
$200M perAC, and all of these cost over runs wil be spread over the whole program. The Royal Navy is now planning a re-fit of the new QE2 carriers for Cats and traps. RafaleM at $55M perAC and Hawkeyes will be IN over our over engineered Super planes. After seeing Rafale in Afghanistan(MOS 18E40), it will probaly workout be a great system while we will form a congressional comittee to find out why we cant sell a $250M AC that can not be maintained by the manufacture let alone deployed in the field
The aerospace industry needs to figure out a way to do business more efficiently. These development costs cut into their profit margins, as there is an upper limit to how much governments are willing to pay (and it'll come out of the number of aircraft procured since you can't clawback R&D).
I'm sure they'll end up outsourcing or something.
At this point the JSF is not going to replace anything except the Harrier! Everyone else is going to want the F-22 instead. (Either way Lockheed gets a pot of gold)
Good god this jet is bungled up beyond all belief, news on it it gets worse every week! What an epic f**k up to say the very least.
LM must be staffed by retarded kids or something thesedays.
V-22's melting decks? What about a dry, grassy field? Could create a whole new meaning for flying into a "hot" LZ…"fire hot"
It will never be used in a hot LZ, the whole thing is marketing crap like it was with the Harrier.
I'll bring up a point I am either sadly mistaken about through ignorance or possibly the only simpleton as such having common sense to realize- are we comparing the F-22 Raptor unit cost as it was developed in pre-9/11, pre- real estate meltdown, pre GreatDepression.2 dollar value with JSF unit cost as projected to date development and over its future life?
If this is the case I have a house I'd like to buy- YOURS with those future paper scraps.
Sorry to burst the US gov/FED bubble but our economy tanked soon after Bush took office and the consumer economy Clinton built after facilitating the transfer of all our patents to China stopped after collapsing in Manhatten. The dollar, despite the facade placed on it and wise decision to keep Saddam from engineering its crash with a petroeuro market in Paris, isn't worth spit today and if I am calling this right the number comparison is way off. Don't look to our government to prove me wrong on this, it's their job to pretend it's not happening but the realpolitik in me, the liberal Republican in me that knows life as we knew it in the US is history, knows better.
batvette: A lot of JSF money was spent before the meltdown. And who says that the numerical cost of JSF won't go up in the post 9/11 environment? The lower dollar means less favorable foreign exchange, thus if anything has to be bought from overseas it "costs more" due to the weaker dollar. The costs from this foreign purchasing are pushed downstream until they land in the lap of Lockheed Martin and the government, so I wouldn't say that JSF is cheaper because America is broke.
To the poster "batvette" :
You wrote: "The dollar, despite the facade placed on it and wise decision to keep Saddam from engineering its crash with a petroeuro market in Paris, isn't worth spit today…"
Since 2001, when the € officially started to be used here in Europe, the $ plunged only 15,47 % against it, from the initial 0,84 € per dollar to the present 0,71 € per dollar.
HOW did you explain again the F-35's price increase of 211 % with this, from 64 million $ per unit to 135 million $ per unit, between 2001 and now (the numbers vary slightly, according to source) ??!
Not sure what point you're arguing by fixating on the long term euro vs dollar relationship… I only mentioned the euro because I believe our actions there were partially to head off a threat to dollar hegemony on world petroleum sales. Against most world currencies- the Rupee, the Canadian dollar, the Yen, the Yuan since China stopped pegging it in 2005- the dollar has slid substantially in recent years. Would we look at the unit cost or development cost of the f-4, f-14, etc,to the JSF? What I was offering is that it's been nearly a decade between the two programs and a lot has happened to the financial situation that isn't apparant because they have to downplay it to keep it from happening faster. I think 2009 dollars are not the same as 1999 dollars and it's a lot different than simple inflationary adjustments in the past. In any case I doubt it would save money to walk away now and start somewhere else from scratch.
Part I :
I think we're not the only ones on the Internet discussing all "positive and" negative aspects of the F-35 : I found these few, but well-informed and well-presented criticisms about the F-35 here on another Web-site and would like to share them with you:
"Things that I do know:
* $135m F-35A's will not be able to replace 4,400 F-16's as of present that have been built, not when new F-16E/F's can still be had for around $50m and come with AESA and a GE F110-132 with 32.5k pounds of thrust
* the F-35A will not be able to replace the A-10 and it's Gatling gun/turbine engines in the CAS role
* USMC F-35B's replacing USMC F/A-18C's operating off of USN CVN's at higher costs/lower capabilities compared to the USN's F-35C's at less cost/greater capabilities will prove fruitless
(Continued)
Part II :
* USMC attempts to make a single seat (no dual seat F-35B's are even planned as I understand it – modern sims negate the need) F-35B into the electronic attack/warfare role to replace USMC EA-6B's (compared to USN EA-18G's) will prove fruitless and overly ridiculous prices
* USMC F-35B's cannot replace the USMC F/A-18D FAC(A) role and and it's two manned crew like the F/A-18F could
* RN F-35B's operating off a brand new British carrier (down to just one now it appears) with a ski jump will be a waste when they could have bought less expensive/more capable F-35C's and just installed catapults in their new carrier from the onset
* the last time the DOD went all in on a single airframe (F-4 Phantom) for the USAF, USN, and USMC it went so well that all three broke from the concept as soon as they could and designed and procured the F-15 Eagle, F-14 Tomcat, and F/A-18 Hornet
Dare I say – the Joint Suck Fighter?"
Why not get the F-117 ready. I haven’t heard anything negative about them?
The F-117's being in mothballs with the wings taken off might be a hinderance to that plan… There were only 59 (I think) of them too and airframe life must be high. If you mean a new build version, well that would have been nice a few decades back but today would not cut it in a modern threat environment.
What the Marines need is a (preferably 2 seat) A10. Not sexy.Not terrifically expensive. Just ugly and effective.
One time a lonnnng time ago I was assigned TAD to the MAAs on a ship. Well, getting bored, my partner and I went out to the garbage sponson to watch em throw trash overboard (hey, you gotta find your pleasures wherever you can, they sold out of Playboys in the store). So here comes a guy with a trash bag and as soon as he got ready to heave it overboard, the bottom fell out and a bunch of those ‘one dollar bottles’ I mentioned fell all over the sponson. So here I am, we’re both looking at the bottles, but it would not be a ‘good bust’ (\“they told me to empty the trash, I don’t know nothing\”) so I told him to clean up the mess. Oh yeah, on the Coral Sea, one time I went down into the Officer’s mess for some reason and on the tables I saw wineglasses with a ‘dark fluid’ (Hint) inside. Now I don’t know about you but using a wine glass with ‘nothing’ in it is very strange. I played like the Sergeant on Hogan’s Heroes. \“I don’t see nothing\”. Oh yeah, did any of your crew use NYQUIL (which is 25% alcohol) to uhhh, take care of their colds at night? I know, it’s a secret. And so is the one about the Scope mouthwash in which the contents got changed, more kick. http://www.buy-supra-shoes.org I’m not condemning or justifying, I’m stating facts. Now, I will admit that after we pulled out of port and I had the duty and I maybe didn’t feel so great oncet or thrice, but drunk, No.
http://www.gstarmbt.com/
i'm pretty sure a lot of that stuff went on right under my nose but as I wasn't looking for it…….re: the trash incident- you, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.