The F35 is overpriced garbage that is destroying America's air power.

[Vanilla Gorilla]

What aircraft does the US Operate that has a consistent track record of not bringing pilots home? The F16 can do everything the A10 can do, the A10 cannot do everything the F16 can do. Specialization is for insects.

 

[JadeRaven]

What aircraft does the US Operate that has a consistent track record of not bringing pilots home? The F16 can do everything the A10 can do, the A10 cannot do everything the F16 can do. Specialization is for insects.

None, which is why the A10 is still in the lineup. If reports started showing that it was somehow unsafe or an easy target, it would be retired in a heartbeat.

Does the F16 have a big gun on the front, or is it as cheap to operate? Can it take hits and keep flying? Can it lose an engine and keep flying?

Also are you not the guy who just said:

Jack of All Trades... Everytime you try to make something do everything you get this thing.

???

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

Different context. How many B52s, B1s, F16s, F15Es, F18s, or AC130s have been lost to hostile fire during the GWOT? They all fly a much larger percentage of CAS Missions than the A10. It's a cool plane. It has a great history, I get it. Time to let go. You who you don't hear telling everyone how awesome the A10 is? JTACs.

 

[rattler]

Seems like there is some consensus in retuning to the F22, although I remember hearing air maintenance complain about its difficulties with dust and sand. The F18s are still amazing machines. What would be the difficulty in upgrading older aircraft like the A10s, AV8s, and F15s/16s? I don't understand the Marine Corps fascination with jump jet aircraft. We have these things called helicopters. What about the Ospreys? Too slow? How difficult would it be to arm them up? I remember they had 50s and miniguns on them when I was overseas. I just don't see the need for jump jet aircraft.

 

[JadeRaven]

I don't understand the Marine Corps fascination with jump jet aircraft. We have these things called helicopters. What about the Ospreys? Too slow? How difficult would it be to arm them up? I remember they had 50s and miniguns on them when I was overseas. I just don't see the need for jump jet aircraft.

Yeah I think it's a speed issue, range, etc.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

The point of planes like the F22 and F35 is to maintain a Fighter Fleet that is a Generation ahead of our potential adversaries aircraft and Air Defense systems. No matter what you do to an F15 or F18 it wont be Stealthy. You can only update the Electronics on an F16 to a point. If you wnat to stay ahead you have to think ahead.

The problem with the Marine Corps and the VTOL F35 is that we continue to enable the USMC Farce that it needs it's own mini High Performance Air Wing. Too be sure the USMC has great pilots but those guys would be Great Pilots if they were in the USAF or USN. The issue with the F35 is trying to make it do what the Navy wanted and needed it to and what the USAF wanted and needed and what 24 Aligned Countries wanted and needed.

 

[rattler]

Certainly the Marines need their helicopters and transport planes like the C130. I doubt the navy wants to disembark their aircraft in support of Marine missions hundreds of miles inland like in Iraq and Afghanistan. Traditionally the USAF an Army work closely together and Marines use their own combat aircraft and the Navy when close to shore. It certainly makes since to move away from that and embrace close air support from the USAF for all branches, but I'm sure there are barriers. I've generally heard that USAF and Navy pilots are more experienced than Marine pilots because Marines are regularly rotated out of flying to be unit commanders. I doubt the Marines truly require newer generation aircraft, just something that effectively fulfills their close air support needs and fighter cover if needed.

 

[JBP55]

Since all branches of the Military have their own aircraft why not phase out the USAF and let the Army, Navy and USMC have more planes.

 

[JadeRaven]

Since all branches of the Military have their own aircraft why not phase out the USAF and let the Army, Navy and USMC have more planes.

Who would do the carpet bombing, or be in charge of our nuclear arsenal?

Also who would the other three make fun of for wearing bus driver uniforms?

 

[Vsotok10]

Since all branches of the Military have their own aircraft why not phase out the USAF and let the Army, Navy and USMC have more planes.

Since all four branches have guns can't we eliminate the Marines and let the Army do all the bullet catching?

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

http://www.airforcetimes.com/articl...29/If-not-10-U-2-what-else-can-Air-Force-cut-

 

[Hitman]

Traditionally the USAF an Army work closely together and Marines use their own combat aircraft and the Navy when close to shore. It certainly makes since to move away from that and embrace close air support from the USAF for all branches, but I'm sure there are barriers.

In both Afghan and Iraq, we got CAS from the USAF and Army Helo's

Only Marine Pilots I saw were Cobra Pilots.

 

[323MAR]

Who would do the carpet bombing, or be in charge of our nuclear arsenal?

Also who would the other three make fun of for wearing bus driver uniforms?

The Air Force protects our air space and allied air space in addition the roles you mentioned. The Navy's fighter cover is mainly used for fleet defense and escorting light bombers. It would be too expensive and impractical to have the Navy defend our airspace entirely.

 

[323MAR]

Since all four branches have guns can't we eliminate the Marines and let the Army do all the bullet catching?

Then who would the Navy use as a ground force?

 

[kingfhb]

Air Force has all of the large aircraft. The navy actually has more fighters and aircraft overall than the air force. Other than the F-22, some F-15s (that the 22 was supposed to replace) and some F-16s that they trade out to the local air national guards for home land support, the Air Force inventory is largely substantial sized aircraft.

I'm not sure where the information came from that the navy's aircraft role is primarily fleet defense. That was the F14s role. Most of the defense systems on modern day warships are available before aircraft are even ready to launch. A "fleet defender" is not a priority role anymore for naval aircraft. 99.9% of the sorties flown from aircraft carriers during the gulf and afghan wars were ground support, fighter interdiction (to give the f-14s something to do), electronic warfare, refueling, submarine detection, or attack.

If you don't believe me, ask a pilot from the gulf war that was on a carrier and let him tell you about the 6 hour flights to drop bombs. Or ask an older f-14 pilot about how they tried to add hard points to the tomcat to "teach" it how to drop bombs before they finally said it was obsolete to have an aircraft that was a "fighter" alone.

The f-35 was supposed to be a one size fits all "stealthy" bird that was agile and good on gas as well as a platform to carry everything in the arsenal. It was supposed to cut down overhead and maintenance costs by having a single platform. But in typical fashion, that more than likely won't happen by the time they come out with a new "nextgen" aircraft.

One thing the navy has been big on in the recent years is backup systems... Why they went with a single engine aircraft is beyond me.

They should have learned from the lessons of purchasing the raptor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[usmc-nav]

Since all four branches have guns can't we eliminate the Marines and let the Army do all the bullet catching?

No branch is a "bullet catcher"
Our mission is to let the other side catch the bullets

 

[mudgrip92]

from a few things i have read (even before this thread) is the x-35/f-35 budget was cut due to the gubment wanting to up the budget on drones instead . also it would be nice if each branch could contract what they need to there specs which i think this was once the way it was at one time. besides what kind of plane would you expect to get when the gubment set the budget for the project from the jump and said it must fit the need of all the branches of the military in one plane and it might possibly be the last maned fighter plane to be mas produced. i have a good friend that was on a carrier for a long time he had told me the the navy retires more planes than any other branch of the military mainly because the high speed runner used to launch each plane off the carrier causes a lot of unrepairable damage

 

[mudgrip92]

here is some interesting documentary's i came across a few months ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WnQROVmik4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukbr2UtzH3Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4-qeNXrysg

 

[kingfhb]

from a few things i have read (even before this thread) is the x-35/f-35 budget was cut due to the gubment wanting to up the budget on drones instead . also it would be nice if each branch could contract what they need to there specs which i think this was once the way it was at one time. besides what kind of plane would you expect to get when the gubment set the budget for the project from the jump and said it must fit the need of all the branches of the military in one plane and it might possibly be the last maned fighter plane to be mas produced. i have a good friend that was on a carrier for a long time he had told me the the navy retires more planes than any other branch of the military mainly because the high speed runner used to launch each plane off the carrier causes a lot of unrepairable damage

The shuttle on a carrier has nothing to do with retiring of the jets. The navy does replace or phase out older "lot" aircraft for newer... They also have a contracted group that rehabs older BSL birds (beyond service life). In my time in I saw one aircraft damaged by the shuttle... And that was due to an improper aircraft weight being dialed in.

The aircraft are allowed a certain number of traps on a carrier before they are inspected. Landing gear mostly. Most of the time it's replaced unless it's a connection hard point that can not be. On the f/a-18, the "turtle back" or top section of the aircraft is inspected because it can be physically viewed "rippling" because of the way the aircraft flexes when catapulted off the carrier.

The forces of an aircraft landing on that steal deck over and over, catching that arrestor wire, and then launching back off day in and day out for months at a time does take it's toll on them as expected. That's also why when they are at sea they are inspected twice as often.

Al good majority of damage (even hard landings) can be repaired and is. Some even at a depot level by civilians. The navy also flies their aircraft longer than any other service. The a-4 sky hawk for instance was a one time flight bird... The baby flew it for 30 or 40 years!! The a-7, the f-8, the a-6, the f-14... All pre viet nam era aircraft... The a-7 flew in desert storm... The a-6 flew until about 10 or less years ago... The f-14, just shy of the a-6... Even the f/a-18... They are on the E & F models (lord knows what lot number)... But the blue Angels STILL fly the original F/A-18A models... Lot 6 I believe. The hornet went through almost 30 lot changes before they switched over to the E and F models... Technically an entirely new aircraft than the ABC or D models. And now with the G and H models.

The navy beats their aircraft into the ground and literally flies them until the wheels come off. Most services can't say that. In the navy, it's all about making the sortie... I've seen technicians safety wire parts together and button up a panel to get a bird in the air.

The work structure is different too. What one person does in the navy, you would need to call 10 different personnel to do in the Air Force. "Get it fixed and get it flying" is what we were always told... No matter what it takes.

That's why all the other services (except army that I've seen) would come and train with the naval pilots. Marines and Air Force alike.

I think even if every service shared a common platform, given the type of work, the navy would always surpass the others in bird replacement. The naval environment is just brutal on the aircraft. Salt water, tight quarters aircraft handling, landings, take offs, etc... All definitely take it's toll on those aircraft.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[goteron]

Space based weapons systems and laser beams.

The F-35 is a cool technological achievement. For all its misgivings, it has a lot of tech crammed into it. I don't think its too much to ask this day in age for an aircraft to have the ability to perform ground and air roles. I think they should have made it a VSTOL instead of a VTOL.