Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Durkin Tactical Franklin Armory
User Panel

Site Notices
Page / 12
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 12:52:11 AM EST
[#1]








Link Posted: 3/3/2019 1:27:05 AM EST
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
comparing it to the Harrier isnt really the gold standard
View Quote
This, and 75% readiness seems meh.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 1:33:23 AM EST
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
But the A-10 still does a better job of being a CAS plane. Longer range and damn near as much payload. Cheaper to buy. Plus a bonus minigun
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

You could order Harriers to fly those hours, but they would be much more difficult to support because they don't carry that much internal fuel, and don't have the same payload capability by a wide margin.

The F-35B is just significantly and inherently better at supporting these sortie rates and rounds on target, with much faster response time as well if you have time critical CAS or DCA.

http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5437ebd46bb3f79049d60606-1200-800/11819987193_11db294960_o.jpg
But the A-10 still does a better job of being a CAS plane. Longer range and damn near as much payload. Cheaper to buy. Plus a bonus minigun
Except, of course, that you can't buy them and haven't been able to for decades. And we still have them. So, you can still have the benefits of the legacy A-10 fleet (which is awesome) and then pull up offshore of some third world shithole with a floating can of whoopass that carries troops, vehicles, and its own air support and even air to air capability. Everybody wins.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 1:35:50 AM EST
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
This, and 75% readiness seems meh.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
comparing it to the Harrier isnt really the gold standard
This, and 75% readiness seems meh.
Less than a year ago, the head of Naval Air Forces, Vice Adm. Troy Shoemaker, told Congress that only half of the services F/A-18 Super Hornet jets were flyable, and that just a third could be counted on to “fight tonight.”
Navy Times: 2018 GAO Report Findings on military aviation readiness
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 1:37:13 AM EST
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Well thats pathetic if true. Yikes.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 1:52:19 AM EST
[#7]
That is why they are buying some more of them and fixing up and upgrading a bunch until the F35 numbers are higher.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/08/16/the-us-navys-fight-to-fix-its-worn-out-super-hornet-fleet-is-making-way/

In May, the Defense Logistics Agency awarded a five-year, $427 million contract for Super Hornet parts and spares to begin working through a backlog of down jets.

Boeing also recently inducted of the first Super Hornet into a service life extension program that will eventually see Boeing working on 40 to 50 F/A-18s per year in its facilities in St. Louis, Missouri, and San Antonio, Texas. That program will fix Hornets in the worst condition.

The Navy is also adding new Super Hornets to the mix. The President’s 2019 budget request included 110 new Super Hornets planned across the five-year future-year defense plan.


So over the next 5 years ~350 Superhornets will become operational again through a combination of major overhauls and new craft buys.

So while it is a major problem - at this exact point in time - it is one that already is in process of being corrected.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 1:59:45 AM EST
[#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Aaaaaaaaaaannnndddd when have USMC Harriers ever been used operationally from a short strip like they imagined in the 1960s?  Never. F-35s will never,ever be used in that manner ashore either.

A-10s practice operating from highways so call it even but realistically,if it came to deploying from such, things would have gone so sideways that they wouldn't be flying at all either.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

Aaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnddddddd it needs a full runway.
Aaaaaaaaaaannnndddd when have USMC Harriers ever been used operationally from a short strip like they imagined in the 1960s?  Never. F-35s will never,ever be used in that manner ashore either.

A-10s practice operating from highways so call it even but realistically,if it came to deploying from such, things would have gone so sideways that they wouldn't be flying at all either.
Do you even FARP bro?
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 2:01:55 AM EST
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Is it really a shock that a brand new aircraft can run longer without major breakage compared to 30yr old harrier airframes that are cobbled together from cannibalized parts?

That doesn't really give any indication whether it's a success, just that it's not an immediate failure.
View Quote
Hey man let them enjoy their JD Powers and Associates Initial Quality Award
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 2:03:10 AM EST
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
This, and 75% readiness seems meh.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
comparing it to the Harrier isnt really the gold standard
This, and 75% readiness seems meh.
At double the combat hours of what it replaced?

That's like saying having twice the availability for CAS is meh.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 2:06:30 AM EST
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Well thats pathetic if true. Yikes.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Well thats pathetic if true. Yikes.
Looking at all of the Hornets in US Navy and USMC inventory includes the older A/B models as well, so the 1/3 number isn't surprising.

These birds have been run long and hard, most of them with hard carrier ops in the 1980s under the Reagan era, which were being replaced by C/D models already before Desert Storm.  Some of the squadrons took F/A-18Cs into DS opening night, including the one that shot down 2 x MiG-21s, and also lost LCDR Scott Speicher to a MiG-25PD.

USMC currently has:

55 F/A-18A
7 F/A-18B
119 F/A-18C
92 F/A-18D

86 of those are stored.  42 of those are training birds.

US Navy has:

267 F/A-18A/B/C/D (being replaced by F-35C)
512 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets

1,052 birds total in the USN/USMC Hornet world.  That would be 351 available-now Hornets for go-to-war assuming nothing has changed from the 2018 GAO report. There were some major discrepancies with the bean counters' parameters for assessing readiness though, and there is a whole report about that as well.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 2:10:01 AM EST
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
At double the combat hours of what it replaced?

That's like saying having twice the availability for CAS is meh.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
comparing it to the Harrier isnt really the gold standard
This, and 75% readiness seems meh.
At double the combat hours of what it replaced?

That's like saying having twice the availability for CAS is meh.
The 75% is a conservative number too.

It's like saying having well over twice the availability of the existing Hornet fleet to do both the AV-8B's and Super Hornet's roles, while adding AWACS, EW, VLO precisions strike, and air dominance with way more mission duration is "meh".

It helps to have context of what the rest of the fleet is capable of in terms of availability rates, as well as what one legacy bird can do on a sortie vs an F-35B.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 2:18:26 AM EST
[#13]
"From there, they flew more than 50 days' worth of close-air support and defensive counter-air missions in Iraq and Syria.
"Every day, [the pilots] were supporting over six hours of time in theater," Shoop said."

How many missions per day on average would that translate to?
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 2:41:44 AM EST
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
AV-8B in Desert Storm had a 90% availability rate.

With age, I'm sure that has come down.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
comparing it to the Harrier isnt really the gold standard
AV-8B in Desert Storm had a 90% availability rate.

With age, I'm sure that has come down.
By the Spring of 2003, it had gone down. Baby Hornets had an extremely high up rate as well in that time frame.
I just assume specifics are classified, so not going into any more detail.

I had read that the baby bugs were approaching 30% readiness as of a few years ago. Double that would have everybody down to SSgt immediately sacked when I was in.

75% up rate is low from when I was in, but it will go up once the institutional knowledge builds up.
You have to remember that in 2002-2003 timeframe, I could pull a thick file on every avionics card that came through our shop.  There were very few unique failures at that point.

Eventually, the up rate will go down as planes age. You start getting intermittent failures, loose pins in cannon plugs, ect. Those are a sunofabitch to chase down.
As we saw with the baby bugs, eventually spare parts start to become an issue. When manufacturing lines have to be reopened for mouse milk runs of critical parts, that is when readiness falls off a cliff. It gets very expensive very quick when you have to manufacture parts, and need components that haven’t been made in decades.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 2:52:03 AM EST
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
At double the combat hours of what it replaced?

That's like saying having twice the availability for CAS is meh.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
comparing it to the Harrier isnt really the gold standard
This, and 75% readiness seems meh.
At double the combat hours of what it replaced?

That's like saying having twice the availability for CAS is meh.
@Madcap72
75% is significantly less than the historical readiness of the Harrier in USMC service.
Modern day readiness is in the toilet, since almost all parts are cannibalized.  That means you are replacing a 10 year old part with another 10 year old part just slightly less worn.

The readiness rate of the F-35 should go up though as maintainers get a handle on the new birds.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 3:19:49 AM EST
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
@Madcap72
75% is significantly less than the historical readiness of the Harrier in USMC service.
Modern day readiness is in the toilet, since almost all parts are cannibalized.  That means you are replacing a 10 year old part with another 10 year old part just slightly less worn.

The readiness rate of the F-35 should go up though as maintainers get a handle on the new birds.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
comparing it to the Harrier isnt really the gold standard
This, and 75% readiness seems meh.
At double the combat hours of what it replaced?

That's like saying having twice the availability for CAS is meh.
@Madcap72
75% is significantly less than the historical readiness of the Harrier in USMC service.
Modern day readiness is in the toilet, since almost all parts are cannibalized.  That means you are replacing a 10 year old part with another 10 year old part just slightly less worn.

The readiness rate of the F-35 should go up though as maintainers get a handle on the new birds.
Maybe, but was the higher readiness rate of the harriers based on the same hours?

I imagine the readiness rate of the F-35 will go up as well when they're not pulling double the workload.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 5:23:22 AM EST
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Is it really a shock that a brand new aircraft can run longer without major breakage compared to 30yr old harrier airframes that are cobbled together from cannibalized parts?

That doesn't really give any indication whether it's a success, just that it's not an immediate failure.
View Quote
My thoughts exactly.

Plus not a very dangerous opponent when they have zero AA capability. How much of a threat is Iran, Russia and Syria posing to our troops (serious question)?

I mean, it's like the NBA sending a team against an bunch of third graders.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 6:14:08 AM EST
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Is it really a shock that a brand new aircraft can run longer without major breakage compared to 30yr old harrier airframes that are cobbled together from cannibalized parts?

That doesn't really give any indication whether it's a success, just that it's not an immediate failure.
View Quote
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 6:43:07 AM EST
[#19]
Yay we spent millions of dollars blowing up goat fuckers halfway across the globe.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 6:53:14 AM EST
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is it really a shock that a brand new aircraft can run longer without major breakage compared to 30yr old harrier airframes that are cobbled together from cannibalized parts?

That doesn't really give any indication whether it's a success, just that it's not an immediate failure.
Watching the butthurt anti-F35 accounts is like watching lefties claiming them are going to be taking down Trump any day now.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 6:56:27 AM EST
[#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Watching the butthurt anti-F35 accounts is like watching lefties claiming them are going to be taking down Trump any day now.
View Quote
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 6:57:53 AM EST
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Watching the butthurt anti-F35 accounts is like watching lefties claiming them are going to be taking down Trump any day now.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is it really a shock that a brand new aircraft can run longer without major breakage compared to 30yr old harrier airframes that are cobbled together from cannibalized parts?

That doesn't really give any indication whether it's a success, just that it's not an immediate failure.
Watching the butthurt anti-F35 accounts is like watching lefties claiming them are going to be taking down Trump any day now.
Exactly what I was thinking when I posted that!
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 7:02:40 AM EST
[#23]
That doesn’t look very stealthy.

Link Posted: 3/3/2019 7:04:11 AM EST
[#24]
Good stuff
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 7:29:31 AM EST
[#25]
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 7:52:09 AM EST
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Yay we spent millions of dollars blowing up goat fuckers halfway across the globe.
View Quote
I think we should be spending 10''s of dollars on dumb bombs and blowing up entire cities. We are basically chasing roaches around the kitchen and killing 1 per lap when there are 100''s of them.  We don't always need smart bombs.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 7:57:04 AM EST
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
No shit, Sherlock.

Imagine that. When your opponent has nothing that can shoot you down, carry more bombs.

The "not stealthy" people are only slightly smarter than the "what about the gun?" idiots.

Fuck.  Some of you people.

Unless you were being sarcastic. Then I apologize and you can feel free to taunt me. I hope you're being sarcastic. I remember you from Glocktalk and you seemed smart then.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 7:59:05 AM EST
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Is it really a shock that a brand new aircraft can run longer without major breakage compared to 30yr old harrier airframes that are cobbled together from cannibalized parts?

That doesn't really give any indication whether it's a success, just that it's not an immediate failure.
View Quote
Exactly.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 8:02:11 AM EST
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Is it really a shock that a brand new aircraft can run longer without major breakage compared to 30yr old harrier airframes that are cobbled together from cannibalized parts?

That doesn't really give any indication whether it's a success, just that it's not an immediate failure.
View Quote
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 8:21:50 AM EST
[#30]
If this were an election year I'd swear some of you guys are Russian operatives.

As it is, you're just willfully  ignorant fellow countrymen. Sad.

Maybe you do have a dog in this fight. What is it?
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 8:27:57 AM EST
[#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Yay we spent millions of dollars blowing up goat fuckers halfway across the globe.
View Quote
So, you would rather see the spread of a caliphate.

Wonderful. Just fucking wonderful.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 8:32:51 AM EST
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
My thoughts exactly.

Plus not a very dangerous opponent when they have zero AA capability. How much of a threat is Iran, Russia and Syria posing to our troops (serious question)?

I mean, it's like the NBA sending a team against an bunch of third graders.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is it really a shock that a brand new aircraft can run longer without major breakage compared to 30yr old harrier airframes that are cobbled together from cannibalized parts?

That doesn't really give any indication whether it's a success, just that it's not an immediate failure.
My thoughts exactly.

Plus not a very dangerous opponent when they have zero AA capability. How much of a threat is Iran, Russia and Syria posing to our troops (serious question)?

I mean, it's like the NBA sending a team against an bunch of third graders.
There are arfcommers who have been under attack from Syrian Air.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 8:33:22 AM EST
[#33]
This is the kind of thread that justifies the price of a membership here. Kudos OP.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 8:43:07 AM EST
[#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
That is why they are buying some more of them and fixing up and upgrading a bunch until the F35 numbers are higher.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/08/16/the-us-navys-fight-to-fix-its-worn-out-super-hornet-fleet-is-making-way/

In May, the Defense Logistics Agency awarded a five-year, $427 million contract for Super Hornet parts and spares to begin working through a backlog of down jets.

Boeing also recently inducted of the first Super Hornet into a service life extension program that will eventually see Boeing working on 40 to 50 F/A-18s per year in its facilities in St. Louis, Missouri, and San Antonio, Texas. That program will fix Hornets in the worst condition. The Navy is also adding new Super Hornets to the mix. The President’s 2019 budget request included 110 new Super Hornets planned across the five-year future-year defense plan.


So over the next 5 years ~350 Superhornets will become operational again through a combination of major overhauls and new craft buys.

So while it is a major problem - at this exact point in time - it is one that already is in process of being corrected.
View Quote
That's good news. Even with F-35Bs coming on line, we'll need to fly the Super Hornets for years to come until there are enough '35Bs in service. I'll bet we're still flying Super Hornets ten 15 years from now.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 8:45:50 AM EST
[#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

267 F/A-18A/B/C/D (being replaced by F-35C)
512 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets
View Quote
The Navy no longer has any ABC jets in operational/deployable units.  VFA-34 were the last with them and that ended at the beginning of February.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 8:46:35 AM EST
[#36]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Aaaaaaaaaaannnndddd when have USMC Harriers ever been used operationally from a short strip like they imagined in the 1960s?  Never. F-35s will never,ever be used in that manner ashore either.

A-10s practice operating from highways so call it even but realistically,if it came to deploying from such, things would have gone so sideways that they wouldn't be flying at all either.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

Aaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnddddddd it needs a full runway.
Aaaaaaaaaaannnndddd when have USMC Harriers ever been used operationally from a short strip like they imagined in the 1960s?  Never. F-35s will never,ever be used in that manner ashore either.

A-10s practice operating from highways so call it even but realistically,if it came to deploying from such, things would have gone so sideways that they wouldn't be flying at all either.
Incorrect.  Every time AV-8B Harriers deploy with a MEU, they use their V/STOL capability since amphibious ships lack a catapult.  Unlike the A-10, Harriers have operated from non-carrier flat decks to bomb targets ashore in countless campaigns since it was first introduced.

" During the first phases of the war in Iraq in 2003, Marine Harriers were the first aircraft to conduct sustained operations from an airfield inside Iraq and the only tactical air aircraft to conduct combat operations from a road. In the first two weeks of the conflict, Marines established an FOB on the remains of the Iraqi airstrip at An Numinayah, just 60 nautical miles south of Baghdad. Damage to the runway rendered it unusable to other tactical fixed-wing aircraft. The FOB at An Numinayah facilitated forward positioning of aircraft to stand ground alert as well as a forward arming and refueling point for Harriers supporting combat operations in and around Baghdad. Eliminating the need for Harriers to reserve fuel for a lengthy return flight to ships or bases in Kuwait, the FOB at An Numinayah allowed the AV-8Bs to extend time on station without placing a logistical burden on aerial refueling assets. With an airfield in such close proximity to the forward edge of the battle area, Harriers stood a credible ground alert and reduced response times from one to two hours to less than 15 minutes.

The war in Afghanistan is the most recent example of the effectiveness of STOVL operations. In the last year, Marine AV-8Bs have routinely operated from FOB Dwyer, a 4,300-foot expeditionary airfield built by the Marine wing support squadrons. Just a few miles from the town of Marjah, FOB Dwyer was constructed to facilitate rapid logistical support and fire support for Marines operating in the southern Helmand River valley. Launching from their main base at Kandahar, Harriers recovered to Dwyer after completing a time on station and were able to quickly rearm and refuel while talking to ground commanders. A basing option in such close proximity to the supported unit enabled longer times on station and rapid ordnance reload capability, in addition to reducing the burden on airborne refueling assets.

Basing AV-8Bs at FOB Dwyer during the fight for Marjah resulted in 65 percent of their sortie duration being spent on station. In comparison, aircraft based at Kandahar spent 55 percent of their sortie duration on station while aircraft operating from a carrier spent only 25 percent of sortie duration on station. Over the service life of an aircraft, the real benefit of STOVL aircraft is more time in support of ground forces with less time in transit to and from the fight.

From a sea-basing perspective, the dispersion of carrier-based STOVL aircraft creates a dilemma for the enemy while providing additional combat capability to the supported commander. During Desert Storm, 20 Harriers aboard the amphibious assault ship Nassau operated from a 750-foot flight deck, which resulted in a 15-minute transit time and 40 minutes of on-station time with no in-flight refueling. As the war progressed north, AV-8Bs would launch from ships in the Persian Gulf, fly a mission and then proceed to an FOB in Kuwait to rearm and refuel. After flying a second mission, these aircraft would return to the ship. These combined sea and shore operations doubled the sortie-generation rate for ship-based aircraft, halved shipboard workload and ordnance expenditure, and minimized shipboard resupply concerns. Also, because the aircraft returned to the ship, the force protection requirement ashore was significantly reduced.

During recent operations in Iraq, coalition airfields were at maximum capacity and the Navy was unable to source any more big-deck carriers into the Persian Gulf. Operating Harriers from amphibious assault ships put an additional 60 tactical aircraft at the disposal of the combatant commander.
Full article from 2010 here
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 8:48:01 AM EST
[#37]
Almost two decades and we still haven’t learned the lesson on why ou strike fighter fleet is so depleted.

Flying 7 hour missions to drop a million dollar bomb on a Toyota is not what these jets are for.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 8:49:00 AM EST
[#38]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

So, you would rather see the spread of a caliphate.

Wonderful. Just fucking wonderful.
View Quote
No.

But I do want to see a different platform than a fifth gen fighter doing it,
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 8:51:17 AM EST
[#39]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

View Quote
Thanks.  I have no experience in airframes but I have experience in .gov and I felt the same based strictly on a lifetime of experience in another field.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 8:55:27 AM EST
[#40]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I must admit the STOVL capabilities alone are quite impressive.

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/383325/image_jpeg-864287.JPG

British birds. But it sure does look sci fi doesn't it?
View Quote
I read that the brits have devised a rolling landing technique for the B that lets them land at a higher weight so they don't have to jettison (as much?) fuel or ordnance.  The brits are all in on the B and designed their new carriers around it.   We are all still figuring out just how much these birds can do.

Then there is the navy retiring the Truman early to save money for the double Ford class buy.  If the days of big carriers are numbered as Mattis seemed to think. maybe the B model flying off of smaller decks is the future of naval air power.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 9:02:03 AM EST
[#41]
Fake News BULLSHIT
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 9:08:55 AM EST
[#42]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I read that the brits have devised a rolling landing technique for the B that lets them land at a higher weight so they don't have to jettison (as much?) fuel or ordnance.  The brits are all in on the B and designed their new carriers around it.   We are all still figuring out just how much these birds can do.

Then there is the navy retiring the Truman early to save money for the double Ford class buy.  If the days of big carriers are numbered as Mattis seemed to think. maybe the B model flying off of smaller decks is the future of naval air power.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
I must admit the STOVL capabilities alone are quite impressive.

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/383325/image_jpeg-864287.JPG

British birds. But it sure does look sci fi doesn't it?
I read that the brits have devised a rolling landing technique for the B that lets them land at a higher weight so they don't have to jettison (as much?) fuel or ordnance.  The brits are all in on the B and designed their new carriers around it.   We are all still figuring out just how much these birds can do.

Then there is the navy retiring the Truman early to save money for the double Ford class buy.  If the days of big carriers are numbered as Mattis seemed to think. maybe the B model flying off of smaller decks is the future of naval air power.
I doubt if Congress lets that happen.  She was commissioned in 1998, which is relatively new for a carrier.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 9:09:44 AM EST
[#43]
I see bombs dropped and sensor information sharing but no gun run info?

Is the gun not in use ?
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 9:20:59 AM EST
[#44]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I doubt if Congress lets that happen.  She was commissioned in 1998, which is relatively new for a carrier.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I must admit the STOVL capabilities alone are quite impressive.

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/383325/image_jpeg-864287.JPG

British birds. But it sure does look sci fi doesn't it?
I read that the brits have devised a rolling landing technique for the B that lets them land at a higher weight so they don't have to jettison (as much?) fuel or ordnance.  The brits are all in on the B and designed their new carriers around it.   We are all still figuring out just how much these birds can do.

Then there is the navy retiring the Truman early to save money for the double Ford class buy.  If the days of big carriers are numbered as Mattis seemed to think. maybe the B model flying off of smaller decks is the future of naval air power.
I doubt if Congress lets that happen.  She was commissioned in 1998, which is relatively new for a carrier.
I agree and Mattis is gone.   Still, with all the new chinese carrier killer missiles they are supposed to have, if they do manage to knock out CVNs we would need to rely on smaller decks.    How cheap and fast can we build America class LHA's?
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 9:31:53 AM EST
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
No.

But I do want to see a different platform than a fifth gen fighter doing it,
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

So, you would rather see the spread of a caliphate.

Wonderful. Just fucking wonderful.
No.

But I do want to see a different platform than a fifth gen fighter doing it,
You'd need more aircraft to perform the same missions while giving up capability.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 9:56:45 AM EST
[#46]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
comparing it to the Harrier isnt really the gold standard
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
comparing it to the Harrier isnt really the gold standard
Land that gold standard on a highway.  F35B and Harriers both can operate from such an FOB.
AV-8B Harrier landing on the highway
Quoted:

But the A-10 still does a better job of being a CAS plane. Longer range and damn near as much payload. Cheaper to buy. Plus a bonus minigun
A10 can’t operate here either.  This allows for an aircraft to be forward.  Yes the fuel load is lower due to the stol takeoff. It’s 100 miles closer to the troops.  They can top off from KC130s that the Marine Corps owns as well.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 9:56:58 AM EST
[#47]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
How can someone still be ignorant of the F-35 carrying external stores to increase its capabilities when steath isn't needed?

It not like it is a secret or hasn't been discussed in numerous threads. And you would had known this if you had read this thread before posting.
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 9:57:40 AM EST
[#48]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

I doubt if Congress lets that happen.  She was commissioned in 1998, which is relatively new for a carrier.
View Quote
Most likely it's a pawn to increase defense spending. I agree, unlikely to happen. (And we better damn well hope it doesn't)
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 10:05:11 AM EST
[#49]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
If you had clicked on the link to the article....

"Marines assigned to the “Avengers” of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 211 load a guided bomb unit (GBU) 49 onto an F-35B Lightning II on the flight deck of the USS Essex. (U.S. Navy/Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Chandler Harrell)"
Link Posted: 3/3/2019 10:16:08 AM EST
[#50]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Comparing the 2 in the CAS role isn't really fair to the A-10, since the A-10 should have never been born when you look at what we already had with the A-7D, which had superior low level weapons delivery capabilities to the A-10, and was far more survivable.
View Quote
I'm glad that I'm not alone in being a serious SLUF fan. We should have the A-7F instead of the A-10; it's a better aircraft in literally every sense if not flown within range of SAF. Not to mention significantly better loiter time than a Viper. Its ITR at low altitudes is also downright impressive; the F100 in the A-7F would have boosted SEP and therefore STR into the useful range.
Page / 12
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top