Home The Lodge
«13

Replies

  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,039 Senior Member
    Does Al Queda have an Air Force?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    Do we have another viable alternative. I don't think it so much the Tailiban we should be worried about but our "freinds" across the yellow sea.
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 3,059 Senior Member
    I would say no.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie just look at the flowers.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    So what do you propose the USMC does instead? Correct me if I am wrong but Harriers are no longer beng produced. The F18 does not support the same role as the Harrier does.

    I don't believe there is currently any cheaper alternative out there. I doubt you want to propose the USMC gets no platform to support ground forces with close in air support
  • bakerloobakerloo Banned Posts: 980 Senior Member
    Do the Marines really need a STOVL airplane? Maybe they should look at just getting the F35C carrier based version like the Navy will be getting.
    The F35B gives up 1/3 of the fuel for the vertical stuff so it has a shorter range. Commonality between the two branches of service will save money in maintainance and training. I have a Navy base in my back yard. They have FA18's and the F35C will replace those. Marine pilots and maintainance crews also train at NAS Lemoore.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,039 Senior Member
    jbilly wrote: »
    Do we have another viable alternative. I don't think it so much the Tailiban we should be worried about but our "freinds" across the yellow sea.

    According to the article we have harriers.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    ..

    well why not ... since the $80 billion F-22 fleet is grounded we gotta git us sumpthin flyin's

    afterall when it comes to Defense we all knoweds we can spends our ways outta debt

    cut taxes NOT defense!
  • FishTXFishTX Super Moderator Posts: 8,664 Senior Member
    jbilly wrote: »
    I doubt you want to propose the USMC gets no platform to support ground forces with close in air support
    What are the pros and cons? The naval version could probably carry the same armament as the B model, so once on the scene should have the same support capability. The navy version doesn't have to be flown from ships, so it could use airbases closer to the fighting. The B model is listed as a STOVL instead of a VTOL. What kind of room will it need for take off? In other words, can it really replace the harrier which doesn't have to have a an airfield. What is easier, support at a airbase or support at a small field?

    If the B can be stationed closer to the action, then that will make up for less fuel load and get the plane on site quicker which can save lives.
    "We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."

    Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    jbilly wrote: »
    Do we have another viable alternative. I don't think it so much the Tailiban we should be worried about but our "freinds" across the yellow sea.

    really?

    strategically speaking you think this is a scenario we should even be considering?

    sounds like a similar concept of, you know, like maybe we can take Moscow in 16 weeks
  • ScottPScottP Senior Member Posts: 480 Senior Member
    “Be assured, the cost of the jets are coming down,” Lockheed Martin chief executive Bob Stevens said in response to congressional critics.

    Nothing that the head of any defense contractor says assures me. You'd have to wonder about some of the benefits the F-35 brings being compromised (effects of a maritime environment on the stealth shielding), need for supersonic capability vs. missionprofile (fuel consumption would be pretty high at low altitudes needed to provide ground support/VSTOL), etc. Probably come down to who's jurisdiction the main assembly plants are in and how much influence they have in Congress.
    They say the times are changing but I just don't know
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    "
    estimated total operating costs of up to $1 trillion"




    ya know, it's tax and spend liburrl Demon-crats giving away everything to those people and committing voter fraud that are bankrupting our economy and destroying our country
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    monkeydoes wrote: »
    really?

    strategically speaking you think this is a scenario we should even be considering?

    sounds like a similar concept of, you know, like maybe we can take Moscow in 16 weeks

    I think getting in a shooting match with the Chinese over Taiwan or possibly over other aspects of the Yellow Sea (ie them squashing Vietnams interests in the region and China’s desire to control that area) as a very realistic possibility. I also see that as being one of the very few places we would still possibly use the USMC in their traditional role, ie beach landings, where their need for close in air support would be huge.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    FishTX wrote: »
    What are the pros and cons? The naval version could probably carry the same armament as the B model, so once on the scene should have the same support capability. The navy version doesn't have to be flown from ships, so it could use airbases closer to the fighting. The B model is listed as a STOVL instead of a VTOL. What kind of room will it need for take off? In other words, can it really replace the harrier which doesn't have to have a an airfield. What is easier, support at a airbase or support at a small field?

    If the B can be stationed closer to the action, then that will make up for less fuel load and get the plane on site quicker which can save lives.

    PROS:
    1) F35B variant can take off from an amphibious assault ship (conventional fighter cannot, there is no catapult)
    2) Allows for aviation element to be present alongside troops in theater w/o need for runways (ie frontline aviation support)
    3) Not only will we use it for the USMC, the Brits are going to buy them for their Navy, and I believe others are planning on it too. Correct me if I am wrong, but we are the only country who operates true flat top carriers, the rest of our allies have smaller ones with ramps and no catapults and have to have STVOL type aircraft
    4) It will be stealthy. The Harriers and F18s aren’t. This gives us our guys the best chance of survival in harms way.
    CONS:
    1) Cost an a$$ ton of money…can’t argue with that
    2) Technical issues have led to delayed delivery time
    3) See #1 one more time for good measure
  • FishTXFishTX Super Moderator Posts: 8,664 Senior Member
    Does the F-35B need a ramp for the assault ships. I ask because it is a STOVL and not VTOL. Am I wrong? Can it also do a vertical takeoff like the harrier? If so, can it only do it with a light load, and a heavy load needs a short runway?
    "We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."

    Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    anything of a shooting war confrontation with the Chinese would be beyond strateically foolish and represent 1950's military thinking

    USMC's role is rapid response limited operational theatre ... a sustained military conflict without full support from the other branches isn't in their role nor is it logistically wise ... their best use is to send them around to stomp on despot bullies (ie Somalia, Sudan, Taliban, etc) especially if there is oil and BP is interested

    anything involving the Chinese would be strategic and protracted in nature (and again foolish) ... landing a bridage or the MEU anywhere around the Yellow Sea to counter and engage the Chinese would be the same as effectively removing that unit from existence

    I could see North Korea by chance but then again you would have the strategic assets of the USAF and USA and USN on hand as well

    bottomline ... with the Chinese mainland becoming more and more economically prosperous has Taiwan become anything more than our own version of Cuba? [/taking off shoe and banging it on the table]
  • WetdogWetdog Senior Member Posts: 5,684 Senior Member
    monkeydoes wrote: »

    bottomline ... with the Chinese mainland becoming more and more economically prosperous has Taiwan become anything more than our own version of Cuba? [/taking off shoe and banging it on the table]


    Good line, and pretty accurate.

    China is in trouble however, they will not be able to maintain this rapid growth. When they can't it's going to hit the fan. Hopefully that will only be internally, but I expect it to flow far over their borders. The Marines may be engaged in many places they shouldn't be.
    I find the assault on free thought disturbing,
    I find the willingness to give it up frightening.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    jbilly wrote: »
    4) It will be stealthy. The Harriers and F18s aren’t. This gives us our guys the best chance of survival in harms way.

    how essential is this in a close ground support role? they already know you are there and in essence communications and AA should have been neutralized in a first strike capability at least in larger conflicts (ie Iraq)

    once you are down there running and gunning on top of the bad guys you have a radar signature no matter what you use to coat the outside the aircraft and it won't be stealthy from a Mark I operating a 20 mm or something like a Stinger

    the point being how stealthy does a close ground support aircraft need to be? which BTW is the defined mission role of the MAWs, the Harrier was never required to be capable in a dogfight that is why the F-18 was incorporated

    one other real question ... what's better? developing a super duper really cool mega-buck airplane or developing better standoff deployable smart weapons and drones to deliver them in effect taking survivability of the pilot as well as coordination w/o friendly fire casualities to a whole nutha level and likely for less money
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    monkeydoes wrote: »
    anything of a shooting war confrontation with the Chinese would be beyond strateically foolish and represent 1950's military thinking

    USMC's role is rapid response limited operational theatre ... a sustained military conflict without full support from the other branches isn't in their role nor is it logistically wise ... their best use is to send them around to stomp on despot bullies (ie Somalia, Sudan, Taliban, etc) especially if there is oil and BP is interested

    anything involving the Chinese would be strategic and protracted in nature (and again foolish) ... landing a bridage or the MEU anywhere around the Yellow Sea to counter and engage the Chinese would be the same as effectively removing that unit from existence

    I could see North Korea by chance but then again you would have the strategic assets of the USAF and USA and USN on hand as well

    bottomline ... with the Chinese mainland becoming more and more economically prosperous has Taiwan become anything more than our own version of Cuba? [/taking off shoe and banging it on the table]

    Monkey,
    Don't diagree at all. Gettign in that spot would be a very bad idea indeed and a no win situation. That doesn't mean we won't be dumb enough to do it.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    FishTX wrote: »
    Does the F-35B need a ramp for the assault ships. I ask because it is a STOVL and not VTOL. Am I wrong? Can it also do a vertical takeoff like the harrier? If so, can it only do it with a light load, and a heavy load needs a short runway?

    Yes, it can do a true VTOL. I dont know the load limits.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIsIzjVi7j4
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    Wetdog wrote: »
    Good line, and pretty accurate.

    China is in trouble however, they will not be able to maintain this rapid growth. When they can't it's going to hit the fan. Hopefully that will only be internally, but I expect it to flow far over their borders. The Marines may be engaged in many places they shouldn't be.

    thanks but I also don't think I agree with you

    they have vast resources that have yet to be developed that other industrialized nations want and need and they are currently investing in their foreign interests ... one being the biggest foreign interest on the African continent and well then there is that whole ... they got control over development of the oil fields in Iraq

    IMHO they are the modern age turn of the 19th to 20th century version of 'us'

    at some point we will need to stop fighting grandpa's war over n over again in our head movies and stop outspending the rest of the world combined on defense because 1) it's economically unsustainable and 2) it's an attempt to realize an unrealistic goal ... you can't dominate militarily an opponent who outnumbers you significantly Plus is NOT militarily stretched resource thin already

    we are 300 million people out of 6.5 billion and sooner or later demanding the rest of the world dance to our tune will get old and then we will be in neck deep kimchi and who is going to come to our aid? the UK? (smaller than us), Israel? (smaller yet)

    bottomline is winning the technological weapons war worth losing the economic war? spending $1 trillion + per year while jobs and the middle class continually shrink may be nothing more than a pyrrhic victory unless you decide to start selling those weapon systems to expanding markets which would coincedentally be the same people you are theoretically arming yourself against

    Footnote ... could care less that the Brits want to buy this plane too ... just what does that consist of in scale of economy terms and revenue relative to the overall cost of development and production ... it's probably negligible and therefore if this were a production car or other manufactured item your CFO would tell it's foolish to even use that as even a minor justification to proceed with product development

    BTW the TOTAL Fleet Air Arm is 184 aircraft (and this includes ASW and Helos) so I am guessing we could mark them down for maybe 20 of these things and with our anticipated total operational cost of $1 trillion a year not a very good ROI for an export item
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    jbilly wrote: »
    Monkey,
    Don't diagree at all. Gettign in that spot would be a very bad idea indeed and a no win situation. That doesn't mean we won't be dumb enough to do it.

    so we should continue bankrupting the country spending money on weapons systems on the outside chance we do something even more stoopider than that

    in which case we are the New Age Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
  • Brian D.Brian D. Senior Member Posts: 4,011 Senior Member
    jbilly wrote: »
    I think getting in a shooting match with the Chinese over Taiwan or possibly over other aspects of the Yellow Sea (ie them squashing Vietnams interests in the region and China’s desire to control that area) as a very realistic possibility.

    Keep in mind that every military action we've engaged in at least since Desert Storm has been bankrolled almost entirely by money we've borrowed from the Chinese.

    You think they'll continue to send us money if we're spending it on armaments that we intend to fire at them?

    bd
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 11,065 Senior Member
    Somewhere in the vastness of the universe George Santayana's electrons are recalling Japanese scrap metal imports in the 1930s, as well as Lenin's boast that "The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we hang them."

    China is huge, with vast resources, but it is riddled with even vaster problems. Remember the best selling 1979 book "Japan As Number One"?
    "...this low-rent Lear raging on his Twitter-heath has proven that the phrase malignant buffoon is not an oxymoron..."

    George Will
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,039 Senior Member
    jbilly wrote: »
    PROS:
    1) F35B variant can take off from an amphibious assault ship (conventional fighter cannot, there is no catapult)
    2) Allows for aviation element to be present alongside troops in theater w/o need for runways (ie frontline aviation support)
    3) Not only will we use it for the USMC, the Brits are going to buy them for their Navy, and I believe others are planning on it too. Correct me if I am wrong, but we are the only country who operates true flat top carriers, the rest of our allies have smaller ones with ramps and no catapults and have to have STVOL type aircraft
    4) It will be stealthy. The Harriers and F18s aren’t. This gives us our guys the best chance of survival in harms way.
    CONS:
    1) Cost an a$$ ton of money…can’t argue with that
    2) Technical issues have led to delayed delivery time
    3) See #1 one more time for good measure

    Let's see what could be a viable alternative to a jet that can land and take off like a helicopter? Perhaps a helicopter?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 49,774 Senior Member
    With the new stealth technology of drones other than speed does this aircraft really need to be considered?
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,039 Senior Member
    Eisenhower was right. Why didn't we listen?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • FishTXFishTX Super Moderator Posts: 8,664 Senior Member
    Let's see what could be a viable alternative to a jet that can land and take off like a helicopter? Perhaps a helicopter?
    I thought about that, but jets can have advantages. Speed is a chief advantage. Air cover may not be thought necessary in all operations, but if something goes wrong, you want it as quick as possible. The jet wins when there is a lot of ground to be covered getting on site.

    Also, ground support is done at fairly low altitudes in most cases. Assuming the enemy doesn't have a stinger or similar portable SAM, then a jet's speed makes it harder to hit with small arms fire.

    A jet is likely to carrying a wider range of armament than a helicopter.
    "We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."

    Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
  • FishTXFishTX Super Moderator Posts: 8,664 Senior Member
    greenman wrote: »
    With the new stealth technology of drones other than speed does this aircraft really need to be considered?
    If your ground troops are facing a large enough force (large than was expected in planning) you may need more than one drone to carry the firepower of a single jet.
    "We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."

    Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,039 Senior Member
    FishTX wrote: »
    I thought about that, but jets can have advantages. Speed is a chief advantage. Air cover may not be thought necessary in all operations, but if something goes wrong, you want it as quick as possible. The jet wins when there is a lot of ground to be covered getting on site.

    Also, ground support is done at fairly low altitudes in most cases. Assuming the enemy doesn't have a stinger or similar portable SAM, then a jet's speed makes it harder to hit with small arms fire.

    A jet is likely to carrying a wider range of armament than a helicopter.

    Is speed necessary in ground support. Perhaps for tactical aircraft and for strategic aircraft. But ground support? I don't think so and we already have a harrier fleet that we can maintain at a fraction of the cost. This is a nice to have item and not necessary to our current military posture.

    We cannot continue to squander our economy and our children's future on military contractors that never even negotiate a price, they simply set it and we pay it.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • WetdogWetdog Senior Member Posts: 5,684 Senior Member
    Kevin,

    This is what I am alluding to. Chine despite it's efforts is an ecological nightmare. Oil makes lousy gravy.

    http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=389&catid=10&subcatid=66
    I find the assault on free thought disturbing,
    I find the willingness to give it up frightening.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.

Advertisement