-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
F-35B/C Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)
- Thread starter jai5w4
- Start date
The USMC is the smallest part of the buy, but the most important one to the future of the service. As has been said many times, the JSF is the last manned fighter. The Nav and AF just need about 10-15 years of stopgap until our future robot overlords are up to the task of defending us. They could conceivably survive on SLEPs of existing aircraft or upgrades (F/A-18E/F, F-15SE, etc) until that time.
Over on the green side, there is not going to be a Harrier III. I've also seen no concepts of V/STOL strike UAVs. The Marine Corps has (rightly) staked its future on being expeditionary. If we don't get the JSF, the overall utility of Marine TACAIR is going to be called into question as part of that mix. Unlike the V-22, we're not going to be able to pull this entire program on our own. We have got to get this program in line.
Over on the green side, there is not going to be a Harrier III. I've also seen no concepts of V/STOL strike UAVs. The Marine Corps has (rightly) staked its future on being expeditionary. If we don't get the JSF, the overall utility of Marine TACAIR is going to be called into question as part of that mix. Unlike the V-22, we're not going to be able to pull this entire program on our own. We have got to get this program in line.
I don't know if we'd ever be fully replaced by Skynet and the Predator mafia. There will always be a need for manned aircraft.
Even so, the idea of unmanned systems taking up the majority of aircraft is a very likely scenario it seems. Let's just hope we're not so naive as to let these systems operate fully autonomously.
Even so, the idea of unmanned systems taking up the majority of aircraft is a very likely scenario it seems. Let's just hope we're not so naive as to let these systems operate fully autonomously.
This sort of thought leads me to wonder when there will ever be an amphibious operation important enough to require taccair but not important enough to allocate a carrier or land based forces to. Just how many JSFs are they planning on putting onto an LHA/LHD? And if they are thinking of land basing them for support, why not use a SH???
IMHO, cank the V/STOL version, buy 18F/Gs to replace your legacies and Prowlers and plus up our airwings to 5 strike fighter squadrons... use the remainder as expeditionary. I see that as working better than throwing all your eggs into a basket. It would essentially retain all the capability the Marines need while making the overall force more streamlined and efficient. Let's be honest... you're never going to conduct an opposed amphibious operation against any nation with modern IADs/5th gen fighters without carrier or AF support.
IMHO, cank the V/STOL version, buy 18F/Gs to replace your legacies and Prowlers and plus up our airwings to 5 strike fighter squadrons... use the remainder as expeditionary. I see that as working better than throwing all your eggs into a basket. It would essentially retain all the capability the Marines need while making the overall force more streamlined and efficient. Let's be honest... you're never going to conduct an opposed amphibious operation against any nation with modern IADs/5th gen fighters without carrier or AF support.
You haven't seen how much we use the Harrier LITENING for ISR, for one. We need CAS from LHDs sufficient to cover V-22 inserted troops, as well. AH/UH-1 can't do that.
Better get those F-35's rolling off the line, Pics of China's new "5th gen"-
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
Aviation Week thinks it's legit, looks photochopped to me. Who knows though, I highly doubt anyone would be taking close up high res photos.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
Aviation Week thinks it's legit, looks photochopped to me. Who knows though, I highly doubt anyone would be taking close up high res photos.
Open source on the state of China's military industry. Pretty damn transparent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/24/AR2010122402788.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/24/AR2010122402788.html
Nice Find. It'd be interesting if after years of trying to go it alone, China is welcomed back into the Russian fold military tech wise. As always though, money talks.
It's not as though Russian a/c & their engines are particularly well-made. The a/c are assembled by mostly full-time alcoholics and their jet engines are notorious kerosene guzzlers. Of course, if we ever get into a fight, whether they're built to last 30 years becomes fairly academic.
Reminds me of a line from a Discovery Channel documentary I heard once. "There are more countries capable of producing nuclear weapons than can build jet engines."
But what about this from the Washington Times?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/27/china-deploying-carrier-sinking-ballistic-missile/
Is it just me, or is a place lined with an apartment buildings not an optimal place to do something in "secrecy?"
Do you think they don't know people are taking pictures?
<I'm an idiot>
But the YF-22 first flew in 1990. Prototype -> Operation for these technological terrors is quite the long and painful process these days.