After doing way too many OSW missions I never saw a Harrier on the ATO for one. Wasn't really the mission for it either, but then wandering around until you got shot at so you could shoot back wasn't really in anyone's mission area........
-
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
After doing way too many OSW missions I never saw a Harrier on the ATO for one. Wasn't really the mission for it either, but then wandering around until you got shot at so you could shoot back wasn't really in anyone's mission area........
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
The 11th MEU Harriers flew OSW in 98. Not sure how many other dets did it too. Always painful. We all did the last few weeks of OSW prior to OSF and OIF 1.
Clux4
Banned
What influence, if any, would a new CMC(Aviator) have on the JSF program? Is he likely to consider the Super Hornets as a realistic and cheaper alternative in the face of growing budget cuts. Seems to me that it would be a rather smart move for the USMC to quickly join the Super Hornet line than have to go to Capitol Hill to beg for the continual funding of the JSF(B) which may invariably be cut. His experience as an Aviator should at least way more in the decision making vice a grunt who thinks giving up on JSF means the end of our existence. After what the Marine Corps went through with the MV-22, I just don't see leadership willing to go through the carpet dance again. The EFV is also another contentious issue before Congress.
Or, maybe he sees that going to the mat for the MV-22 got the Marine Corps a successful aircraft, so why not do it again? Seems you think his background brings him better judgement only as far as that judgement agrees with yours.
EFV is still toast, though.
EFV is still toast, though.
Why give the Marines Super Hornets when the Navy already has them and is operating them? I don't flippantly ask this, but I believe it will be the response the Marines get when/if they start asking for it. Why not just pass the FW CAS role to the Navy and take the Marines off the boat entirely if all you want to do is buy jets we've been operating since 98-99? In no way am I suggesting Marines should be routed out of the business, but I think budget cutters in Washington and in the Dept. of the Navy will see this and ask themselves why we need Marine variants of the same platform operating with the Navy on the boat. The Harrier and 35B differentiated you enough with VSTOL capabilities, and without it, Marine tacair would look very similar to what the Navy is already doing.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/11/military-f-35-lockheed-gets-deal-for-lot-iv-111910w/
Looks like Congress is still down with buying some...
Looks like Congress is still down with buying some...
Harriers are already the minority of Marine jets. Marines fly hornets even though the Navy flies hornets, just like they both flew A-4's F-4's, A-6's, and on and on. What you are suggesting isn't impossible, but I would be very surprised.
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
Congress has already bought some. They are on the assembly line right now.
True for the B and C model. The A has an internal gun.
The a/c the USMC really needs for the CAS mission for grunts on the ground is the one attack a/c they never bought: the A-7E. It would haul everything they use, had guns and would stay in the air for several hours while doing it. There are several hundred at Davis-Mothan just waiting for re-work.
I guess I can understand the logic behind that in the B with all the STOVL technology taking up space, but what is the reasoning behind the C not having a gun? Considering the trend towards strafing in Afghanistan wouldn't that seem like a reason to reconsider, or are they going to pull an F-4 and mount a "gunpod"?
from what I understand, that's the plan
Likely because of the beefier/larger landing gear and the strengthening needed for carrier operations. I believe the gun will be carried as a conformal pod, like the Harrier. Another compromise is that the F-35B will have about half the internal bomb capacity and about 65-70% of the internal fuel compared to the A and C models because of all the space taken up by the lift fan.