Mattis orders review of Air Force One and F-35C

a reply to: yuppa

And how exactly does that help the Marines with their assault carriers and STOVL requirement?

originally posted by: yuppa
Just scrap the VTOL variation of the f-35. Then make new warthogs with enhanced ECM and lower RCS with some bolt on cowlings,and other tricks to make it stealthier. repositioning the engines at a different angle might help.

There is no VTOL F35, It is a STOVL. there is a difference...

The USMC is the only US flyer of the B Model, however, countries like Great Britain and Italy have their entire Naval Air Program based on STOVL capability.

The F35 will never replace the brute force of the A-10, but there would be no way modify an A-10 into anything close to stealthy, that isn't its job.

a reply to: Zaphod58

well we have to pick. the marines will be fine with older tech. they always have been.

a reply to: yuppa

Right, because losing 6 Hornets, 2 CH-53s, and an AV-8B, along with 14 crew members in a year is "all right". Funny, I always thought the point of military equipment was to kill the enemy, not your own crew members.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: yuppa

Right, because losing 6 Hornets, 2 CH-53s, and an AV-8B, along with 14 crew members in a year is "all right". Funny, I always thought the point of military equipment was to kill the enemy, not your own crew members.

Up keeps a bitch. And military is a dangerous job. my grand dad was a ball gunner and risked death anytime he even got out of his barracks. what happenned to the old bad azzes i used to read about?

It would be nice to have a new shiny Harrier replacement but its just not cost effective right now.

I wonder how much this is Mattis and how much it is coming down on him from above. F-35 and VC-25 replacement have both been heavily criticized by Trump. But procurement gets screwed every new admin. I am honestly surprised the KC-46 isnt in the group as it has been a punching bag for years.

a reply to: yuppa

Hell, why don't we just get rid of Marine aviation altogether then. What's the point of having it if you're just going to keep handing them old equipment that's getting harder and harder to maintain? Marines don't need planes anyway. Why stop there? I'm sure we can find more areas we can gut the military to save money. Get rid of a few ships here and there, cancel a few more programs.... I mean, the military is dangerous. So what if we lost more people to our own damn equipment last year than we did to hostile fire? It's all about saving money, right?

a reply to: Pyle

The -46 is fixed price. Boeing is paying the overruns out of their own pocket, so there's not really a lot of room to cut costs out any more than they already are.

originally posted by: ReverendBowThere is no VTOL F35, It is a STOVL. there is a difference...

I don't know how much more VTOL you can get..

a reply to: edsinger

There really is a difference. The official designation is actually V/STOL. VTOL is a subset of V/STOL, and will use a rolling takeoff whenever they can, because they can get a better payload, and range out of it. A vertical takeoff can't carry much of a payload when it takes off, compared to a rolling takeoff. The F-35 is considered a STOVL, not a VTOL.

originally posted by: edsinger

originally posted by: ReverendBowThere is no VTOL F35, It is a STOVL. there is a difference...

I don't know how much more VTOL you can get..

Yup, it WILL do it, they have proven it a few times now... but there is a catch the general public doesn't know about that video footage...

no racks
no stations
not enough fuel on board to make it to a tanker...

It is actually easy to figure out if you try...

Thrust of the Lift Fan and thrust of the engine need to be equal to balance the plane

subtract the weight of the airframe

the number you get left is the max amount of fuel you can have on board

And there is a reason the BF-1 (The aircraft in the video is the first B model ever produced) performed it... it isn't a full up F35, it is a Flight Science Aircraft.

That taken into consideration, it will go from 0 to flying, with a full fuel load, it 450 Ft... Hence the STOVL (Short Take Off Vertical Landing)

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: yuppa

Right, because losing 6 Hornets, 2 CH-53s, and an AV-8B, along with 14 crew members in a year is "all right". Funny, I always thought the point of military equipment was to kill the enemy, not your own crew members.

Up keeps a bitch. And military is a dangerous job. my grand dad was a ball gunner and risked death anytime he even got out of his barracks. what happenned to the old bad azzes i used to read about?

It would be nice to have a new shiny Harrier replacement but its just not cost effective right now.

The USMC bought the remaining AV-8Bs from Great Britain when they retired them.... For Parts
The USMC F-18s are High Time on the Airframes, and cracking is happening often

They need a new platform, instead of flying old jets and NAVY hand downs.

The pilots that drive the B model came from AV-8s and Hornets... they don't miss their old platform at all... and when they play with other platforms, it is like clubbing baby seals...

a reply to: Zaphod58

It's basically hogwash. This review is just an official way of asking Lockheed and Boeing to give up their profits to keep the contracts they've already won and earned. This is a total politicalization of the Defense Dept.

Threatening them with an F-18EF Advanced isn't going to do anything either. It just shows how our current elected leader has zero knowledge when it comes to the procurement process. Pathetic really, as if the executive branch has anything to do with what fighters the Navy flies anyhow. Totally off base.

This "review" is just and expensive and time consuming waste of money. It won't change a thing.

a reply to: Zaphod58

From my sources the -800 program will also lead to replacing the E-4. There's the chance of a third new VC-25, if all goes well, that will be Sec Def oriented. And also replacement of the remaining E-6 (707 body) aircraft. At least that was the plan....

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: yuppa

Hell, why don't we just get rid of Marine aviation altogether then. What's the point of having it if you're just going to keep handing them old equipment that's getting harder and harder to maintain? Marines don't need planes anyway. Why stop there? I'm sure we can find more areas we can gut the military to save money. Get rid of a few ships here and there, cancel a few more programs.... I mean, the military is dangerous. So what if we lost more people to our own damn equipment last year than we did to hostile fire? It's all about saving money, right?

This.

The reason America maintains military superiority in the world is not because of our ground forces, but because of our superior air power and sea capabilities. Thus, if we wish to continue ruling the seas and skies, we need to update and improve our capabilities, and stay ahead of the adversaries.

What the hell is the political angle here, anyway? What is the politics at hand?

Yes I fully understand the VSTOL VTOL concept, all the way back to the first Harriers.....and even the Yak 38 and Yak 141s. The point I was making is it IS VTOL capable. Sure it is much better to have/use the VSTOL function hence the ski jumps.

However, one could conceivably fly a F35 from a cruiser size ship for air cover etc....not very much range I will grant but sidewinders and AMRAAMs do not weigh that much..

Brings up a side point, heard there was a possibility of getting the S-3's back on the carrier wings, air frames are fine. Any truth to that?

As for what trump is doing, this is a good thing. Sure Lockheed and Boeing want to make a profit. I want them to also as I won stock but the waste is tremendous.

I will give you an example. I saw an article about the AGS on the Zumwalt has no shells and they will not make them as they are $800k a piece. I personally know this is crap. How do I know? Well the shells were made over 10 years ago, I know this for a fact.....they might not be the guided ones with the fancy satellite stuff, but the dumb ones are ready to go.......

I am of the opinion that the F35 will be a damn good one....as folks here have pointed out, the F-15 almost got cancelled more than once. I think they turned out all right don't you?

What you should be asking is what are the differences between us versions and export models. That should give you pause.

originally posted by: aholic
a reply to: Zaphod58

From my sources the -800 program will also lead to replacing the E-4. There's the chance of a third new VC-25, if all goes well, that will be Sec Def oriented. And also replacement of the remaining E-6 (707 body) aircraft. At least that was the plan....

I would hope not, I would like Boeing to develop a next gen 747 style plane for one reason. SIZE.

You could I guess get an Airbus 380 but is that really what you want?

The 747 has the size, and we need the size. I do not mean just AF1 either.....I would bet 50% of the folks reading this thread do not know that the Boeing 707 is still flying via the US military and others when none are flying commercially.

The US Nimrod moment.

a reply to: edsinger

Actually very little. The export customer chooses what equipment and weapons go on them, which are the primary differences. A good example is the Block 60/61 F-16 flown by the UAE. It's about a generation more advanced than anything in the US F-16 fleet.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: edsinger

Actually very little. The export customer chooses what equipment and weapons go on them, which are the primary differences. A good example is the Block 60/61 F-16 flown by the UAE. It's about a generation more advanced than anything in the US F-16 fleet.

I had thought there were some items, software wise that are NOT available for export on the F35. I know the ones the Italians are getting are not the same as USAF versions.