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

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?

Actually, your approach is wrong...

We should get rid of the Air Force... we didn't start losing wars until we got the "Chair Force"...

The Army Air Corps kicked ass, as did US NAVY Air Wing and USMC Air Wing... then after WWII....

originally posted by: ReverendBowWe should get rid of the Air Force... we didn't start losing wars until we got the "Chair Force"...

Ouch - although I disagree in some respects

originally posted by: ReverendBowThe Army Air Corps kicked ass, as did US NAVY Air Wing and USMC Air Wing... then after WWII....

No we lost wars when the politicians started making the rules and tying hands.

a reply to: edsinger

The differences are optimizing them for their own missions. The Norwegians are developing a stealthy antiship/cruise missile capable of fitting in the weapons bay, while the UK is integrating ASRAAM and Meteor.

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?

I didnt say no to maintain the equipment though Zap. Its cheaper to just make more newer airframes of anything but the f-35 for the Marines. I Like the military itself but sometimes they poormouth and outright stretch the truth. remember the bradley?
As to ships Id liek them to bring the IOWA class back into service but modernize it with newer systems. It be perfect for the rail gun system.Point is there have to be ways to satisfy both camps.

a reply to: yuppa

The point of the F-35, just as with the Harrier, is to have fixed wing, ship board bviation that doesn't tie up a full deck Nimitz class carrier and strike group. So unless you can explain to me how building more A-10s after canceling the F-35B solves that problem, I'll just be glad the planning office thinks differently about it.

As for maintaining them, exactly why do you think they recently raided museums and have been cannibalizing other F-18s? There are parts for the legacy Hornets that are no longer made. So with your "give them old equipment, they do fine with it", you're screwing them even worse than they currently are.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: yuppa

The point of the F-35, just as with the Harrier, is to have fixed wing, ship board bviation that doesn't tie up a full deck Nimitz class carrier and strike group. So unless you can explain to me how building more A-10s after canceling the F-35B solves that problem, I'll just be glad the planning office thinks differently about it.

A-10 is the best CAS plane period. The F35 just as the F16 will fail to do that mission well enough.

Actually, the turboprop submission looks good..

a reply to: edsinger

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the F-35B, which is what yuppa wants to cancel in favor of more radically redesigned A-10s.

originally posted by: Zaphod58

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the F-35B, which is what yuppa wants to cancel in favor of more radically redesigned A-10s.

Two different missions, wholeheartedly....The Marines could use A-10s if we had a base nearby but the A-10 can not take off ships...etc etc but I know you know this...

a reply to: edsinger

USMC is about power projection.

What's the point of using the Navy's mobility if you're tied to an airbase.

While it would be awesome if the USMC could use the A-10. It's not a realistic idea.

Well I agree, that was the point.

a reply to: Zaphod58

how much trouble would it be to make a A-10 able to take off vertical like a harrier does?
I did mention earlier that they could MAKE NEW PARTS for the Hornets and older aircraft,but they want to make it seem like its too hard to do. Thats a Lie that they cant do it. is it a pain? yes. Impossible? nope.

a reply to: yuppa

It would take a complete redesign, including removing the gun and putting a smaller one in its place.

It's not just a matter of turning on a machine and cranking out parts. In some cases the OEM went out of business. In others the tooling is gone because it's been that long since the part was built. In yet others the people that built them are gone.

a reply to: yuppa

how much trouble would it be to make a A-10 able to take off vertical like a harrier does?

Doesn't really matter, as the A-10 is different class of plane, it's duty is close in support of ground troops. It's top speed is maybe 450 mph. The F in F35 stands for Fighter, lets just say it goes a lot faster and serves a different purpose.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
In some cases the OEM went out of business.

Fairchild has been out of business for a long time....

Now to make a new one, a class of aircraft with the armor and 30mm gun, one that can be VTOL or VSTOL, that is at best 20 years away, by then it will not be needed.

a reply to: RAY1990

Bingo!! It's a case of the whole being far more than the sum of the parts. All the f-35 cool bits and pieces add up to an exceptional piece of gear.

a reply to: yuppa

Dude you are missing the point that geriatric equipment is killing poeple.

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

well currently the Us is seeing lots of internal politics.
I thought it was hard to miss.

a reply to: yuppa

There's a very capable vertical takeoff close air support craft in service right now, that has a huge 30mm gun, is heavily armored, can take off from destroyers and cruisers on the water and resupply almost anywhere in the world. AND it's in the hands of the US Army.

It has the same psychological effect as an A-10. Talk to anyone.

What I would like to see is an in-flight refueling upgrade for the AH-64, to allow it to stay on station longer and travel greater distances and better ECM and conventional countermeasures. Why not a Longbow II. Same with the Viper. Combine that with CV-22s in support and we've got a pretty damn good system already.

The F-35 can take care of the high mix.