Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
Yes! That's exactly what I am talking about.
This aircraft is going to be a huge changer in naval aviation and carrier air wings, particularly adding huge strength to small, VTOL carriers.
Here's a couple of pics.
Not canceled. They have had a delay due to some of the problems...but they are picking up. All three are moving forward. initial production units already built and handed over to the Air Force.tomcat21 said:
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Let's not play the partisan crap here tomcat. First of it's NOT Obama and the Democrats and it's SecDef Gates not Rumsfeld.
The calling of canceling the 35 Bravo was initiated by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform which consist of BOTH Democrats and Republicans and others.
Secondly 14 of the 18 commissioners from the panel must truly approve the recommendations so it is by far final. Lastly any recommendations made must still make it past Congress with a heavy influence by the Armed Services and Appropriations Committee. At this moment I don't think the Bravo version is canceled for reason I mentioned above.
all that being said I can't say it's a totally assinine idea. Sure the Bravo is very cool to look at and who doesn't love STOVL?! but you have to look it it realistically and holistically as well.
Because of the huge giant lift fan the Bravo version has doomed the line of even great potential. It has been proven that the STOVL requirement has directly lead to the decrease in of the Lighting's A2A capabilities. It is no secret that an internal weapons bay would be ideal if not for the giant lift fan on it's belly. Not to mentioned improved stealth capabilites and slim down the airframe and also lighten its empty weight. My theory is it could've use the F119-PW-100 powerplant similar to the Raptor F-22 thus allowing to actually supercruise!!!...
Because the Bravo has been primarily responsible for most of the technical, cost, and schedule problems, canceling it will most definitely accelerate delivery of the Air Force (F– 35A) and Navy (F-35C) variants.
From an operational standpoint it would also be more cost effective if the Marines flew the same aircraft as the Navy.
Yeah it's cool and look awesome BUT is it worth it? my opinion is NO. Should've just stuck to Alpha and Charlie! We and our allies would've couple of squadrons operational by now!
The calling of canceling the 35 Bravo was initiated by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform which consist of BOTH Democrats and Republicans and others.
Secondly 14 of the 18 commissioners from the panel must truly approve the recommendations so it is by far final. Lastly any recommendations made must still make it past Congress with a heavy influence by the Armed Services and Appropriations Committee. At this moment I don't think the Bravo version is canceled for reason I mentioned above.
all that being said I can't say it's a totally assinine idea. Sure the Bravo is very cool to look at and who doesn't love STOVL?! but you have to look it it realistically and holistically as well.
Because of the huge giant lift fan the Bravo version has doomed the line of even great potential. It has been proven that the STOVL requirement has directly lead to the decrease in of the Lighting's A2A capabilities. It is no secret that an internal weapons bay would be ideal if not for the giant lift fan on it's belly. Not to mentioned improved stealth capabilites and slim down the airframe and also lighten its empty weight. My theory is it could've use the F119-PW-100 powerplant similar to the Raptor F-22 thus allowing to actually supercruise!!!...
Because the Bravo has been primarily responsible for most of the technical, cost, and schedule problems, canceling it will most definitely accelerate delivery of the Air Force (F– 35A) and Navy (F-35C) variants.
From an operational standpoint it would also be more cost effective if the Marines flew the same aircraft as the Navy.
Yeah it's cool and look awesome BUT is it worth it? my opinion is NO. Should've just stuck to Alpha and Charlie! We and our allies would've couple of squadrons operational by now!
Last edited:
Equation
Lieutenant General
I agree with some of your points, but disagree about the need for the F-35B version. It's such a flexible launch and landing type of plane that almost any country's air force and/or navy could use it. Yes VTOL has it's quarks and pretty expensive, but if one looks carefully at the defense need and this baby can do various missions to meet those needs it's no so bad. I can see Japan Self Defense Force and South Korea could use a few of these as they progress on their own small carrier project. Therefore, lets be a little more patience on this before putting the final judgement on it.
It's not about being "cool."
I predict that the Bravo will not be cancelled. It is simply too important and critical to the US Marines. Too important and critical an advancement and upgrade over their existing equipment, which is old. Like the V-22 they will work out the bugs and issues and the F-35B will end up being a significant game changer.
The Marines will use it. It will be a natural fleet defense and strike fighter for the US Navy should they ever need to use the LPAs and LPHs as small "jeep" aircraft carriers (ie. the upcoming USS America), and our allies will use them for their VSTOL carriers (ie. the Italians, the Spanish, Australia, the Koreans and the Jpanese, and who knows, perhaps ultimately the UK will utilize them as well).
Time will tell, but that is my prediction. Simply too much momentum and too much support for the Marines in this IMHO.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Jeff, like I said it's NOT about being cool but it seems like a lot of people like it because it's cool. If we have unlimited budget sure.. but we don't. You liken it to the V-22 which is great because I agree EXCEPT the V-22 even though is extremely capable BUT you would cringe if you really know the 'real' story in it's development and what the program ultimately cost in terms of $$$$$ and the cost of lives due to crashes etc. $$$$$ that would've been better spent elsewhere and perhaps get an even MORE capable platform then the Osprey..
Somethings are just not worth it even if it's finally proven to be a capable platform.
Dang! now you make me sound like a pansy ass liberal!
Somethings are just not worth it even if it's finally proven to be a capable platform.
Dang! now you make me sound like a pansy ass liberal!
I am very well aware of and acquainted with the development programs of both systems...and the cost in terms of money, material, and lives.... you would cringe if you really know the 'real' story in it's development and what the program ultimately cost in terms of $$$$$ and the cost of lives due to crashes etc.
Somethings are just not worth it even if it's finally proven to be a capable platform.
Dang! now you make me sound like a pansy ass liberal!
The test pilots and the soldiers involved know the risks, God bless them for taking those risks so we can be defended. In order to be defended we must upgrade our systems and technology. There is inherant risks in doing so. Always has been...always will be.
As to is being cool or not, I am sorry if I misread your last quote, but at the end you did say,
"Yeah it's cool and look awesome BUT is it worth it?".
I repeat, I believe that like the Osprey, the F-35B will end up successful and deployed. I also believe that both technologies will also be critical to our ability to defend ourselves.
is that how they will be taking off in the future or will they actually get to do vertical take offs eventually?
- Status