look the whole thing is who "owns the ship" and the dilema that if you
have a AV-8B or F-35B on an assault ship you do not have enough
helicopters or V-22's. Just givin up F-35B's will then provide more
helocopters and V-22's but you will loose your fighters, enabling the
JFK (full deck - conventional) to replace the LHA(R) gives you first a
bigger deck for the fixed wing on a boat that could add many other
things that the Marine Expeditionary Brigade's have lost - such as a
hospital - and much more room for other much needed assets. The assault
ships are returned to maximize their helicopter and MV-22 load outs, and
the JFK could switch to the F/A-18E/F/G with more bang for you buck then
the F-35B and it would help the Navy. Now this carrier is a "Marine
ship" and paid for out of the excessive funds now required for the
LHA(R) - in fact the whole air wing of F-18's and the refurbishment of
the JFK all are paid for but scrapping the LHA(R) and the F-35B. Put
the F-35 on a decade of development to get it to where it would serve as
the attack craft of choice for a war with China or Iran and let the
F/A-18's fill in the void with a full deck assault carrier.

That is how it all fits in - the JFK would not be refurbish to try to
keep up with a new nuclear boat - it would be an assault aviation ship
plus more



"Arved Sandstrom" wrote in message
news:_C0fi.7332$xk5.5525@edtnps82...
Problem being, any form of F-18 is going to be an unreliable strike
aircraft. That's why the Marines are worried. Most of the time those
planes will not be supporting ground Marines. That's a given fact.
They won't be flying off gators, which means they won't be supporting
Marines on the beach. I have only ever called CAS with F-18's twice,
and that was pro forma...in fact in real war Marines would never see
F-18's. Not for quick reliable response they wouldn't.

AHS