"Kevin Brooks" wrote:


"Henry J Cobb" babbled
The Air Force's F-35A is the least expensive version and it requires
F/A-22s to clear the way

No more than the F-16s need F-15s to clear the way. When using
AWACS the IDM and AIM-120s, it's a whole new BVR engagement these
days. It's safe to say the F-35A won't need much of anything except to
divide tasks among the various members of the strike force.

The Navy needs a F-35C that won't break up during a high speed carrier
landing and they need greater range because they don't have these
"deals" with tanker builders like the AF does so they'll have to rely on
Super Hornet tankers.

Never heard of "joint operations", huh Henry? Heck, a lot of USN tanking
requirements during OEF were provided by *RAF* tankers, in addition to
(gasp!) USAF KC's.

I think these "deals" are either the proposal to lease tankers
(horrors - adopt commercial practices !) or they consider the original
purchase of KC-135s thirty (?) years ago as some sort of sweetheart
deal. Conspiracy people see them everywhere, it seems.


The USMC wants the *STOVL*
capability (what the heck is "S/VTOL"?) to allow them to both provide air
support from vessels other than CVN's (thus improving their versatility as a
force) and to allow them to establish air operations from ashore without
having to seize intact or build a complete airstrip--kind of understandable
given their expeditionary nature.

If the Marines' version is operated CTOL from a carrier deck,
is the useful load more in line with the Navy version, and/or is the
aircraft intended for CTOL carrier work ?



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---