Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14?

"John Carrier" wrote in message ...
Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft designed as a
Carrier
Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with you. The B
will
be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. Sure, it can land on a
carrier
but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using arresting gear or
Cat
launches.

True in a sense, but as a VSTOL and STOVL design, it's fully carrier
suitable w/o the need for catapult gear (I suspect it does have a tailhook).
I'd also be much surprised if its CNI suite didn't include ACLS and SPN-41
in their latest incarnations.

R / John


With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy
still demand those giant carriers? Seems like something can be done
there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane
(the F-35C) to fit their ships?

In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy
still demand those giant carriers?

Because that zero/short capability comes with a heavy cost in range and
performance. Building much smaller carriers that have to get to within
a hundred miles of the enemy coast before launching doesn't gain you
much.

Having the capability to put small but effective air strikes together
from very small ships does have some advantages, but for overall
atrategic power, you need range and payload.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote in message . com...
In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy
still demand those giant carriers?

Because that zero/short capability comes with a heavy cost in range and
performance. Building much smaller carriers that have to get to within
a hundred miles of the enemy coast before launching doesn't gain you
much.

Having the capability to put small but effective air strikes together
from very small ships does have some advantages, but for overall
atrategic power, you need range and payload.

Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot
get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of
them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway!
How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?

In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot
get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of
them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway!

Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once?

The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."

How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?

To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go through
the other services as much. They've been flying off of the USS Bonhomme
Richard.

Overall, Iraq hasn't been a good test of what we'd need the Harrier for.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

snip


How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?

To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go through
the other services as much.

Wait a sec. Weren't the USMC fixed wing assets in this conflict under
control of the CAOC and responsive to the joint ATO?

Brooks

snip

Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot
get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of
them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway!

Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once?

The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."

How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?

To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go through
the other services as much. They've been flying off of the USS Bonhomme
Richard.

Overall, Iraq hasn't been a good test of what we'd need the Harrier for.

Oh, I don't know, as the marines had their Harriers turning at a FARP/FOB
during the war, and based them there after the main fighting ended. The
only other fixed-wing a/c doing this were, surprise, surprise, A-10s,
because only these a/c were capable of operating from short runways in poor
condition. Gee, seems like exactly the kind of expeditionary ops the
marines are tasked with, and oddly enough, CAS Gen. Jumper and SECAF Roche
are both supporting buying some F-35Bs for the USAF.

Guy

Chad Irby wrote in message . com...
In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot
get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of
them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway!

Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once?

The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."

If there are no good airstrips how would the marines get their gas,
bombs, food, and all the other support?

How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?

To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go through
the other services as much. They've been flying off of the USS Bonhomme
Richard.

Overall, Iraq hasn't been a good test of what we'd need the Harrier for.

Can anyone conjure a F-35B Marine job that could not be none by the
navy?

No need to conjure. Try expeditionary air operations (FW and RW) ashore, as
demonstrated in DS, OEF and OIF. TACAIR operations from amphibious
shipping. How about assault support from amphibious shipping or from
expeditionary locations ashore?

Should I go on?

"puttster" wrote in message
om...
Chad Irby wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot
get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of
them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway!

Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once?

The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."

If there are no good airstrips how would the marines get their gas,
bombs, food, and all the other support?

How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?

To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go through
the other services as much. They've been flying off of the USS Bonhomme
Richard.

Overall, Iraq hasn't been a good test of what we'd need the Harrier for.

Can anyone conjure a F-35B Marine job that could not be none by the
navy?

yes, please do, but not with politispeak generalities. Instead, give
me the best one practical example of the ideal mission as the perfect
reason why the Marines would need to order 400+ F-35B's.

"Frijoles" wrote in message hlink.net...
No need to conjure. Try expeditionary air operations (FW and RW) ashore, as
demonstrated in DS, OEF and OIF. TACAIR operations from amphibious
shipping. How about assault support from amphibious shipping or from
expeditionary locations ashore?

Should I go on?

"puttster" wrote in message
om...
Chad Irby wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot
get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of
them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway!

Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once?

The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."

If there are no good airstrips how would the marines get their gas,
bombs, food, and all the other support?

How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?

To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go through
the other services as much. They've been flying off of the USS Bonhomme
Richard.

Overall, Iraq hasn't been a good test of what we'd need the Harrier for.

Can anyone conjure a F-35B Marine job that could not be none by the
navy?

In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in message
. com...

The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."

If there are no good airstrips how would the marines get their gas,
bombs, food, and all the other support?

See the other posts in this thread about the V-22 Osprey, or read up on
parachure sropping/resupply. You also have a lot of situations where
the Marines would have a forward location, a few hundred miles outside
of the range of carrier jets, but still accessible from the ground.

It's also nice to have fast-reaction fighter jets that don't have to
live on a big, obvious target like an airfeld.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.