Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Lat I heard those lightnings were still not capable of landing on aircraft carriers.

They're working on it.

Even if tailhooks are still a problem they can always land vertically

Already addressed is the issue that C models are not VTOL, but also that Catobar operations are faster and one of the stated goals of the CVN 78 class is higher sortie rates.

Grey Templar wrote:Why not? They can simply match their forward speed with the speed of the boat. IIRC the thrusters do allow for some horizontal movement.

see above

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
I still think a single-engine jet for naval aviation's a bad idea, but, oddly, they did not include me in the procurement process, so I guess we'll just have to see how it does.

The AV8-B disagrees with you.

Strictly speaking the AV-8 wasn't designed for Naval Aviation. It found a home there, but it's far from an ideal naval airplane.
seawards concern for the lack of power plant redundancy is valid, but it's true not all or even most naval aircraft have twin engines.
It's better to have and not need it though, than need it and not have it.

To boldly bomb were no one has bombed from the sky before.

I was hoping this was about a Star Trek sequal...

I wonder though, what happens to the ships crew now? You have a homeless carrier air group, homeless reactor crew, etc. I mean, for the most part the crew can be sent to other ships, but the nuclear and air components? They wont have a ship to operate from for some years....

The air wings can and frequently do operate from land, and personally can rotate in and out of the orphaned air wing.
Considering congress approved the gap in service between Enterprise and Ford in 2009 let's go ahead and assume the Navy had a plan.


Fire them all.

The answer's actually a lot simpler than that.

We have eleven carriers - now ten with the Big E out.

We have ten carrier air wings.

You know the navy will still probably cut from the ratings in those section though.

 AustonT wrote:
The air wings can and frequently do operate from land, and personally can rotate in and out of the orphaned air wing.
Considering congress approved the gap in service between Enterprise and Ford in 2009 let's go ahead and assume the Navy had a plan.


Fire them all.

Thats a lot of personnel to rotate/fire and operating from land is all well and good but how do they keep current on carrier landings then?

chaos0xomega wrote:

Thats a lot of personnel to rotate/fire and operating from land is all well and good but how do they keep current on carrier landings then?

They don't, they just requal before a cruise. Same as it is right now.

 Zathras wrote:

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
Apropos nothing, who cares about Gerald Ford? He was a lousy president who did nothing noteworthy besides end the (lost cause, at that point) Vietnam War. Why does he deserve and entire class of Flagships?

Ummm, you might want to read up on the man's life story before making the claim that he did nothing noteworthy....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford#Naval_service_in_World_War_II

From what I understand it's his naval service as much as anything that is getting him a ship named after him, same with the CVN-79 the "John F Kennedy" and the SSN-23 the "Jimmy Carter" the last of the Sea Wolf class attack submarines, fun fact President Carter held the rank of Lieutenant (Captain equivalent in ground forces) and was a qualified Submariner, the only US President to be so qualified.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Yay! Good to see a proud tradition continue.

 Huffy wrote:
As long as they stop naming ships after Presidents I will be pleased...glad to see E will be sailing again

Could be worse...

Could be named for the Congressional Committee Chair who authorized the funding.

Yes that actually happened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Captain Fantastic wrote:


Apropos nothing, who cares about Gerald Ford? He was a lousy president who did nothing noteworthy besides end the (lost cause, at that point) Vietnam War. Why does he deserve and entire class of Flagships?

Because it keeps the political parties happy and the money flowing...

20 years from now, the USS William Jefferson Clinton

30 years from now the USS George W Bush

40 years from now, the USS Barrack Hussein Obama

50 years from now, the USS Hillary Rodham Clinton

Count on it.

The Barrack Obama is built 13 years from now.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Yay! Good to see a proud tradition continue.

 Huffy wrote:
As long as they stop naming ships after Presidents I will be pleased...glad to see E will be sailing again

Could be worse...

Could be named for the Congressional Committee Chair who authorized the funding.

Yes that actually happened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Captain Fantastic wrote:


Apropos nothing, who cares about Gerald Ford? He was a lousy president who did nothing noteworthy besides end the (lost cause, at that point) Vietnam War. Why does he deserve and entire class of Flagships?

Because it keeps the political parties happy and the money flowing...

20 years from now, the USS William Jefferson Clinton

30 years from now the USS George W Bush

40 years from now, the USS Barrack Hussein Obama

50 years from now, the USS Hillary Rodham Clinton

Count on it.

The Barrack Obama is built 13 years from now.

yes and David Patreus is also SecDef, but we all know that's unlikely to happen now.

Then we shall name our submarine the prescott, that he can be with his fellow whales

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

The Barrack Obama is built 13 years from now.

USS (Ultimate Socialist Ship) Barack Hussein Obama.

The problems with the lightning are numerous and well documented if you care to look. I think its going to prove to be a pretty crappy aircraft period and terrible naval aircraft. Its classic Jack of all trades ace of none and a terribly expensive one at that. We would have been better off continuously upgrading and producing f-18's until a real candidate was designed.

Just have a gander http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/us/in-federal-budget-cutting-f-35-fighter-jet-is-at-risk.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Its the situation is FUBAR!

 whembly wrote:
What kind of ship/boat would Chesty Pully be? Or...would he be a tank?

PullER. If the Marines had their luck, it would one of two things..

A giant EGA-shaped ship with EGAs for anchors, and a bridge that looks like a Bulldog, and 6 inch guns shaped like KABARS, with a silky and a skivvie being flown from the communications. Of course, it would be blood red.

Or.. something Haze Grey with limited adornment and a beefy, intimidating profile.

The F-35 needs to be canceled, period.

Does anyone else remember the reason they wanted to go with one aircraft for three jobs? ECONOMY OF SCALE was the reason - the idea being that while aircraft 1-50 are pretty expensive, aircraft 1000 gets downright cheap (comparatively) because the tools and assembly lines are all up, running, and paid for.

Except now the F-35 has gotten so expensive it's unlikely we'll be able to afford 50, much less the 1000 to make economy of scale viable.

So pull the plug on it NOW. Spend the money earmarked for the F-35 on AV-8s, F-15C/E, and F-18E. We'll get the thousand aircraft, AND teach the defense contractors a lesson about delivering ON TIME and - more importantly - ON BUDGET.

Even in a perfect world where the Navy (and the DoD at large) removes head from ass and cancels the F35 the AV8 is on its way out. If there's a bright spot in the F35 program it's that the B model almost HAS to be safer than the Harrier. Barring some sort of major design fault similar to designing a tail hook arrested airplane that can't catch a cable.

As nice as it sounds, the contractors have already convinced the military what it wants, and unfortunately for the tax payer and service member, it isn't more Harriers, b52s and F18s.

The F35 is a massive project, not just in the aircraft themselves, but in the materials required to repair them, the security for them, the logistical elements (which are huge), and their effect on overall force projection, among other things. It's a big waste of time in this economic climate, although it WILL provide the infrastructure for many, many more generations of 'new' aircraft, which will hopefully make the transition easier in the future.

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
As nice as it sounds, the contractors have already convinced the military what it wants, and unfortunately for the tax payer and service member, it isn't more Harriers, b52s and F18s.

The F35 is a massive project, not just in the aircraft themselves, but in the materials required to repair them, the security for them, the logistical elements (which are huge), and their effect on overall force projection, among other things. It's a big waste of time in this economic climate, although it WILL provide the infrastructure for many, many more generations of 'new' aircraft, which will hopefully make the transition easier in the future.

The original idea was not a bad one. They saw how well the f-16 did global market and figured they could do it again. The problem is the f-35 is just so poorly designed that fixing all the issues has added substantial cost to the project, to the point where nobody is going to buy them. Now you have a project that is way overbudget at a time when most of the worlds militaries are cutting back and honestly don't really require such sophisticated aircraft. Most will go buy f-16s, Eurofighters or Russian jets at a fraction of the cost because in all reality they are proven, reliable and good enough unless you are going to fight the US and very few people are stupid enough to fight the US Airforce in a pitched battle.

Colonel John Boyd and the other non-living elements of the fighter mafia are rolling in their graves right now... the F-22 isnt exactly ideal either. Many consider the YF-23 to have been a superior aircraft that would have been considerably cheaper.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Colonel John Boyd and the other non-living elements of the fighter mafia are rolling in their graves right now... the F-22 isnt exactly ideal either. Many consider the YF-23 to have been a superior aircraft that would have been considerably cheaper.

That one was always a toss up, both aircraft had very similar performance and price tags, I actually believe the 23 was the more expensive of the two out the door and a much higher maintenance price tag to boot . You also never know what a project is going to cost until it's finished. The lightning being the worst case I can think of.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
As nice as it sounds, the contractors have already convinced the military what it wants, and unfortunately for the tax payer and service member, it isn't more Harriers, b52s and F18s.

The F35 is a massive project, not just in the aircraft themselves, but in the materials required to repair them, the security for them, the logistical elements (which are huge), and their effect on overall force projection, among other things. It's a big waste of time in this economic climate, although it WILL provide the infrastructure for many, many more generations of 'new' aircraft, which will hopefully make the transition easier in the future.

The original idea was not a bad one. They saw how well the f-16 did global market and figured they could do it again. The problem is the f-35 is just so poorly designed that fixing all the issues has added substantial cost to the project, to the point where nobody is going to buy them. Now you have a project that is way overbudget at a time when most of the worlds militaries are cutting back and honestly don't really require such sophisticated aircraft. Most will go buy f-16s, Eurofighters or Russian jets at a fraction of the cost because in all reality they are proven, reliable and good enough unless you are going to fight the US and very few people are stupid enough to fight the US Airforce in a pitched battle.

Right on with this, how many countries have dropped out of the F-35 program due to the cost increases? I know it was a fairly significant number