|
Godholio posted:The F-35B won't be killed because if it is, we're outright admitting that USMC aviation is virtually worthless which makes a significant portion of the Marine Corps is a complete loving waste of money and should be cut, and at that point the entire branch becomes too small to be worth maintaining. Goddamn is that a selling point.
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:36 |
|
|
So, just to be clear, the article's claim that the F-35B is kind of useful if overpriced is false? Because he's right in that the F-35 has already done massive damage to the program, and cancelling it now wouldn't make the A or C variants suck any less. If you're going to cancel the B you may as well cancel the A and C too. Pretty impressed by the USMCs ability to gently caress over not just the other branches of the US military, but also several other countries. A powerful economic weapon indeed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
I look forward to hearing about the US Army Marines, who are almost as good as Rangers 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
Doctor Grape Ape posted:Is the military allowed to use kickstarter to fund weapons? Because with videos like that they totally should. Considering people can actually sue kickstarters that don't deliver on their promises now it would put a bit of a damper on procurement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
Splode posted:So, just to be clear, the article's claim that the F-35B is kind of useful if overpriced is false? We should at least acknowledge that STOVL fighters are a loving retarded concept that belongs in the Aviation Hall of Shame in order to avoid doing this in another 20 years when the JSF's replacement rolls around and the Marines, like clockwork, start squawking about how the replacement had better have STOVL capability so they can play along at the grown-ups table. Just because we've made a mistake twice doesn't mean we need to make it again. You can help. For just 2 million dollars a day, you too can help prevent Congress from ever authorizing a STOVL fighter again. Think of the children, won't you? Also yes the F-35B is not at all useful, at least under any rational definition of the word "useful." His argument literally boils down to "this thing sucks, but in order to make it suck less we should throw a bunch more money at equally insane ideas like a loving AEW version of the Osprey."
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
AEW is probably going to be the least insane variant the USMC will try.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
Splode posted:Pretty impressed by the USMCs ability to gently caress over not just the other branches of the US military, but also several other countries. A powerful economic weapon indeed. Keep in mind that going for STOVL allows to get a monopoly on Harrier replacement for all these countries which have no realized yet that Harriers are a dead-end and they should instead invest in real CATOBAR capabilities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 10:45
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The F-35B won't be killed because if it is, we're outright admitting that USMC aviation is virtually worthless which makes a significant portion of the Marine Corps is a complete loving waste of money and should be cut, and at that point the entire branch becomes too small to be worth maintaining. Just roll them back into the Navy and call them Naval Infantry, problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:Just roll them back into the Navy and call them Naval Infantry, problem solved. Nah make them part of the army and call them Beachhead Brigade and then literally cut them down to a brigade and only use them for amphibious landings simplefish fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
For us armchair plane aficionados, can someone explain why an AEW Osprey is a dumb idea? Limited range?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Keep in mind that going for STOVL allows to get a monopoly on Harrier replacement for all these countries which have no realized yet that Harriers are a dead-end and they should instead invest in real CATOBAR capabilities. On the other hand, should we continue generously subsidizing the combat capability of carriers that can't fit a proper air wing with the combat capability of full function carriers?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Poor cat
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
david_a posted:For us armchair plane aficionados, can someone explain why an AEW Osprey is a dumb idea? Limited range? Considering how many countries use AEW helicopters, AEW ospreys seem like a strict improvement. e: while maybe it wasn't worth it to develop the F-35 or the Harrier, given a world in which they do exist, I suspect it's actually a lot more cost-effective to build ships for STOVL jets than CATOBAR jets for most countries which is why they do it. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:e: while maybe it wasn't worth it to develop the F-35 or the Harrier, given a world in which they do exist, I suspect it's actually a lot more cost-effective to build ships for STOVL jets than CATOBAR jets for most countries which is why they do it. It depends on how much weight you place on the ships providing actual capability.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Poor cat What's that from?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Dr. Klas posted:What's that from? That's a photoshop taking inspiration from 1947 experiments on weightless cats. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9XtK6R1QAk http://www.popsci.com/11-most-important-cats-science?image=7
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:It depends on how much weight you place on the ships providing actual capability. Harriers pretty clearly mattered in the Falklands, even though they left a lot to be desired. As for the F-35B it's not like it's totally gimped from the F-35C. You lose a lot of range and payload but you still have all the electronics and the ability to launch cruise missiles from 50,000 feet. For the US Marine Corps, criticizing it is easy because we already have a whole bunch of real carriers. For other countries that are choosing between STOVL carriers or no carriers, it seems more reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Harriers pretty clearly mattered in the Falklands, even though they left a lot to be desired. This is the argument I always hear from Brits while handwaving away who they were fighting and when.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
ulmont posted:That's a photoshop taking inspiration from 1947 experiments on weightless cats. Oh thank god. Poor kitty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Keep in mind that going for STOVL allows to get a monopoly on Harrier replacement for all these countries which have no realized yet that Harriers are a dead-end and they should instead invest in real CATOBAR capabilities. WTB CATOBAR  Whenever you think your country is messing up procurement, remember us. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:It depends on how much weight you place on the ships providing actual capability. With 20/20 hindsight, it would have been a lot better to design CATOBAR fleet carriers for the United states, and then let allies buy them. And maybe build some for the Marines too I guess if we're not just facing reality and saying "No, aircraft carriers are a NAVY thing."
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
TTerrible posted:WTB CATOBAR Doesn't mean that we aren't, it just means that you're doing it worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:And maybe build some for the Marines too I guess if we're not just facing reality and saying "No, aircraft carriers are a NAVY thing." Meh, the ships Marines ride around on now are Navy and all Marine aircraft are purchased and maintained with Navy money anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Meh, the ships Marines ride around on now are Navy and all Marine aircraft are purchased and maintained with Navy money anyway. Which makes it all the more mind boggling that NAVAIR continues to allow them to buy STOVL fighters I know, it's Congress Also the AEW Osprey is loving stupid because it's going to be a way more expensive way less capable version of the thing we already have. It goes back to my original point: if an ESG is in a high-threat situation where it needs a dedicated AEW asset, we're going to have a CSG there riding shotgun with plenty of Hawkeyes on board to provide all the dedicated AEW that the fleet needs. Any situation where an ESG is deployed on its own without at least a CSG just over the horizon is one where it has no need for an AEW asset, the Aegis ships riding along with the ESG will suffice just fine for air defense. Everything in that article was "hey so here's stuff that the Navy already does really well with CATOBAR carriers, let's find ways to make the Marines able to do the same thing at a sub-mediocre level, btw don't ask how much all this is going to cost." If as a country you only had STOVL capability, then yes, the things he was shilling make sense (although if you're a country that wants a significant maritime presence and you've only built STOVL capable carriers, lol). But in a country that has multiple full-blown CATOBAR carriers with full-blown air wings, it makes zero sense. If we're having issues with the ability of those CATOBAR assets to meet our requirements, the logical solution is to further invest in our CATOBAR capabilities, not throw more money down the STOVL money-pit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
I haven't seen a pic but picturing an AEW osprey with the same type of inflatable radome the brits hang (hung?) off their sea kings, except two of them so it looks like it has a pair of balls hanging off it. Tl;dr: Osprey trucknutz
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
A dedicated AEW platform is great if you want to control multiple divisions of DCA and surface recon/strike aircraft, and tie together command and control of many widely-dispersed ships and aircraft. It's ludicrous overkill if all you have are six fixed-wing fighters and a bunch of helos.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
AEW Osprey is blatantly a thing to sell at stupid prices to countries (and branches of service) with only helicopter carriers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
quote:Even if a lightning fast, over-the-horizon, sneak beach landing on an enemy’s shore were realized, things like LCACs (Landing Craft Air Cushion), amphibious fighting vehicles and thousands of Marine infantrymen are hardly stealthy. Thus, the F-35B’s ability to leverage the “element of surprise” will be all but eliminated. With this in mind, the question arises, do we really need stealth assets overhead during a beach landing at all?  What the gently caress is this? Are you doing this to hurt me?  Fuuuuuuuuuck youuuuuu
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Harriers pretty clearly mattered in the Falklands, even though they left a lot to be desired. If they had a loving full-size carrier, would that war even have happened? Probably not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
The more I think about it the more that piece makes my head want to explode
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
For what we're spending and would/will spend on F-35Bs, AEW/KV-22s, LHA's without well decks, etc, how many Fords could we buy and operate? My guess is that the number is greater than one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:The more I think about it the more that piece makes my head want to explode If you start leafing backwards in that blog, all of the stories are clickbait spam. Like, "stop smoking!" and "loose biomass using this one weird trick" etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:If you start leafing backwards in that blog, all of the stories are clickbait spam. Like, "stop smoking!" and "loose biomass using this one weird trick" etc. well yeah they lifted it in its entirety from Foxtrot Alpha. But rest assured, Tyler Rogoway was making all those arguments in complete seriousness
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
LCS: Worse than the F-35? http://scoopdeck.navytimes.com/2015/12/12/the-navys-newest-ship-breaks-down-limps-into-port/ quote:ABOARD THE LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP MILWAUKEE, VIRGINIA CAPES – The littoral combat ship Milwaukee, the Navy’s newest ship, broke down Dec. 11 and had to be towed more than 40 nautical miles to Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek, Virginia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
No, because the Navy isn't trying to replace all of the Ticonderoga, Arleigh Burke, and Cyclone class ships with the LCS while the drat thing is still in development.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
The Freedom class has no less than four engines, with two steerable, and two fixed (high speed) water jets. What the gently caress kind of engineering casualty do you need to make her unable to move under her own power?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Metal shavings in the lubricant oil were you not paying attention?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
She probably caught something from the last RCN destroyer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:36 |
|
|
MrYenko posted:The Freedom class has no less than four engines, with two steerable, and two fixed (high speed) water jets. What the gently caress kind of engineering casualty do you need to make her unable to move under her own power? If one engine breaks in such a way that one your sailors is injured and you have no idea why seems prudent to shut it all down and take a tow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 00:18
|
|