Good article…….but its sacred to the MARINES so……no cuts. Heaven forbid the USMC not get its new toy…..even if it is the most expensive/least capable varient.

Just saw “Red Tails”. Nice to look at, but the dogfight scenes were just plain unrealistic, the Germans were mere charicatures and the storyline was……..bad.

This Captain will be remembered in the same light as the skipper of the Oceanos.

I agree with most of the above with the exception of characterizing the F-45 as “cheaper”.:D

With the problems now surfacing with F35C tail hook to main wheel arrested recovery problem, I think it would be a good time for Saab to promote the Sea Gripen again.

Problems aside how does the capabilities of these two a/c match up?

Why?

Agree!
Agree!!
Agree!!!

I like the way you think;)
In fact you have taken a lot of the words out of my mouth!

In the case of the United States and the U.S Military, the problem can only begin to be properly and seriously fixed by ending USAF, USN (and to a lesser extent the U.S Army) pathetic and childish rivalry!! Their want (and insistence) on being the premier service is the most detrimental aspect of this whole equation!
History has repeatedly shown that these two services do not enter these type of ‘politically’ directed (forced) joint development programs with the intention of being serious (perfect examples being the TFX (F-111) ACF/NACF (YF-16/YF-17), JVX (V-22 Osprey) programs). The last time the USAF/USN attempted a joint engine program was the adoption of the P&W F100 to (The USN would cut back and later cancel its order, choosing to continue to use the Pratt & Whitney TF30 engine instead of adopt a USAF derived engine program – at the detriment of it’s own F-14 capability. Which is probably one of the single most important thing that held the F-14 Tomcat from achieving it’s optimum performance and capability :mad:)

Secondly

I could not agree more!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In the case of the United States, the ‘Military Industrial Complex’ is corrupting and strangling the U.S military capability and credibility 😮

I highly recommend The Pentagon Paradox: The Development of the F-18 Hornet (by James P. Stevenson) for a great explanation, supported by a good example of the for and against multi-role platforms (in this case the amalgamation of the original F-18A/B and A-18A/B into the F/A-18A/B Hornet). It explains, using operational facts and figures of USN and USMC pilots & squadrons to show that pilot (suffers in efficiency due to the need to train in two roles), while the platform (aircraft) itself suffer from complexity, weight, cost (both purchase and maintainability), and system failures!!
A Very interesting read, which I recommend!!

Thirdly
In the case of the USMC – this service purchase of aircraft, let alone it’s want of a specific aircraft is heavily dictated to it by the USN brass!
I have taken my hat off the the USMC when they have stood their ground against overwhelming Navy pressure to purchase USN derived aircraft, for the benefit of the Navy, as opposed to that of the Marines needs and wants. Example of these are:
The Navy being against the USMC adapting and purchasing of the Hawker Siddley Harrier – the AV-8A for its unique V/STOL capability.

The Navy’s want for the Marines to replace it’s F-4 Phantom II’s with over expensive, over complicated Grumman F-14A Tomcats.

The Navy’s want of the Marines to adopt the A-7 Corsair to replace their A-4 Skyhawks.

The Navy’s want of the Marines to adopt more F/A-18A/B/C/D’s Hornet’s in place of AV-8B Harrier II’s!!

Regards
Pioneer

You DO know that the Marines are technicaly part of the US Navy right? And that it was the Marines requirement for VSTOL that has really hurt the F-35 program?

Maybe a lightly pessimistic picture, Sanem, don’t you think? 😉

Only one detail: “while a Sea Typhoon seems easy enough to convert”

er, no

Navalised Typhoon would require different materials use and corrosion protection, reinforced structure to accomodate hard landings and arrestor hook efforts, modifying the whole aircraft in depth, different landing gear and its support (especially the front wheel that has a rather “light” structure on top of it) all of which would mean a much heavier aircraft in the first place, not to speak of the cost which would have to be paid by the UK only, and for a very small number of airframes.

Right now, the UK can’t even buy the “standard” typhoons they’ve committed themselves to (bsaically, already undercutting british jobs you talk about, even with that already promised and cheaper version). With what money will they pay the development costs of a new variant plus the production of that, necessarily costlier, aircraft, since produced in very small quantities?

The claims about the “ease of conversion” presented by the BAe commercial stuff somehow reminds me of a certain “affordable fighter” we’ve been talking about not so long ago 😉

Completly agree!:)