I refer to a 3 division landing as it is the standard USMC pole as to a ‘full landing’ ie all out. I believe there is enough amphib capability for 2 divisions, maybe 2 1/2, the rest would be STUFT, which works if needed.

maus92-while this second there may be no IMMEDIATE threat of all out war, the fact is the US and China both base their ‘all out war’ scenarios on each other. As our planets populations increases, and our resources become scarce(including land), I fear this capability will be in high demand.

Bager1968- I dont know what he is talking about, but from my memory the US national debt hasnt gone down in a long time. It is time to do something about it to be prudent. but no way will the USA fall!

I cant see a 3 division MAF being that close to shore for a landing, or for very long- artillery being a good reason. The Marines would have a area heavily bombarded, then fly in at least 10 battalions and pusing them out fast for a 10×10 kilometer beach head minimum(probably 20×20), to give enough space to bring the LHDs etc in close for as short a time as possible(LCACs also reduce the amount of time in close!) you dont need F-35Bs to cover this- the LHA/D decks will already very busy with helo ops!

The USN doesnt have the same problem as the Royal Navy at San Carlos- A racetrack 50-100 kilometers, with fighters and Aegis equipped ships providing a VERY secure air defence perimeter. dont forget at full war capacity, a US CVN could have 6 VFA/VMFA squadrons. with 4-6 CVNs,(I believe every Marine division landing should be supported by 2 CVNs), a constant presence can be maintained over the FEBA, and still have fleet air defence. so with CVNs doing this job so well, were does the F-35B fit in.

I’m not saying it wont be bought. It probably will. should it? I dont know. I dont think the marines should only buy the B for sure- they really should have Cs as well to replace there current F/A-18s(because the B wont work with the CVNs- so who fills the 400 slot?), and the Bs for the Harrier replacement. but the chances are 60-40 in favour.

I’m mean, who REALLY knows what POLITICIANS will do:rolleyes:

Why is it the age of an aircraft design rates a mention? the original Herc has been around since the 1950s, but with modern tech is still the most bought tactical airlifter. The F-16 is a superb design, and will be superior to alot of regional threats.

Watching this picture, i can remember this really old Indian song,Bade Miya Diwane, Aise na bano, Haseena kya chahe, humse suno:

Old timer, don’t go around making a fool of yourself, first learn what the chicks dig these days from us(young guys).

what the? A F-16 block 60 in the hands of a good pilot will kick alot of butt.

Certainly true for alcohol derived from maize, which can sometimes consumes more energy in production than it produces. Alcohol from sugar cane is far more efficient, with a definite energy surplus. Same with biodiesel: huge variation in efficiency, with some sources having little if any net gain.

Unfortunately, some governments have been encouraging production of the most inefficient biofuels. 🙁

also some biofuels are offset by them being a by-product – sugar cane, methane, etc etc

Also, why are the original TA-4s for sale? and how much does one of these things cost:o

I’ll kick in money to see it repainted in Royal Australian Navy Fleet Air Arm colours…..VF-805 with beautiful red checkboard tail(rudder is already the right colour!)

Well done to those involved

out of curiosity, does the AAR probe work? Any chance of another one with a buddy tank?

while some of these ideas make the heart grow fond, the most realistic would have been a 4th invinvible with SHars and sea kings(and some awesome secondhand aquisitions over the last ten years!):D

but the coolest would have been hornets/phantoms on a essex with turbo trackers for ASW, AEW, COD and AAR, similar to Brazil is doing now, and sea kings for SAR, with the skyhawks as light attack/aggressors/hacks:cool: