Sorry, that makes no sense at all. If, Land Based F-35A’s need Stealth and so do Carrier Based F-35C’s. Why wouldn’t STOVL F-35B’s????

because in an all out war, the gators would be covered by ‘stealthy’ land and carrier based aircraft, in a police action, theres no need for stealth- there is a need ‘possibly’ for V/STOL, but in a budget crunch, it will be on the cutting block for consideration. And if we cant acknowledge that truth, then were dreaming

Problem there though F-111 is that even in that near-zero threat scenario the USMC were losing attack choppers to trashfire. Same geographical scenario – now say that the locals are reinforced by a battalion of Venezuelan regulars with the piece de resistance of a stackload of Igla’s and a Tor battery. Still going in there with rotary only air?.

No, in your setup you are going to have to send a full CSG, 33% of your readiness capability on each coast, to put down a single SHORADS battery and a battalion of troops?. Thats efficient use of resources is it?.

Seems to me that a second-tier carrier capability, like the LHA/F-35B combination, gives surviveable recon, precision strike/DEAD and coercion all in a self-contained force package. One that comes without the costs of dispatching a full CSG. Force multipliers are always good news. One that allows CSG’s to be kept for the tasks they are appropriate for is especially good news.

Then I’m sure a Carrier would have been available, or long range land based airpower.

I’m not disagreeing about the capability having the F-35B on LHAs and the like will bring. but it COULD be lived without, it COULD be worked around, and so is in danger of the axe.

One F-35 model has to go- and its between the A and B. which one is more vital?

And these are politicians we are talking about- not afraid to make a cut to justify there existence

A few roughies;
Afghanistan-taking over own security 2015-2020, doesnt mean capability not needed

South Korea-does it need explaination?

Mexico-again anti-drug use

India-maybe keen to acquire the capability

just a few ideas

Nope, I may be many things but touchy is not one of them; we have dumb tabloids and armchair enthusiasts who grasp at such comments as fact. Establishments go out of their way to help and enthuse younger generations (ATC etc) and may not want all that is shown being shouted from the roof tops.

‘Telling the truth’ is not as black and white as you think fella! If everybody told the truth all the time, Hitler would have trampled the world and I (and you) would not be here!

Not everyone is an expert on crack propagation, fatigue, redundancy in structural design and finite element analysis?! All aircraft suffer from cracks – not all cracks are unacceptable.

yes, but you were talking about someone who went there, and seen something- and mentioned it here(and in a pretty uninflamed way compared to some on this forum!)

And he is right- it is not a good selling point- If a country is comparing two aircraft, and is told(even if its not catastropic cracking) that the plane will crack, it will raise a doubt.

several south and central american countries still use C-47/C-67

put into a possible flyer cant really think of anything else

Israels goals are achieved so easily here. they strike, get threatened back and get military aid. they dont strike they get military aid. they can strike, slap Iran in the face, set there program back a year for minimum risk.

there no S-300, stealth fighters or anyone to save Irans day, just the bitter pill that if silly decisions have consequences

yes, but they were successes none the less. If Britain had been involve with the gurkas or the like, said results over 2-3 time said area(and a few other US units did the same) may have demonstrated how well it could work!

Westmoreland wasn’t so loud after the battles of Long Tan, and FSB’s Coral and Balmoral