Sorry, the USMC is far more flexible and is better suited for small theater conflicts. Plus, why would the USMC want Super Hornets. When the US Military is fielding the more Advance and Capable Lightning II.:rolleyes:

BTW The US Army is not equipment or trained to perform in the Amphibious Assault Role. Nor has it since WWII.

Please, I know your sorry, so you dont have to keep reminding people. I see you object to a historical fact. Not much I can do about that. If you read the post you would see that I believe we DO need the USMC. So let me clarify. The United States is starting to get into a fiscal nightmare, and hard cuts are going to have to be made. Right now the Marines are set up as a second army and they duplicate several missions that are more properly handled by the Army. I feel a leaner USMC that concentrates on what it does best, amphib assault, is called for. I have not advocated the Army taking over that mission, I merely pointed out that the Army has carried out more and larger “gator attacks” than the Marines.

Has it taken battle damage yet?

The way the RAF is acting, DO NOT be surprised if they start pushing for a change to the “A” model with the argument that it will save money and get more capability.

In general, I see the F-35 as a very good program. The “A” and “C” models will, I’m sure have very sucesful careers. But I have absolutly(sp) no confidence in the “B” model, the most expenssive, least capable of the 3.

what I’m getting at……..is that now that CTOL is the plan du jur, having a “surge” in wartime is pretty difficult, to put it mildly. I cant see the RAF having the aircrew of one or two squadrons being trained up to carrier qualification and then MAINTAINING that qualification for their entire flying career. That would be quite expensive. Also…..just because they are getting (for now anyways) “C” models, they may not maintain them in a way that would make them operable from the carrier without some sort of work…..

Sorry, you are making arguments that have been proven wrong time and time again for the last 60 years. As a matter of fact all of the experts disagree with most of what you have claimed.

Sorry. Most experts dont disagree.

Not looking good.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704073804576023621887891598.html?mod=googlenews_wsj