Posted on 02/07/2005 4:23:52 PM PST by Former Military Chick
I've talked with a few current and ex Navy pilots and all have suggested to me the JSF will not be the plane of the future for the Navy - That another aircraft (surprisingly perhaps the F-23 model could be it).
I myself am not a big fan of the JSF (for a Navy plane). Again, it simply has no-legs -
And while I certainly agree with you regarding a current F-18F outfitted with the AIM9X version being very capable....The flip side to that is an updated F-14D+ (if Cheney would have signed off on it in the late 80's)...would have the same capabilities for AIM-9X, AMRAAMs, etc -
Wow! I pride myself on keeping up on Navy developments, but this is the first I've heard of that idea - can't hurt to think it through, I guess.
I maybe wrong.
What none of us know (or few know but better not say) is what is on the books for the future. Is a squadron or two of Global Hawks (or next gen or next next gen) a better investment than another carrier?
Still - it would be quite an achievement for our little experiment in democracy just 60 years after Pearl Harbor . . .
They wont take it since its considered an OFFENSIVE weapon under Japanese law and therefore banded by article 9 of the constitution.
Constitutions are made to be amended, especially with the blessing of the U.S. in the first place. I like the idea of maintaining a carrier presense without the costs. Biggest drawback would, of course, be ensuring the carrier is in fact never used against us.
The euros must be mad since they dont have missiles for the F-35.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea - just asking if there was any official (or even semi-official) backing for it ; )
Without charging SOMETHING, I doubt you could do it politically, that's all.
The decisive war with China will probably be fought with submarines, i.e., nukes. Unfortunately, China has the unexpected good luck of having one fewer sub to worry about at the moment, the USS San Francisco.
Agree with you there - but the F-18F is not the plane to replace it with - An updated F-14D would have come in around $40-45 Million (per). That would have been the right choice until the next generation of fighter is online (be it a naval F-22, F-23, etc).
What we have seem to of done is replace the F-14 with a not up to par F-18 ....while still waiting on that next generation of Fighter for the Navy -
Cheney was just oddly way to against the F-14 in the late 80's and way to for the F-18 (which has proven to have been a bad decision).
Global hawk is for intel. We need the conventional beef. If china goes nuke, we go nuke. China being rational, will not go nuke.
We need to win a conventional war with china.....
.... and they need to know it.
You are going to have to define "decisive war". You mean all out war between them and us? An attack on Taiwan?
As to the first issue: The Navy has really been left with no surface warfare mission due to the nature of low intensity, fourth generation, conflict. There is no hostile naval force over the horizon that would necessitate a surface fleet to mantain U.S. hegemony over the transit sea lanes and major allied nations' littoral. Thus, the reduction in force structure with a concomitant increase in lethality of the remaining surface fleet is a rational recognition of the contemporary world and the likihood of threats over a 30-year projection. China is not now and will not become a naval power with the ability to project itself on a global scale in the sense of 20th Century naval power.
The Navy's present role, and that of the forseeable future, is to move the beans and bullets needed to supply the boots on the ground engaged in the several low intensity conflicts that will prevail in the Middle East and South China Sea. In addition, the Navy will be needed to be in a position to put reaction Marines and special operators ashore quickly as well as launch aircraft to protect the fleet and forces engaged ashore.
Elimination of any of our existing carriers is, in my opinion, a boneheaded decision. That's especially true in light of the statement from the head-shed that the air wing will survive. That means the aviators and their massive logistical support and supply train will be infused among existing carrier spaces; another egregiously bone-headed idea.
Unfortunately, the public affairs guys only speak tripingly on the tongue the most obtuse outline of the real policy decisions leaving the public uninformed and making assumptions and taking up valuable bandwidth.
As for the evolution of the air fleet: The Tomcat was giant in its time and was a major deterrent to the world's bad guys--like Lybia in the 1980s. Except for the "D" model, the jet has reached the end of its useful and efficient life. The air-to-air capabilities have become antiquated, the parts logistical train almost impossible with even the most basic base level replacement part having to come from the depot and a built-in delay of, at minimum, several days. More likely, an otherwise flyable aircraft being removed from the rolls and sitting on a ramp as a supply rack suitable for cannabalization; especially any model older than a "D" model.
The Hornet and its new incarnation, the Super Hornet, perform the current mission very well. And, for the fuuture, the F-22 is a pilot's dream come true. The pilot loading and flyability is about as simple as the aviator merely pointing an electronic glove at the heads-up panel and authorizing the airplane to do what its computer links tell it needs to be done. It has long legs for range, a super cruise engine with guns and missiles, etc. that are two generations of any other air force, even the new super French hot shot fighter. I've toured the factory in Georgia, sat in the pilot's seat and imagined begining my career all over again with that magnificient aircraft telling me whom to shoot at, which of the 57 targets to choose and everything else while I essentially just sit there and watch.
The U.S. Navy's role as a lean - mean fightin' machine is intended to meet the necessities of what 21st Century conflicts will be all about at least until 2050. Massive surface fleets are an anachronism just as the Dreadnaughts of WW I were circa 1940s.
>bzzzzz! WRONG ANSWER. Need four more carriers. CHINA!<
bzzzzz! WRONG ANSWER. Need to polish our nukes. CHINA!
My wife and I toured the Naval Academy with our 13-year old son this past October - what I wouldn't give to be 18 again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.