Posted on 10/13/2015 10:57:54 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
It’s a view that shared by many industry officials, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force and,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ***even U.S. Marine Corps aviators***.
I don’t know why, but this pleases me. Another glorious moment for the corps. Everyone assumes with the other branches that the BS is deep. To nail the veracity of the others opinions, they make sure you know the Marines agree.
As Yogi said so well: “It’s Deja Vu, all over again!”
For 25 years.
However, new things are here.
Some the pubic knows, some they do not.
Guess that F-35 thing isn’t working out very well huh?
You could have shortened your post a little to:
That F-35 thing isn’t working.
I guess they’ve looked at beefing up the F-22 for sea duty.
Can anyone think of a USAF fighter which was "beefed up" for carrier service"?
Some have gone the other way - USN/USMC to USAF. Carrier service is a whole 'nuther ballgame.
Think "converting a Ferrari, Lamborghini or Lotus to run the Baja 1000 vs running the Ford F-150 Raptor on a paved road course".
I’m not sure of the untility of a pure naval interceptor when the chief threats to a CVN’s existence in a major naval war will be submarines and (increasingly) ballistic missiles.
CVNs are great tools for limited wars and keeping sea lanes open. But if the balloon goes up against a nuclear armed opponent it will be the subs that sweep the seas. If the carriers come out at all it will be to mop up.
If I’m right then the carrier fleet’s only utility is in limited regional wars where there really isn’t an aerial threat requiring a pure interceptor.
F-4 Phantom?
Arguing over which variant of yesterday’s technology would best enrich the defense industry. Probably the whole conversation is irrelevant, unless we find ourselves needing to fight a Vietnam-like war against Madagascar.
F-4 was a Navy fighter adopted by the Air Force.
The romance is over. The future has more payload, performance and endurance. The future is unmanned. No need for SAR either.
Short answer - absolutely. Former F-14 Logistics expert here.
“The McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II is a tandem two-seat, twin-engine, all-weather, long-range supersonic jet interceptor aircraft/fighter-bomber originally developed for the United States Navy by McDonnell Aircraft. It first entered service in 1960 with the U.S. Navy. Proving highly adaptable, it was also adopted by the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Air Force, and by the mid-1960s had become a major part of their respective air wings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II
#10 I think subs too. Subs with many missiles to destroy ships and land targets.
It's the only plane I could think of that was used by AF and carrier-based too.
Carrier landings are so hard on AC, need a plane designed specifically for that. Any other branch it's just extra weight
It is working out just fine. The F-35 was never built to be an interceptor the way the F-14 was. The article is asking if the dedicated interceptor role needs to come back. When the field the F-14 in the first place no one (with half a brain) said it was because the A-7 was not working out.
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.