Hey phrogdriver,
This is actually something I've discussed at length with a number of my professors. It's going to be a fact of life for current and future policy makers. Thanks for the input.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
F-22As... For the USMC?
- Thread starter Vigil
- Start date
Hey phrogdriver,
This is actually something I've discussed at length with a number of my professors. It's going to be a fact of life for current and future policy makers. Thanks for the input.
Vigil,
I'm sure you're well-meaning and I can see you probably have a legitimate academic reason for coming here, but if someone here gives you advice or answers your question, best adopt the attitude of just saying "Thanks" or at least directly replying without any addenda. The reason you're catching some flak is because of the connotation that you didn't appreciate the mild sarcasm or tone that was given to you in replies by members of the community.
Maybe you don't deserve catching so much flak, since you're new here and since you most likely didn't mean anything. If you didn't mean anything, that's fine, just be aware that tone often doesn't translate well in text, and that the members here are aviators. Naval Aviators tend to have thick skin, help those that help themselves, and show some humility amongst their peers and especially to others more experienced than themselves. Many of us have a sense of humor and worldview that many on the outside don't share, and sometimes that leads to miscommunications with otherwise well-meaning outsiders. Just understand this may happen, and be humble.
I don't have my wings yet, but it doesn't take long to realize the way things go. I just adopt the new guy rule: "Ears open, mouth shut". Well-meaning, well-researched questions are always welcome. I'm personally very interested in geopolitics and history and love debating these things with others. Just keep your head down around here and try not to sound like you're bothered by things. Thick skin is necessary.
I'm sure you're well-meaning and I can see you probably have a legitimate academic reason for coming here, but if someone here gives you advice or answers your question, best adopt the attitude of just saying "Thanks" or at least directly replying without any addenda. The reason you're catching some flak is because of the connotation that you didn't appreciate the mild sarcasm or tone that was given to you in replies by members of the community.
Maybe you don't deserve catching so much flak, since you're new here and since you most likely didn't mean anything. If you didn't mean anything, that's fine, just be aware that tone often doesn't translate well in text, and that the members here are aviators. Naval Aviators tend to have thick skin, help those that help themselves, and show some humility amongst their peers and especially to others more experienced than themselves. Many of us have a sense of humor and worldview that many on the outside don't share, and sometimes that leads to miscommunications with otherwise well-meaning outsiders. Just understand this may happen, and be humble.
I don't have my wings yet, but it doesn't take long to realize the way things go. I just adopt the new guy rule: "Ears open, mouth shut". Well-meaning, well-researched questions are always welcome. I'm personally very interested in geopolitics and history and love debating these things with others. Just keep your head down around here and try not to sound like you're bothered by things. Thick skin is necessary.
I'm struggling to see where Vigil went wrong with his post? He posted the link to an article, provided a short summary and attempted to generate an intelligent discussion...which is more than we get from a lot of threads. Instead of intelligent replies he gets kicked in the stones? I guess its not as interesting as DADT...
Anything by Carlo Kopp can be discounted as RUMINT at best.
for further research about "Air Power Australia - Australia's Independent Defense Think Tank"
I put 2 key words into google for you, Kopp idiot
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=k...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
I put 2 key words into google for you, Kopp idiot
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=k...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
It's not the first time someone with a low post count and imperfect English has posted asking about technical comparisons of aircraft.
I'm not kicking him at all, just letting him know why people are replying the way they are.
I'm more than happy to discuss the topic with him. No one loves a better debate than me.
I think the USMC is probably going to wind down its procurement of fixed wing TACAIR in the future. It's a funding thing ultimately, and with the problems the F-35B is having, and the difficulty of basing it on an LHD/LHA will cause major problems. It can't do the same kind of short field t/o that the Harrier can, and will definitely need more maintenance, not exactly something helping its already fat price tag.
I don't think the Marines are as concerned with air superiority as the Navy, or Air Force. It's not the focus, and the cards aren't exactly in their favor in this. The impact of the new Russian a/c on the Marine Corps procurement plans? Probably , ultimately, zero.
I'm more than happy to discuss the topic with him. No one loves a better debate than me.
I think the USMC is probably going to wind down its procurement of fixed wing TACAIR in the future. It's a funding thing ultimately, and with the problems the F-35B is having, and the difficulty of basing it on an LHD/LHA will cause major problems. It can't do the same kind of short field t/o that the Harrier can, and will definitely need more maintenance, not exactly something helping its already fat price tag.
I don't think the Marines are as concerned with air superiority as the Navy, or Air Force. It's not the focus, and the cards aren't exactly in their favor in this. The impact of the new Russian a/c on the Marine Corps procurement plans? Probably , ultimately, zero.
Noted regarding the low post count, but "imperfect English"? Regarding "technical comparisons of aircraft": did you even read his post?
I'm not even touching the post right before mine: F-35 can't STO? Difficulty of it operating off the LHA/LHD? Requires MORE mx than the Harrier? I guess I need to go back and re-read the JSF thread as I wasn't aware that any of that had been reported.
Boomer I didn't say it can't STO, or that it needs more runway. From what I read, it has problems with doing the same dirt-field type thing that the Harrier can, and the flight decks on LHA/LHDs may need to be reinforced to handle the F-35s different style of T/O. I'm not claiming to be an expert, just alluding to various criticisms I read in the past. I admit I don't keep up very closely with the program, and I'm sure others have much more specific and accurate information than I do.
You sure you're not confusing that with the hot exhaust issues during LANDING?
The Big Deck Amphibs have to put some pads down (at least this was the temp fix, if there's a permanent solution in the fleet already I've haven't heard about it) under the nacelles of the V-22 because the exhaust was burning the non-skid.
New aircraft always bring some growing pains and the Navy/Marine Corps team will adapt to those changes.
Hey Hacker,
I'm gathering that now, the more I've read from his website the less I've been able to find in terms of verifiable sources. He certainly believes he knows what he's talking about. Too bad that doesn't do me much good. :tongue2_1
Hey Revan,
I have to admit, I'm not totally sure of the USMC doctrine when it comes to it's use of combat aircraft. I've read the Air Force Doctrine 1-1, I am familiar with the general concepts of the Navy's Littoral Doctrine. Would it be safe to assume that the USMC focus is in close air support and combat air patrol in direct support of ground forces? I'm sure that that description is probably a vast generalization, but at this stage that is alright.
Thanks to both of you.
No, they don't.
^Knows this better than just about anyone currently in uniform and flying.