“The F-35 A, B and C are more complicated than the aircraft we’re replacing, but they cannot be more expensive to operate,” he said. “The operating cost of the F-35 … will be in line with the operating cost of legacy aircraft.”
Friday, April 12, 2013
United States Marketing Corps General tells fib about F-35 operating cost
Unsupportable statement:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Seeing at the Marines are using Ancient hornets, Harriers that are running on fumes spare parts wise, and passed down prowlers that are even older than the hornets, he may well be right there, Eric.
especially since the Marines are also using 2 aircraft that are USMC only, (harriers and prowlers, though the USN still has a few) and will now be sharing in a much larger aircraft pool. So yes he may well be right, especially when the entire air wing is operating a single aircraft type (ok and some F-35Cs)
Refreshing the USMC with new two-seat Super is the way to go.
As for the Harrier, well, USMC has already stated that it will be sustained until 2030. Even if the STOVL mission has never contributed much to U.S. wars.
"As for the Harrier, well, USMC has already stated that it will be sustained until 2030."
It will be "sustained" in ever smaller numbers which I think is something people forget, when they mentions things like "the B-52 has been in service for 6 decades!!" Yes, but in numbers now smaller than 50.
VMA-513 is already being decommisioned.
"Even if the STOVL mission has never contributed much to U.S. wars."
Complete an utter hog wash, its being used everytime a Harrier takes off from a ship, which is kind of a lot. Combat wise its been using STOVL to do that in Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya (off the top of my head)
STOVL from the groundside has been in use in Iraq in two wars, and afghanistan (even Bill Sweetman wrote about USMC harriers operating from beat up airfields in Afghanistan and pointed out that only a STOVL aircraft could do such a thing)
--and before you mention the Camp Bastion attack, those harriers were operating out of a conventional field, could have just as easily been F-16s, or F-18s.
So yes it does contribute for the US even if you refuse to acknowledge it, and advocate a Super Hornet for them that you don't advocate for the RAAF. The Marines will jump on Super Hornets when you find a way to make them land on amphib ships without wires and a catapult. until then...
Yes, let us see the minor effect of Harrier STOVL ops for U.S. wars.
Answer: Not worth the effort.
http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/marine-questions-value-of-stovl-harrier.html
As for Amphibs: great helicopter carriers. And if it is a real war, we have big carriers.
We don't have money to waste on U.S. Marketing Corps obsessions. And, STOVL tac-air does not define a Marine.
Post a Comment