Thread: North Korea Launched it.

He, he. Well, that's all well and fine...for book smarts. But what does all that mean to the troop on the ground, or for specific mission parameters?

Just so you have an idea of where I'm heading with this, Marines really like the kind of support that a Harrier can provide. As a "jump jet" it can land just about anywhere, refuel, rearm, whatever, swap pilots out, etc. As for the support it provides, no other airframe can lend the support it lends, in the way it can lend it. Granted, it may be that that support is best designed for a limited number of situations, but still, they are situations that no other aircraft can perform, to include attack helicopters.


What you posted is good for a reports pogue, but you need to start looking at things with a slightly different perspective. One of, how can I best help my guys on the ground with things they can do for themselves, and with what assets I have available to me?

Anyone can come up with cold facts about the manufacturers specs and such, but, the only problem with that is that it seriously downplays equipment effectiveness in combat conditions.

Originally Posted by asianator365

3) Earlier I read that someone thought the military had done away with the "Wild Weasels." "Wild Weasel" is a term that is applied to any aircraft engaged in the suppression of enemy air defenses. We use the F-16 and F-18 for that role quite a bit.

F-16G's are not Weasels. They are Ferrets. You simply cannot do the job of a Weasel (i.e.-intentionally draw SAM fire to launch HARMs, then avoid getting blown out of the sky) without two guys in the cockpit. That's why the Growlers (EA-18G) are a better solution, and the Air Force has even talked about fielding some.

The Active Denial platform of the Weasels/Growlers would be a critical item in a heavily defended airspace like NK.

Oh, and as an aside: I'm a military brat, proud of it, and I have never met anyone in the military like Trigger has. Figured I'd throw a counter argument out there.

I think you and Asian are close to the same page, Mabell. The Harrier has a place, however it's well beyond it's useful life and needs a replacement. That is the F-35C. And I'm willing to bet that the F-35C will have a whole stack of similar maintenance issues as the Harrier, as well as a shorter lifespan than the A or B models.

Originally Posted by MaBell37

He, he. Well, that's all well and fine...for book smarts. But what does all that mean to the troop on the ground, or for specific mission parameters?

Just so you have an idea of where I'm heading with this, Marines really like the kind of support that a Harrier can provide. As a "jump jet" it can land just about anywhere, refuel, rearm, whatever, swap pilots out, etc. As for the support it provides, no other airframe can lend the support it lends, in the way it can lend it. Granted, it may be that that support is best designed for a limited number of situations, but still, they are situations that no other aircraft can perform, to include attack helicopters.


What you posted is good for a reports pogue, but you need to start looking at things with a slightly different perspective. One of, how can I best help my guys on the ground with things they can do for themselves, and with what assets I have available to me?

Anyone can come up with cold facts about the manufacturers specs and such, but, the only problem with that is that it seriously downplays equipment effectiveness in combat conditions.

Mabell, I understand where you are coming from. But the facts are clear: The F-35B Lightning II can perform the exact same missions the the Harrier II does, in addition to some that it can't, better. If you want to think of the F-35B as the Harrier III, go right ahead; that is essentially what it is, just on a different airframe. Phasing out the AV-8B in favor of the F-35B isn't denying the Marine on the ground anything, it is giving him the same support, only the quality of that support is better. As for the Marine piloting the F-35B, he is a safer Marine and more readily able to concentrate on the mission, rather than flying the aircraft, thanks to the advanced fly-by-wire systems incorporated into the F-35B.

What it all really comes down to Mabell, is this: If you were a Marine on the ground, would you want the Marine in the air who has your back to have 9,000 lbs of ordinance or 15,000 lbs of ordinance? I think the answer there is clear.

Originally Posted by Manse

I think you and Asian are close to the same page, Mabell. The Harrier has a place, however it's well beyond it's useful life and needs a replacement. That is the F-35C. And I'm willing to bet that the F-35C will have a whole stack of similar maintenance issues as the Harrier, as well as a shorter lifespan than the A or B models.

The "C" is the Navy's carrier version. The "B" is the Marines' version. In this case, the F-35B is the replacement for the AV-8B.

Originally Posted by Manse

Originally Posted by asianator365

3) Earlier I read that someone thought the military had done away with the "Wild Weasels." "Wild Weasel" is a term that is applied to any aircraft engaged in the suppression of enemy air defenses. We use the F-16 and F-18 for that role quite a bit.

F-16G's are not Weasels. They are Ferrets. You simply cannot do the job of a Weasel (i.e.-intentionally draw SAM fire to launch HARMs, then avoid getting blown out of the sky) without two guys in the cockpit. That's why the Growlers (EA-18G) are a better solution, and the Air Force has even talked about fielding some.

The Active Denial platform of the Weasels/Growlers would be a critical item in a heavily defended airspace like NK.

Oh, and as an aside: I'm a military brat, proud of it, and I have never met anyone in the military like Trigger has. Figured I'd throw a counter argument out there.

Please go back and read what I wrote. As I wrote before, "Wild Weasel" is a term applied to aircraft engaged in a SEAD mission. For example, I could have an EA-18G Growler used on a "Wild Weasel" mission. The "Wild Weasel" term doesn't apply to the specific aircraft, it applies to the way that aircraft is used.

I was just being derogatory to lawn darts trying to play at the SEAD job. The Strike Eagle and/or F-18Fs can do it, but not as well as the old F-4G (retired for quite a few years).

Even with the Growlers, I don't think the Weasel job is something that should have been phased out and put on platforms "as needed." I've met Weasel drivers and WSOs. It takes a special kind of training, and a special kind of crazy, for that job.

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Originally Posted by rock_lobster

Exactly.

Just for the record, I am not, nor was I ever in the military. Not that I have anything against the military, I just had a different career path that presented itself to me. However, I'm not one of those douches that would move to Canada if the draft came into affect...one of my friends said he would....talk about pissed me off.

No you are a special kind of douche, one that readily admits of not having served, or not going to either, but is all rah-rah about "going over there" and "kicking their asses" A-La Team America (which makes me laugh, because that movie is not only making fun of "terrorists" and "Lil Kim" but they are also making fun of the "super nationalists" that think anything that America does is inherently good and never wrong, and that all that is needed is a bunch of bombs and gung-ho terrorist haters). Regardless that it isn't the "special douche" who is risking everything, as long as a democrat is against it, you are all for it.................

Quite the contrary. I fail to see how my opinion is any less important simply because I have never served in the military. Are you telling me that anyone who hasn't served, doesn't have the right to come to a conclusion that we should be in a war? I would hope not. I'm going to school to earn a degree, to provide a better life for me and my family, and my opinion about entering a war is just as valid as anyone's, enlisted or not.

And the last sentence of your statement is totally hilarious...because it's quite the oppoiste...if it's associated with Bush or conservatives....it must be bad...at least that's how you come across.

alas, I've been gone for only two days and already this has become 30 pages...I'm done with this thread, as it seems anyone who hasn't served isn't qualified to post.

Originally Posted by asianator365

Originally Posted by MaBell37

He, he. Well, that's all well and fine...for book smarts. But what does all that mean to the troop on the ground, or for specific mission parameters?

Just so you have an idea of where I'm heading with this, Marines really like the kind of support that a Harrier can provide. As a "jump jet" it can land just about anywhere, refuel, rearm, whatever, swap pilots out, etc. As for the support it provides, no other airframe can lend the support it lends, in the way it can lend it. Granted, it may be that that support is best designed for a limited number of situations, but still, they are situations that no other aircraft can perform, to include attack helicopters.


What you posted is good for a reports pogue, but you need to start looking at things with a slightly different perspective. One of, how can I best help my guys on the ground with things they can do for themselves, and with what assets I have available to me?

Anyone can come up with cold facts about the manufacturers specs and such, but, the only problem with that is that it seriously downplays equipment effectiveness in combat conditions.

Mabell, I understand where you are coming from. But the facts are clear: The F-35B Lightning II can perform the exact same missions the the Harrier II does, in addition to some that it can't, better. If you want to think of the F-35B as the Harrier III, go right ahead; that is essentially what it is, just on a different airframe. Phasing out the AV-8B in favor of the F-35B isn't denying the Marine on the ground anything, it is giving him the same support, only the quality of that support is better. As for the Marine piloting the F-35B, he is a safer Marine and more readily able to concentrate on the mission, rather than flying the aircraft, thanks to the advanced fly-by-wire systems incorporated into the F-35B.

What it all really comes down to Mabell, is this: If you were a Marine on the ground, would you want the Marine in the air who has your back to have 9,000 lbs of ordinance or 15,000 lbs of ordinance? I think the answer there is clear.

Ok, Asian, you've proven yourself to be pretty knowledgeable, or at least interested enough to find those answers.

Now comes the real test...


So, the military is to phase out the Harrier for all branches (primarily the Navy and Marine Corps, even though the Air Farce and, I've even seen one in US Army possession, have some), this means that the Marine Corps would actually get their hands on working models, if the transition were to begin tomorrow, when?

A. Within six months

B. Within a year

C. Within 2 years

D. Within the next decade

E. When the Navy gets good and ready, which could be never


What's your answer?




By the way, good answers. I'm impressed that you either know this shit that well, or cared enough to find the answers. I just thought I would play devil's advocate in the hopes of shortcutting any comments that some people have been known to make to you concerning your, 'you cant possibly know what your talking about" that I've witnessed in other threads. (And probably been guilty of myself)

Off the top of my head, I think the f-35B's are slated for 2012 deployment. But that's assuming the A models get out the door in 2011.