Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

HarpGamer

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

The F-35 Saga

Featured Replies

There are, and probably will continue to be, arguments that no one really needs a V/STOL jet fighter/attack aircraft. Are they useful? Sure. Are they indispensable? Probably not.

 

As a Brit, I would remind you of the Harrier's role in the 1982 Falklands War.

  • Replies 509
  • Views 105.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • "Turn it off and on again"?   Sounds like an episode of the "I.T. Crowd" tv series.

  • New fighter jet options mean Ottawa could avoid buying F-35s (Globe and Mail)   Canada rates F-35A rivals equal on most missions (Flight Global)   CV32: Been saying this all along.

  • DOT&E Report: The F-35 Is Not Ready for IOC and Won't Be Any Time Soon (POGO]

Yes, but was the Harrier's V/STOL capability relevant in that conflict? I don't really recall them doing anything that couldn't have been done by CTOL fighters flying from CVLs.

  • Author
As a Brit, I would remind you of the Harrier's role in the 1982 Falklands War.

 

I expect we're all well very aware of the Harrier and the Falklands war.

 

Many factors at play there, one of them being the fundamental failure to defend the Falklands from attack in the first place.

 

You will note that the defense there is CTOL nowadays, despite the vastly reduced threat.

 

There was no other choice but to employ the Harrier in 1982. Do you think they would have preferred CTOL if it were available?

 

Moreover, how many Falklands-esque scenarios remain in the 21st century?

As a Brit, I would remind you of the Harrier's role in the 1982 Falklands War.

 

I expect we're all well very aware of the Harrier and the Falklands war.

 

Many factors at play there, one of them being the fundamental failure to defend the Falklands from attack in the first place.

 

You will note that the defense there is CTOL nowadays, despite the vastly reduced threat.

 

There was no other choice but to employ the Harrier in 1982. Do you think they would have preferred CTOL if it were available?

 

Moreover, how many Falklands-esque scenarios remain in the 21st century?

 

If CTOL had been present, there wouldn't have been a war in the first place.

 

As for current scenarios, what about the islands formerly known as the Netherlands Antilles?

  • Author
If CTOL had been present, there wouldn't have been a war in the first place.

 

And heckuva lot cheaper than investing in a VSTOL jet fighter.

 

No doubt that Sea Harrier made the best of a bad situation. (Not to downplay the fortunate coincidence of other factors like AIM-9L, Argentine fighters at the limits of their endurance, etc).

 

But any number of other options might have been preferable, e.g. having the Americans intervene on the British side, friendly land based air closer than Ascension, CTOL carriers/naval aviation, etc.

 

As for current scenarios, what about the islands formerly known as the Netherlands Antilles?

 

As in attack from Venezuela? Are you suggesting that the best or only effective way for the Dutch to defend Curacao et al would be via a VSTOL jet fighter?

If CTOL had been present, there wouldn't have been a war in the first place.

 

And heckuva lot cheaper than investing in a VSTOL jet fighter.

 

No doubt that Sea Harrier made the best of a bad situation. (Not to downplay the fortunate coincidence of other factors like AIM-9L, Argentine fighters at the limits of their endurance, etc).

 

But any number of other options might have been preferable, e.g. having the Americans intervene on the British side, friendly land based air closer than Ascension, CTOL carriers/naval aviation, etc.

 

As for current scenarios, what about the islands formerly known as the Netherlands Antilles?

 

As in attack from Venezuela? Are you suggesting that the best or only effective way for the Dutch to defend Curacao et al would be via a VSTOL jet fighter?

More about Curacao and his conventional airport, researched some weeks ago for the Supporting Argentina 1982 scenario. And theorically it's ever a Netherlands FF present:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hato_International_Airport

http://www.rnw.nl/english/bulletin/violenc...oldiers-curacao

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=16879

  • Author

From Aviation Week

 

[excerpt]

 

USAF To Extend F-16s To Cover F-35 Delays

Nov 8, 2011

By Graham Warwick

 

The U.S. Air Force plans to upgrade more than 300 Lockheed Martin F-16s and potentially additional Boeing F-15s to fill the gap caused by delays to the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

If CTOL had been present, there wouldn't have been a war in the first place.

 

And heckuva lot cheaper than investing in a VSTOL jet fighter.

 

No doubt that Sea Harrier made the best of a bad situation. (Not to downplay the fortunate coincidence of other factors like AIM-9L, Argentine fighters at the limits of their endurance, etc).

 

But any number of other options might have been preferable, e.g. having the Americans intervene on the British side, friendly land based air closer than Ascension, CTOL carriers/naval aviation, etc.

 

As for current scenarios, what about the islands formerly known as the Netherlands Antilles?

 

As in attack from Venezuela? Are you suggesting that the best or only effective way for the Dutch to defend Curacao et al would be via a VSTOL jet fighter?

 

No, but it's a "Falklands"-type scenario. Colonial territory of a former European empire near a belligerent Latin American country.

  • Author
No, but it's a "Falklands"-type scenario. Colonial territory of a former European empire near a belligerent Latin American country.

 

Given the subject matter of the thread, I was wondering about a modern day scenario where the use of a STOVL jet in the expeditionary role might be critical to success.

 

(Or, in other words, is the F-35B absolutely necessary?)

No, but it's a "Falklands"-type scenario. Colonial territory of a former European empire near a belligerent Latin American country.

 

Given the subject matter of the thread, I was wondering about a modern day scenario where the use of a STOVL jet in the expeditionary role might be critical to success.

 

(Or, in other words, is the F-35B absolutely necessary?)

With nasty events like Mogadishu I think that US Marines would welcome the opportunity to be self sufficient rather than waiting for NATO, Air Force etc to get them out of a pickle. Ive read that one reasons for Ops like Mogadishu to go bad are the layers of the chain of command that must be gone through to get air strikes ordered. It doesnt make sense to me for Marines to go through an Air Force regiment or NATO to get a few JDAMs dropped. Seems like the Marines having their own forward deployed VTOL air wing would eliminate that step.

  • Author
With nasty events like Mogadishu I think that US Marines would welcome the opportunity to be self sufficient rather than waiting for NATO, Air Force etc to get them out of a pickle. Ive read that one reasons for Ops like Mogadishu to go bad are the layers of the chain of command that must be gone through to get air strikes ordered. It doesnt make sense to me for Marines to go through an Air Force regiment or NATO to get a few JDAMs dropped. Seems like the Marines having their own forward deployed VTOL air wing would eliminate that step.

 

Not sure Somalia is a great example for the argument in favour of VSTOL. Mogadishu airport (with a nice long runway) was one of the first things the UN forces secured and, iirc, maintained control of, during the whole affair.

With nasty events like Mogadishu I think that US Marines would welcome the opportunity to be self sufficient rather than waiting for NATO, Air Force etc to get them out of a pickle. Ive read that one reasons for Ops like Mogadishu to go bad are the layers of the chain of command that must be gone through to get air strikes ordered. It doesnt make sense to me for Marines to go through an Air Force regiment or NATO to get a few JDAMs dropped. Seems like the Marines having their own forward deployed VTOL air wing would eliminate that step.

 

Not sure Somalia is a great example for the argument in favour of VSTOL. Mogadishu airport (with a nice long runway) was one of the first things the UN forces secured and, iirc, maintained control of, during the whole affair.

The Marines though did not receive sufficient support from UN forces when things got dicey during the Blackhawk rescue regardless of who cotrolled the airport. How usefull is an airport without suport mechanisims in place? No fuel. No munitions. An LHA with a dozen F35s 10 miles offshore back then and I think Somolia might have turned out more to our favor. If their had been a similar event that was much more inland and out of range of an F35, Tehran hostage rescue attempt perhaps, and no foward base, I then think the F35 would not have had a roll then. And to perhaps clarify my previous point, I believe Marines would have benefited from a network of Marines rather than UN security forces that appeared to not have the same security concerns prior to the conflict.

And to perhaps clarify my previous point, I believe Marines would have benefited from a network of Marines rather than UN security forces that appeared to not have the same security concerns prior to the conflict.

It's off-topic, but that remember me of as in the defence seminars is habitually commented as the Third World countries are increasing his troops presence on UN missions because UN soldier wages are not perceived by the soldiers, it's perceived by the (usually dictatorial) Third World country or government!!! :o

Probably that is his main "security concern" ..... <_<

Create an account or sign in to comment

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.