Naval aviation is a joke.

>>32914547
they get off their asses and make at least 80 percent flight worthy

>>32914559
>parts just appear out of thin air

>>32914547
Isn't this what the F-35 program is for?

Also, last time I checked, China only had 20 planes that could be launched from their carrier.

It's unclear if these stats are for Bugs, Super Bugs or both. I know the USN and USMC have been pulling retired Bugs out of the boneyard for spares. Not certain if it also applies to Super Bugs.

Also, Sequestration was a mistake.

>>32914547
gee they should start the factories back up to make the parts they need maybe.

>>32915019

an autistic person will be by very shortly to explain to you why that isn't possible

>>32914959

Certainly part of the problem is that the F-35 is years behind schedule, and old airframes are paying the price. Just like with the carrier fleet.

>>32914992

"Fighters" is definitely going to include Super Bugs.

>Also, Sequestration was a mistake.
Indeed.

>>32915072

kek

>>32914959
The F35 program is for sucking money from maintenance everywhere else.

>>32914547
just buy more ospreys so everybody can be safe

>>32915069
I imagine that legacy hornets are probably making the stats that bad. Marine buddies I've talked with who are in maintenance said each hornet is only cleared for certain types of roles depending on how bad the shape of the jet is. So some hornets can possibly due air to air, some air to ground... probably not many that can do both.

>>32914675
Well they did over Iraq in '91

>>32914959
Thanks for contributing to OP's point anon

>>32914547
Well, is still a few hundreds of modern fighters.

More than enough to annihilate entire Chinese or Russian air force.

And less than half of that number is enough to bomb some middle eastern shithole into stone age.

>>32915706

>More than enough to annihilate entire Chinese or Russian air force.
Give me whatever you're smoking, anon.

File: 1417574448178.png (71KB, 672x539px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 672x539px

>>32915749

File: 1417574572508.png (33KB, 321x477px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 321x477px

>>32915762

>>32915762
>>32915768

These charts do not diminish the preposterous nature of your claim that the "entire Chinese or Russian air force" are existentially threatened by the dilapidated combat aviation assets of the Navy and Marine Corps.

I never understood why the marines had to have fighter aircraft

>>32916091
they use it for ground attack and strike missions

>>32915805
The US literally has more F-16's than Russia's entire fighter/multi-role/naval fighter force.

>>32916131

>thread about naval aviation
>claim that naval aviation could defeat China or Russia in the air
>not true
>"Well we have F-16s..."

File: Capture.png (76KB, 323x473px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 323x473px

>>32916151
Well, if we're counting China's land based aircraft, it only seems fair to include American land based aircraft.

But if you want to make it naval aviation only, we can compare China's 20 J-15 to the US 314 F/A-18 Hornet.

>>32916124
Cant they just call the navy?

>>32916328

Read the contents of the OP: >>32914547

Then read the comments of this post: >>32915706

>>32916124
Seems like a red tape clusterfuck if the uniformed services has different equipment and different people that perform similar roles

>>32916344
>Muh scenario stands.

>>32916358

What the fuck are you talking about, you sniveling retard?

>>32914959
I thought there was going to be an F-22N. Would certainly seem a better idea since twin engines helps get back to the carrier if one goes out.

>>32916378
>Being this new
Newfags git out

>>32916382
>twin engine meme
no.

>>32916403

No, I know you're referring to the CMANO 50cent faggot. My point is that your idiotic non-sequitur suggests that you lack a basic comprehension of the exchange I was highlighting.

File: NATF-1S.jpg (213KB, 700x480px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 700x480px

>>32916382
You talking about this?

This was just concept art.

>>32916407
>Single engine. Bridstrike in the intake. Well, guess I better drown.

>>32916427
I had no idea this was a thing, I was talking about literally an F-22N, which is similar to the F-35C being able to land on the carrier while the F-35A can not. so, you know. Just a navalized F-22.

>>32916420
And I've already shown you the comparison between China's naval aviation and American naval aviation.

Even if 60% of F/A-18s are out of commission, there are still more than 100 available capable of taking out China's pitiful 20 J-15s.

If you want a comparison against all of China's aviation, then you must include all of the US aircraft as the US will be utilizing several of it's military bases located throughout the Pacific.

Here is a youtube video with a sock puppet since you seem incapable of doing your own research
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3VqF2dXje0

>>32916501

You're the one who initially stated "entire Chinese or Russian air force." If your intended meaning was "Chinese or Russian naval aviation forces", it would have helped to say that.

>>32916501

And I already watched your video the last time you posted it. It is useful.

>>32916544
That was a different poster and he said Chinese OR Russian. He did not say the US against both nations.

I did a comparison against Chinese naval aviation as that would be more relevant to the OP.

>>32916572
First time posting it here.

>>32916462
You can't just 'naval'ize an airframe.

>>32916501
I love Binkov.

File: NATF-2S.jpg (405KB, 700x495px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 700x495px

>>32916462
The whole "muh twin engines" meme didn't come about until the Navy was faced with the threat of having to operate F-16s. Even with the poorer quality of earlier engines, the Navy was perfectly content to operate a wide range of single-engined fighters with no more issues than a twin-engined aircraft. It's a non-issue.

And there never was an F-22N. The closest thing to a navalized F-22 was Lockheed's NATF proposal, which added a second seat and swing-wings to a heavily adapted F-22. The NATF was going to be the replacement for the F-14, but both Lockheed and Northrop's proposals ended up being too heavy to be feasible and they got cancelled at the end of the Cold War. The concept resurfaced a couple more times in the A/F-X program that preceded the JSF, but it never received a contract, let alone left the drawing board. Ausairpower did discuss a navalization of the F-22, but that doesn't amount to any serious consideration.

>>32916622
But isn't that what they did with the F-35? Beef up the supporting struts, landing gears, and add an arresting hook? Or was it designed like that in the first place? No reason in my eyes you could alter the design and build an F-22 from the ground up adapted to naval flight.

>>32916644
The F-35 was built from the ground up to have some of the parts between the different airframes. F-22 was built from ground up for surface based 8000' long runways. Navalized F-22 would take so much extensive changes it makes more sense to build a brand new airframe (like the F-35C.)

>>32916644
>But isn't that what they did with the F-35?
No. The F-35 was designed from the ground up as a (relatively) common airframe for STOVL, CTOL, and CATOBAR variants. Navalizing an aircraft designed as a land-based fighter doesn't go well - take the attempt to navalize the F-16, for example, where performance ended up suffering a great deal due to the changes made.

The NATF ran into the same issues that plagued the Navy's fleet-defense interceptor programs since the F-4. The requirements necessitate a large, heavy aircraft that mean you're really struggling to design something that can even fit on the carrier, let alone do its job well. Both NATF contenders ended up being "derived" from their respective land-based counterparts (the F-22 and F-23), but really only shared engines and some avionics. Even though these were effectively clean-sheet designs, they still proved far too heavy to continue development.

Something lighter like the JSF program had some leeway to play around, but a larger fleet defense interceptor needs all the advantages it can get, which means a clean-sheet design optimized for naval operations from the start.

>>32914547
No they aren't.

Navy flyboys had my back. Don't ever talk shit about them or you will find me.

Ground troops.

>>32916611

Oh my god dude...

>I did a comparison against Chinese naval aviation as that would be more relevant to the OP.
Yes. that is all well-and-good. That doesn't change the fact that the initial statement by >>32915706, which asserts that US naval aviation is "More than enough to annihilate entire Chinese or Russian air force," is wrong.

To repeat:
I AM NOT DISPUTING WHETHER OR NOT A CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE SUMMED FORCES OF US NAVAL AVIATION ONLY AND THE "ENTIRE CHINESE OR RUSSIAN AIR FORCE" WOULD BE INCLUDED IN ANY RECKONING OF REALISTIC CONFLICT SCENARIOS. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THAT IS NOT THE CASE. MY ONLY CONTENTION IS THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT US NAVAL AVIATION ONLY COULD "ANNIHILATE" THE "ENTIRE CHINESE OR RUSSIAN AIR FORCE." I AM ALSO AWARE, AS A RESULT OF HAVING CAREFULLY READ THE SENTENCE CONCERNED HERE, THAT THE ASSERTION WAS NOT THAT US NAVAL AVIATION ONLY COULD "ANNIHILATE" ENTIRE CHINESE AND RUSSIAN AIR FORCE; RATHER, THE ASSERTION WAS THAT US NAVAL AVIATION ONLY COULD "ANNIHILATE" THE "ENTIRE CHINESE OR (I SAY AGAIN, "OR") RUSSIAN AIR FORCE."

I hope that we may now consider our discussion resolved with a high degree of clarity.

>>32916744
Give it up dude. I'm not the other guy but you're embarrassing your employers.

>>32915072
I didn't comprehend what I was seeing at first. Then I noticed the years and figured out that's two seperate crashes.

fucking kek

>>32916328
The question is about the Navy's ability to sail to China and wreck their shit.

Will everyone Stop screeching please, I don't speak autist.

The Navy and Airforce are fucked for mechanics right now.

F35 development was stalled by engineering changes requested by brass. They are not going to catch back up to original schedule. It doesn't make sense to expect to make up time that was spent re-scoping the project in development.

Until LM can reasonably deliver new airframes, then expect to be forced to scrounge for parts. Something in me says that Trump's Advanced super duper hornet is a ruse to get funding for a secondary carrier based fighter to remain active...let's watch!

>>32916744
The MARINES could take on the fucking Russian or Chinese airforces. /half serious

Regardless.
>Lob tomahawks at the meme dam
>Oh no, useless flooded country.

>>32917064
Which is no question at all. The chinks would get their shit pushed in.

File: cat.jpg (62KB, 550x597px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 550x597px

>>32914559
You have literally no idea what kind of slavery needs to happen for that kind of readiness.

Fuck you.

Why spend more than the bare minimum on legacy Hornets when they are being replaced with F-35C and Super Hornets?

>>32918085
>Taiwan is restored as true government of China
Sign me the fuck up m8y

>>32916347
eh, marine pilots are trained by the Navy for the most part. They just get shittier missiles and planes.

>>32918167
>fuck those welfare queens
>fuck the military industrial complex, just get this shit on the cheap
>why isn't any of this shit working?
>what do you mean 'maintenance hours'?


Genocide. We need Genocide

>>32916091
>>32916336
The Marines don't want a repeat of the events of Guadalcanal to happen ever again.

The tl;dr is that Marines invaded the island of Guadalcanal with two Navy aircraft carriers providing air support. The Japanese attacked and seriously endangered the Navy carriers, so they withdrew, leaving the Marines on the island with 4 days worth of ammo and the Marine amphibious forces (ships) without air cover.

As a result, the Japanese had air superiority and the Marines were fucked until a Marine dive bomber squadron managed to fly in from an escort carrier. They then flew in more fighters and bombers to the expeditionary airfield the Marines were protecting and managed to turn the tide of battle.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/ARD.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cactus_Air_Force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadalcanal_Campaign

>>32916382
Modern engines (especially American made) are of the quality where engine failure is highly unlikely, and if it does happen, its catastrophic failure where both engines would be wrecked anyway. The only time you use 2+ is if you need the thrust.

>>32918085
>how 2 warcrimes, the post.

>>32916744
Ching chong nip nong faggot.

>>32921340
Just drop some warning leaflets before.
Worked for the japs.

>>32914547
>>32914559
>>32914675

I mean we kind of did discontinue the entire F-18C/D and A-6 fleet.
Also
>F35 as a replacement to F-18E.

>>32921370
>Two nukes of no warnings were enough.

>>32921882
There's still >500 F/A-18C/Ds flying with the Navy and Marines, the F-35 replaces the F/A-18C/D, not the F/A-18E/F.

>>32916328
>95% of US aircraft in the US
>China literally on the other side of the planet
>hurdurrrrrrrrrr

>>32921925
>air-to-air refueling
>aircraft carriers
>allied airbases and airfields
>the leviathan that is the US logistics chain

>>32914547
>What would happen in an unforeseen escalation with China?
ICBMs.

>>32918167
Now that is the face of disapproval. My mog does that to me sometimes.

>>32916382
lolno

>>32916501
Wouldn't China deploy its ground aviation as well if the situation escalated?

>>32916462
>Bird strike in one engine
>Engine blows
>Blasts second engine clean out the other side of the aircraft
Most engine failures are from poor maintenance, two engines basically just doubles the likelihood of failure

>>32914547
>What would happen in an unforeseen escalation with China?

"Holy shit, we're at war with china. Here's (effectively unlimited) money, go get those birds fixed up."

>>32921882
We did warn the Japs multiple times and dropped many leaflets telling the civilians to evacuate.

>>32918085

While technically feasible, Three Gorges is a thousand klicks inland. You'd have to launch from the ECS or somewhere in the vicinity of Hainan. Not to mention the multiple layers of IADS you'd presumably face along the way.

Moreover, busting the dam would probably push Chinese retaliation to the other side of nuclear, which, although I know we all talk about getting rid of the meme coast, would be a less than desirable outcome.

File: gf.jpg (70KB, 749x499px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 749x499px

>>32914547
thank you for this thread.
>teammate at work is navy reserve.
>work near regional airport.
>400 miles for nearest ocean.
>past few days navy has been practicing touch-and-go landings.
>tell teammate as plane flies over for the hundredth time "oh look, the navy is lost again"

>>32923811

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/air-force-c-17-globemaster-iii-makes-surprise-landing-at-peter-o-knight/1241349
"At least we're not the Air Force."

If you've been following naval news for the last few years, you'd know that Obama has been severely screwing the Navy out of funding and the government playing games with fiscal aspects which have led to a lot of closures of maintenance facilities and part shortages. Some Navy ships are going to, or have, spend YEARS for their turn at dry dock. They can't even afford to pay for moving all the personnel they want to for rotating duty stations.

The problem with pushing out the maintenance schedule on airframes is that doing so sends their maintenance costs way up when they finally do get to be serviced -- and eventually they will become uncertified for flight.

Also, pilots are getting less flight hours.

I don't know how much of these problems are due, if at all, to Obama era brass. But the issues do exist and it's getting worse.

File: 1497722_633479483383837_2011429575_n.jpg?w=620.jpg (32KB, 620x442px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 620x442px

>>32923811
>>32923863

>>32924095

Yeah, readiness is a secular issues. Both sides don't know what to do about it.

File: 1486154653543.jpg (26KB, 411x412px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 411x412px

>>32914547
Do you have any idea how much money and Time it would take to get 90% of those jets operational?

Do you have any idea how hard it is to mass produce the parts needed?

Fuck off

>>32925288

That's the point.