Home » Aviation » Mabus: F-35 Will Be ‘Last Manned Strike Fighter’ the Navy, Marines ‘Will Ever Buy or Fly’


Mabus: F-35 Will Be ‘Last Manned Strike Fighter’ the Navy, Marines ‘Will Ever Buy or Fly’

An F-35C Lightning II carrier variant joint strike fighter conducts a touch and go landing aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN-68). US Navy Photo

An F-35C Lightning II carrier variant joint strike fighter conducts a touch and go landing aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN-68). US Navy Photo

This post has been updated to include a comment from Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.).

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will be “almost certainly will be, the last manned strike fighter aircraft the Department of the Navy will ever buy or fly,” signaling key assumptions in the Navy’s aviation future as the service prepares to develop follow-ons to the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

“Unmanned systems, particularly autonomous ones, have to be the new normal in ever-increasing areas,” Mabus said.
For example, as good as it is, and as much as we need it and look forward to having it in the fleet for many years, the F-35 should be, and almost certainly will be, the last manned strike fighter aircraft the Department of the Navy will ever buy or fly.”

To address the emerging role unmanned weapon systems, Mabus announced a new deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for unmanned systems and a new Navy staff position — alongside warfare directorates like surface and air warfare — N-99.

The positions were created “so that all aspects of unmanned – in all domains – over, on and under the sea and coming from the sea to operate on land – will be coordinated and championed,” Mabus said.

Unmanned aerial vehicles are currently part of the Navy’s N2/N6 Information Dominance portfolio as primarily information, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) platform while undersea and surface unmanned systems are owned by a myriad of agencies.

“Creating a senior post focused on unmanned aviation is an important recognition by the Navy that this technology will do much to determine the service’s future and requires senior leadership within the Department to ensure its successful utilization,” said House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee chair Rep Randy Forbes (R-Va.) in a statement to USNI News.
“The future of the carrier air wing is linked with the development of an unmanned system able to execute long-range, penetrating strike missions in anti-access environments. I am hopeful that whoever fills this new post will take a holistic, strategic look at the Navy’s unmanned portfolio and be a strong advocate for that vision moving forward.”

Unlike the Air Force, the Navy doesn’t not currently have armed UAVs and is currently developing a carrier UAV — Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS — which would contain the service’s first planned unmanned strike platform.

The UCLASS development program is planned to operate under the current ISR centric E-2 Hawkeye command structure.

The remarks at the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space 2015 Exposition also comes as the Navy is preparing for studies for the service’s next generation fighter effort — F/A-XX — that will replace the existing Super Hornets.

The planned fiscal year 2016 analysis of alternatives (AoA) for F/A-XX will weigh a myriad of options that could translate to a capability that might not necessarily be a single aircraft but a could include a multi-faceted manned and unmanned capability, USNI News understands.

Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Jonathan Greenert said earlier this year that F/A-XX will likely be optionally manned.

Though Mabus mentioned strike — which the service defines as attacking land and surface targets — he did not address fighter on fighter air warfare that would be a different capability set.

  • Kelly Maher

    Pretending that the Navy had no say in my service selection…this is why I didn’t want to go pilot. To those with wings of gold, it’s not so bad. You’ll still get air medals and you won’t have to worry about holding it for 7 hours at a time.

    • publius_maximus_III

      You mean they can refuel a fighter, but can’t “relieve” a pilot? Seems like a major oversight in planning. I guess no Big Gulps prior to a mission.

  • Tellenthetruth

    A complete waste of dollars, but yet another example of the Navy trying to save the Navy, or keep it as it was in WW11. It is a matter of time before we get into a fight with a country that has some weaponry that will sink Carriers like an electric bug zapper, and why the middle east religious zealots have not got there hands on these missles in beyond me, but thank God they have not. We have been lulled into a frame of mind that we are invincible on the sea, but I think the Carrier sailors know what I am talking about.
    I was on my beloved CVA62 for 4 years, and you really do not want to know how many times we were sunk by our fellow brothers on the submarines, and by the way, submarines are where we should be pumping money into, along with making cruise missles like potato chips.
    The F35 has no competition, but they are not real good at landing on Carriers engulfed in flames, and these Carriers cannot stop missles skimming across the waves at over the speed of sound, and might be carrying a nuclear warhead, which China has today.
    Why Navy brass refuses to retool our Navy is beyond me, but maybe I got it all wrong. Maybe Newport News Shipyards actually run the Navy, and all the other mammoth military industrial complexes that Eisenhower warned us about as he left the White House.
    I know my grammar is not up to par, but at 63, I do keep informed, and the future of the Navy are the boats and fast frigates, and of course our beloved SEAL TEAMS, that are being misused on a regular basis.We have lost to many seasoned SEALS on missions that they really were not trained for. The Army and Marines have mountain divisions that have no equal, and just do not believe SEALS should be fighting on mountains at 8000 feet.
    What can you do when the CIC falls in love with you??

    • redgriffin

      I see no evidence that the US Navy is trying to keep things just like they were I n World War 2. They have bought modern weapons and are experimenting with new weapons systems and are now looking at a time when there will be no aircrews on them the reduction in cost would allow allot of new ships to be built that would be smaller and more maneuverable.

      • Secundius

        @ redgriffin.

        On 31 December 1946, the Official End of World War II. The United States Navy had a Total Fleet Strength of 71,009-Ship’s of Various Classes. More ship’s then ALL the Navy’s of the World Nation at the time Combined. By the start of the Korean War, that number dwindled to ~1,000-ship’s. I doubt we’ll ever see any of those Fleet Strength again…

        • redgriffin

          I doubt that we will ever need that number again. we need balance in the fleet but don’t look for a large fleet as being the only answer. Unless we want the US to be a large imperial power which I see no need for at this time it would be much better if we use a smaller Navy to guard our sea lanes and our policies we still spend more on Defense then other nation in the world. If we aren’t getting the best for our dollar then plan and execute the coup de ta that is called for in the Constitution.

      • Dennis Moore

        Whoa Red Griffin! Be careful, Mabus may read your comments and push for unmanned air wings and more of those God awful LCS’s.

        • redgriffin

          Good we need to advance not retreat.

    • wfraser11

      tellenthetruth,,,,,,,,,,,uh,,,,,thanks for sharing?
      Education ? Get one..

      • Michael Rich

        You can’t even type correctly.

    • Dan

      Interesting view.

    • publius_maximus_III

      “…you really do not want to know how many times we were sunk by our fellow brothers on the submarines…”

      You did hear that a French nuclear attack submarine recently “sank” the super carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt during War Games off the U.S. coast, just prior to that carrier group’s departure for the Middle East?

      You can BING the string “Saphir sinks carrier” for further details.

      • PB

        A Swedish AHIP sub with crew was on loan to the US navy about 2005 time frame. This sub gave the surface ships fits in ASW exercises from what I’ve read. It was the Swedish navy sub Gotland. Hopefully our surface ASW improves.

        • Secundius

          @ PB.

          It’s also said that the US Government “Reversed Engineered” the Gotland. And gave the plans to the Taiwanese as their First Indigenous built Submarine, too…

    • Sandy

      ‘scuse me there, Gramps….I don’t think you have any expertise on “what SEALs have been trained for”…..or would you like to give me your BUD/S class number? Please keep your comments about SEALs to yourself, because you don’t have a clue as to what we have been trained in. BTW…the 10th Mountain DIV does little to no training in the Mountains nor do the Marines with the exception of their winter warfare training. Also, the loss of SEALs was due to an ambush, not “misuse”.

      • Towbar

        It is misuse
        SEALs are not infantrymen.
        They are sending small teams of guys who are very good at close quarters combat and various means of infiltration instead of a platoon or company of guys who train specifically to kill people in head to head firefights in wide open spaces.

        • Sandy

          ….and they have been used for reconnaissance , (a primary mission set of Special Reconnaissance) for Rangers and Marines, especially in Iraq and at ANACONDA..go read “Not a Good Day To Die”. Other than Panama, which was a leadership failure on the part of ST-4 CO and the Group 2 Commodore – a real tragedy, please tell me where they have been misused? The guys that were killed in the helo ambush were part of a QRF – everyone is on that rotation – although the questions remain as to why they used a “vanilla” CH-47 for extract. You also have not read the legacy of Vietnam, which SEALs were used for protecting the waterways – they made their “bones” there. Read “Point Man” which is written by the late Senior Chief James “Patches” Watson. GOD Bless

    • TrueDat

      Using the logic that there are weapons that can take out carriers and that should be the reason to get rid of them, can you use the same logic to get rid of tanks in ground warfare due to anti-tank missiles, does the same logic also apply for aircraft and SAM’s?
      The Japanese sunk and severely crippled US carriers during WW2, but even during that war and subsequent wars the carrier has proven itself has a means to forward deploy aircraft where land is not available and an option to strike enemy territory with a moving platform.

      It wasn’t long ago the USN was the first on scene and to attack Afghanistan right after 9/11. Till we got landing field rights from surrounding countries, the USAF was only able to provide attack capability from its bomber fleet.

      • Secundius

        @ TrueDat

        US. Aircraft Carriers of WW2 were WIP, and all of them had Wooden Flight Deck and not Armored Deck like the British. Armor deck probably would have extended a Aircraft Carrier’s build time by 6-months. That why we could deploy 55 carriers to the British 16…

    • TrueDat

      P.S. The reason we don’t have a majority submarine force- money and training. Submariners are extensivley trained and that training takes along time.

    • Fredy

      Where to start….

      You don’t seem oposed to the F-35 so much as the USN. The F-35 is incredible, and actually going to be cheaper than current strike fighters. EF2000 – 110 million, F-18E – 76/78 million, Rafale – 85-90 million, Pak-FA – 100 million (in 2009), F-35 – 75 million (in today’s dollars, 87 million in then-year; also full rate, LRIP is significantly more).

      As for the USN, it is the most capable blue water fleet in the world. Anybody that wants to attack North America needs to cross at minimum 1,800 nautical miles of blue water. Although littoral combat ships are critical for coastal operations, it is still imparative that a country bordered by two oceans have a powerful blue water fleet.

      As for carriers: Carriers are far more than capable of fending off any attack. A carrier has many ways of intercepting a strike. The first line of defense are E-2D/F-35 aircraft. These aircraft have powerful radars (the F-35 also has IRST) which detect any incoming threat. Missiles launched from airborne platforms may then intercept such threats. If a threat makes it through the net of aircraft, then destroyers engage with their missile systems (AEGIS). If the destroyer intercept fails, then the carrier has it’s own radar and host of missiles capable of intercepting supersonic missiles. If all of the above fails, the US has the most advanced CWIS that can stop airborne missiles. The only threat with a high probability to penetrate these defenses are balistic missiles (which AEGIS was designed to shoot down). However, balistic missiles aren’t precise and have accuracy measured in kilometers. Balistic missiles also can’t adjust for target movement, which is why only nukes tend to be balistic as they don’t need to be accurate.

      • Secundius

        @ Fredy.

        Actually sir, I can see it going higher in per unit cost. To many fingers in the Congressional Cookie Jar. I personally think that Lockheed-Martin “Cooked-the-Book’s” to get this World Wide Contract. And they had the nerve to call-out Boeing for “Cheating”…

        • Fredy

          @Secundius

          The XF-35 had a lot more growth capability than Boeing’s design. Not only that, but you’re complaining about the F-35 procurment which is no different sales wise than the F-4 and F-16 (especially the F-16).

          @John Citizen

          The F-35 isn’t specifically built for fleet defense, it’s built for multiple roles. The Radar and DAS system, however, are built to act as airborne warning. The F-35 is also capable of shooting down any bomber, especially as it’s radar is more powerful and can search a much wider range than the F-14. A much bigger issue is the lack of a long range missile like the Phoenix. The new AIM-120D will largely remedy this and ship SAMs can always be used.

          • Secundius

            @ Fredy.

            Production model F/A35C’s and possible F/AV-35B’s are goint to have AESA Radar integrated into the Airframes and Pod mounted on all other Naval Aircrafts. Esscentually turning every aircraft in the Fleet into a “Mini [email protected]”, linked back to the Carrier Battle Group. Potentially extend [email protected] cover range, well beyond 1,000nmi…

      • John Citizen

        Well, that’s how its supposed to work in theory. While the overall movie was pretty horrible IMHO, theres a scene in The Sum of All Fears in which Russian bombers attack a CSG. It was pretty accurate. CWIS knocked out many of the incoming cruise missiles, but some still hit the carrier. I suppose fighters didn’t attempt to intercept them because it was a surprise.

        Neither the F/A-18 or the F-35 were designed with the fleet defender mission. That was the old F-14. I think there is still something of a gap in CSG defense without the F-14. I believe the F/A-18F has stepped into that role though I don’t know the specs on its radar–though more advanced in some respects, I know it doesn’t have the range of the F-14’s AWG-9

        • Secundius

          @ John Citizen.

          The problem with “Sum Of All Fears”, is. There’s NO time frame reference, considering they show John Ryan as a young man and not yet married. I’m guessing the 1970’s. So F-4J Phantom’s and F-14A/B Tomcat’s…

    • mk4524

      How does a submarine project power, especially in terms of aerial warfare as compared to a carrier?

      • Snake Eyes

        You need to take a refresher course on the nuclear TRIAD (land-based, aerial-dropped, sea-launched nuclear ICBMS).

  • Pingback: Mabus: F-35 Will Be ‘Last Manned Strike Fighter’ the Navy, Marines ‘Will Ever Buy or Fly’ – USNI News | emeraldcoastwxman()

  • Pingback: F-35 likely the Navy’s last manned strike fighter, unmanned systems ‘have to be the new normal’ | 381test()

  • BendExPat

    So, does this mean the Blue Angels will perform their feats of acrobatics, sitting in a shipping container, wearing 3D video game hardware?

    • Jack Kalpakian

      No probably with trainers instead … or A-29 descendants.

      • Secundius

        @ Jack Kalpakian

        If your referring to the JSF. The designated trainer for the Air Force, is the Northrop T-38A Talon. And for the Marine Corps. and Navy, its the Beechcraft T-34C Turbomentor…

        • Dean Black

          Nope, navy and marines train in the t-6 texan II

  • Pingback: F-35 likely the Navy’s last manned strike fighter, unmanned systems ‘have to be the new normal’ | MyWebspace()

  • wfraser11

    whoa…naval warfare is moving into a new era. The naval battle of the future is going to be a lethal arena containing hard to imagine weapon’s systems and capabilities.

  • Richard Terp

    Sam LaGrone….your article contains a double negative paragraph 7. Do you mean the Navy does have armed UAV’s? JSchool 101 stuff.

    • Secundius

      @ Richard Terp.

      It’s true, the Navy’s Northrop-Grumman MQ-4C Triton is being outfitted with a LaWS HELP Laser system…

  • Pingback: Alert 5 » F-35C will be the last manned strike fighter for U.S. Navy - Military Aviation News()

  • Pingback: F-35 likely the Navy’s last manned strike fighter, unmanned systems ‘have to be the new normal’ | SomeLearning()

  • Pingback: F-35 likely the Navy’s last manned strike fighter, unmanned systems ‘have to be the new normal’ - Hybrid Apps | Web Apps | Mobile Apps()

  • Secundius

    I don’t believe that for a “New York Minute”, If the Northrop X-47B Pegasus is the way of the future. Were all in BIG TROUBLE…

    • PB

      The article mentions strike fighter. What about a air superiority fighter ?

      • Secundius

        @ PB.

        What about them? All F/A-18C/D’s, F/-A-18E/F’s, F/AV-35B’s, F/A-35C and even the EA-18G’s, are Air-Superiority Fighter qualified. Their an Either, Or, Multi-Purpose Airframe…

        • PB

          Ok, I’m thinking of a less expensive fighter than F22 that can land on a carrier and be as agile in the air.

          • Secundius

            @ PB.

            Currently the best Fifth-Generation Stealth Fighter of the planet, is not even American Made. It’s the Saab JAS 39E Gripen (Griffin) at ~$68.9-Million USD. apiece. And it projected that Saab will also produce the Best Sixth-Generation Fighter soon, too. Unfortunately, it’s not Carrier Capable.

            The best Aircraft Carrier capable Fifth-Generation Stealth Fighter, is also not American Made. It’s the Russian Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA at ~$50-Million USD. apiece…

          • valorius

            Uh….no.

            Saab has been studying a carrier based Gripen for years, I think Brazil is working on a joint development program for a carrier based Gripen.

  • @NotRizzo

    I wonder if this is a nod (or a sop) to the congress in the fight over the initial UCASS requirements due out this summer? By clearly stating that USN policy is that the follow on to the stike role will be unmanned it might give them a little breathing room to go with a low steath ISR platform vs a higher risk steath platform.
    I still think they need to go with a larger aircraft (somewhere around the 70,000lb max weight of a Tomcat) with a corresponding fuel AND weapons loadout that can double as a CVW tanker including for it’s unmanned brethren.

    • Secundius

      @NotRizzo.

      The Northrop X-47B UCLASS, is a 3/4-scale demonstrator an testing aircraft. The actual production model is called the UCAV-47C Pegasus…

      • sferrin

        Source?

        • Secundius

          @ sferrin.

          “All-In-All”, Sir. There were 254 source entries, I’m just listing a few. You can look the rest…
          1. Wikipedia
          2. Military Factory
          3. John Nib
          5. Air Attack
          6. Robot Pig
          7. Combat Ace
          8. Aviation Week and Space Tecnology
          9. DID (Defense Industry Daily)
          10. Global Security
          11. Military Times
          12. Jane’s Defense Weekly…

  • Jack Lawrence

    I remember when the Air Force fielded the “last” “strike” aircraft to carry a gun. Every hot shot civilian ruler reinvents the wheel

  • Western

    Well, as an old sub sailor, Tennenthetruth is correct, in that carriers are an easy snack for a modern submarine.
    And Mr. LaGrone is correct. The F-35 will be the last US manned fighter plane. It will never be used in armed conflict, and no more modern ones will be made. We lack the political and national will for war.

    • TrueDat

      We still stick our noses in to others fight- re: Libya and Syria. But you are correct about the political will to make choices to fight the wars/conflicts effectively. The war fighting decisions are being made in DC. Didn’t we learn anything from that conflict in Vietnam? I guess not.

  • The_Usual_Suspect61

    What a historic and, dare I say, idiotic statement by SecNav Mabus. Where to start? The F-4 didn’t need a gun. Push button, wonder weapons were going to eliminate the need for infantry. You can win a war solely through air power. All these missives were proven false. The one and only reason that SecNav’s statement could ever come true is due to the outrageous cost of the F-35 program and its failure to perform as advertised. It has become the LCS of the sky and a poster child for congressional pork.

    • Secundius

      @ The_Usual_Suspect61.

      They’ve been say that same Idiotic Statement, since the end of WW2, and History has prove Wrong Everytime. There’s no such thing as a Obsolete Weapon, Archaic maybe. Obsolete, NO…

  • Pingback: Mark Collins – The F-35, or, Shed a Tear for the US Navy Department’s Last Manned Fighter-Bomber | The 3Ds Blog()

  • Dan Holland

    Hmmm, has the “Fighter Mafia” (the USN and USMC chapters) somehow mysteriously disappeared? One wonders what they will have to say about this. Inquiring minds want to know…

  • Forgotyourname

    This is making the assumption the US does not go broke funding these pie in the sky over priced war birds.

  • Sandy

    Hey Ray…you’ll be fired by then like your pal Obama, so you may want to keep your comments to yourself. We always need a man in the cockpit as the human brain is still the best sensor system….I don’t want a drone doing CAS for me. Gee Ray, what happens when the Chinese shoot down the satellites controlling all those drones, huh? Egver hear of…wait for it….”jamming”…?? Ever think of that, genius? Worst SECNAV since Clinton’s SECNAV.

    • Secundius

      @ Sandy.

      I disagree, I think it was SecNav. Hansford T. “HT” Johnson in the Bush/Cheney Administration. Allowing the LCS program to go through, despite of his boss SecDef. Donald Rumsfeld…

      • Sandy

        Hanson was “Acting” SECNAV. I don’t think he had executive direction to change that Program of Record. I will admit the LCS was ill-conceived. It should be re-thought as we have discussed here.

  • Conspiracy101

    Rise of the Machines!!!!

  • old guy

    I have to laugh when I hear short-sighted views like that. It reminds me of 1964, when I was P.M. of the TM-61 MACE cruise missile and I went down to Warner-Robins Air Base to request that their P.M. put in for a SLEP on our aging birds. His reply was classic: “NO, this is the last UNMANNED aircraft the Air Force will EVER have.”

    • Secundius

      @ old guy.

      I remember my father tell me as a young child, that the Next War was going to be a “PUSH BUTTON” War. Boy, was he ever Wrong…

  • CheetahFang258

    Possibly… And just as highlighted in the article, he never mentioned fighter aircraft roles. Just strike.

    • Secundius

      @ CheetahFang258.

      All the planes I mentioned, are Multi-Mission Platforms. Just “flick” a switch, and you go from Strike, to Fighter, to Air Superiority Fighter, to Bomber modes. It beat Designing and Building Aircraft to serve only one function…

      • CheetahFang258

        So? There still could be a manned figter aircraft complement.

        • Secundius

          @ CheetahFang258.

          Are we even Talking About the Same Thing. I’m was referring to the F-35’s and the F-18’s, not the UCLASS X-47B program…

      • valorius

        very few aircraft are only suitable for one mission, even if they were specificlaly designed for one mission.

        The F-22 or F-15 being prime examples.

        • Secundius

          @ valorius.

          F-15, is a Multi-Mission Platform…

  • TrueDat

    I wonder how much combat time Mr. Marbus and his bean counters have on the ground? So the Marines and Army infantry will rely on unmanned assets to provide CAS. Good luck with that one. Whoever thinks that is a good idea should be the first to call in a strike while FAC.

  • Gst72

    When you have a Obama acolyte as the Secretary of the Navy and a person who knows little about coma at I have a question’ How will a drone, an unmanned strike fighter dog fight a surprise enemy in the sky or adjust in a second to changing defensive tactics? They can’t!

    • Secundius

      @ Gst72.

      It won’t. Even with the World’s Smallest Supercomputer, the Adapteva A-1 (~ size a Deck of Playing Cards)…

  • jamesstrait

    Mabus has revealed what everyone’s known for a decade.

    • Secundius

      @ jamesstrait.

      Some people are Just Slower that others…

  • Marjus Plaku

    A little premature to say the least. Systems can be taken out non kinetically, a human cannot. Anyway, the UCLASS should feature a strike emphasis and not just ISR.

    • Secundius

      @ Marjus Plaku.

      I’d be surprised if an A.I. UCLASS in available by 2050, at the earliest…

  • Pingback: Le F-35, dernier avion piloté de l’US Navy | Défense & Technologies()

  • Pingback: Cavok Brasil – Aviação e Fotografia - F-35C será o último caça de ataque tripulado da Marinha dos EUA()

  • valorius

    The F-35 is the next generation F-18E/F replacement….isnt it?

    • Secundius

      @ valorius.

      Nope, its supplementing the F-18E/F Super Hornet’s. But in the Air Force case, it is replacing the F-16’s Fighting Falcon’s…

      • valorius

        The USN is a special kind of stupid.

        They’re gonna launch an all new fighter program knowing itll be 20 years and tens of billions before it amounts to anything, if ever?

        They should have never built the F-18E/F at all. They should have stuck with the F-14D until the F-35C was ready, and poured all that F-18E/F money into development of the F-35C, and a much larger buy figure.

        • Secundius

          @ valorius.

          I defy you to name one country that doesn’t have, “A Special Kind of Stupid”…

          • valorius

            You mean the naval branch of one country?

            How about Sweden

          • Secundius

            @ valorius.

            What about Sweden, their S-Tank of the ’70’s and ’80’s was a complete and Utter Failure. They have Good systems and Bad systems, just like everybody else…

          • valorius

            The S-tank was highly capable for what -Sweden- needed from a tank. Sweden is almost all thick forests, and theirs was a defensive battle.

            And besides, we were talking about Navies.

          • Secundius

            @ valorius.

            The S-Tank, is a piece of CRAP. Virtually NO Armor, Neither a Tank Destroyer or a Self-Propelled Gun. Hydraulic Lifters running the Length of each Track System. Too, Aim and Elevate the M68/L7 105x607mmR/617mm7/52-caliber gun with Auto-loader. Which mean ammunition is exposed in the hull. Any Heavy Machine Gun round can breech to armor and set of a Sympathic Detonation of the Exposed Rounds. Who has time to adjust all the controls during Actual Combat, NO ONE.

            You were also, talking about Failed Systems as I recall, too. You didn’t specify on Failed Systems…

          • valorius

            It was designed to fight from hull down prepared defensive positions, scoot and shoot.

            You specifically asked me what NAVY, i said “Sweden.”

            The S tank is not a naval vessel last time i checked. 😉

          • Secundius

            @ valorius.

            Please point out the word “Navy” in my comment to you. I’ve looked at a Dozen Times now. And, NOWHERE does it say “NAVY”…

          • valorius

            OK, -I- was talking about Navies.

          • Secundius

            @ valorius.

            Your comment was about “A special Kind of Stupid”. Please feel free to point out the Reference on Navies…

          • valorius

            “The USN is a special kind of stupid.” -first sentence from my comment in this thread, posted 2 days ago.

          • Secundius

            @ valorius.

            Unfortunately, I have the Original’s to compare too…

          • valorius

            Im looking right at the comment, so i have no idea what your problem is.

          • Slowpoke Rodrigues

            Valorius

            It took us a while, but we saw what you did. You changed the “comment”. A friend of mine has a Panasonic Toughbook 19, where you can swap out the hard drives. He take’s his out a night, so no one can access his computer for personal information. You added “USN” into the comment that wasn’t there before. Now I can understand his return statement back too you. Nice try.

          • valorius

            I didnt change anything. The original unaltered comment is still posted on this thread.

            Look up farther in the thread then youve been looking. (if disqus had numbered posts id just give you a post #) You’re not looking far enough back.

            PS- i am on a HP laptop.

            You are going to extreme lengths to just accept that i said “navy” from the get go. Shrug.

          • valorius

            And who the heck is “we?”

            Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

          • Secundius

            @ valorius.

            What’s with the Hull Down Position, crap. Sitting in a Marshaling Yard with no crew for the S-Tank was a Hull Down Position. Only Defense for the S-Tank, were the Tree’s. Which was either your Ally or your Enemy. And as far a Shoot & Scoot, Gun was Fixed in a Forward Firing Position. You had to turn the Tank to Aim. So even if you got off your round, you still had to turn the tank around 180-deg. too Scoot. All the while the Enemy is Lining You Up for a Kill Shot…

          • valorius

            Tanks have a reverse gear.

            The S tank was suitable for the Swedes unique defensive needs.

            That being said, i am sure they are much better off with their Leopard II-122 variants.

          • Secundius

            @ valorius.

            What good does a Reverse Gear, do you if you can’t see what’t behind you…

        • Secundius

          @ valorius.

          Somebody once said, that flying the F-4 Phantom, was like flying a Cement Truck…

          • valorius

            The F-4 was designed as an all weather long range missile interceptor.

            For that role, “cement truck” is acceptable I guess.

            It was the US Military that decided to use it for all kinds of roles it was, frankly, ill suited for. Like dogfighting air superiority fighter, for instance.

            The F-14 was better in every respect, particularly the D model. In fact the F-14D/AIM-54C pheonix combo offered the USN capabilities it has never replaced to this day. Capabilities that F-35 wont replicate either, for that matter.

  • valorius

    Skynet will be pleased.

  • Secundius

    FYI: The F-35 JSF, is based on a Cancelled Russian Federation, that Lockheed-Martin acquired in 1991. The Yakovlev Yak-141 Freestyle…

  • Pingback: Navy Names First Director of Unmanned Weapon Systems | Aircrew Systems()

  • Pingback: Iran Would Exploit U.S. Pullback From Mideast, Says Nominee to Head Joint … – BloombergEveryday News UpdateEveryday News Update | Everyday News Update()

  • Pingback: Iran Would Exploit U.S. Pullback From Mideast, Says Nominee to Head Joint … – Bloomberg | Everyday News Update()

  • Pingback: Iran Would Exploit U.S. Pullback From Mideast, Says Nominee to Head Joint … – Bloomberg | World Breaking News Update()

  • Pingback: Iran Would Exploit U.S. Pullback From Mideast, Says Nominee to Head Joint … – Bloomberg | 5DTV World Breaking News Update()

  • Pingback: Iran Would Exploit U.S. Pullback From Mideast, Says Nominee to Head Joint … – Bloomberg | My Everyday Quick News Update()

  • Pingback: Iran Would Exploit U.S. Pullback From Mideast, Says Nominee to Head Joint … – Bloomberg | Ryannex()

  • Pingback: Iran Would Exploit U.S. Pullback From Mideast, Says Nominee to Head Joint … – Bloomberg | NewsBreakOnline.com()

  • Pingback: Iran Would Exploit U.S. Pullback From Mideast, Says Nominee to Head Joint … – Bloomberg | Superior News Update()

  • Pingback: Iran Would Exploit U.S. Pullback From Mideast, Says Nominee to Head Joint … – Bloomberg | The Boise Whistle()

  • Pingback: Máy bay chiến đấu không người lái - vũ khí của tương lai - Nghiên cứu quốc tếNghiên cứu quốc tế()

  • Pingback: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Jet Will Sling Lethal, Unmanned Drones At Enemy Targets — It Just Has To Get Off The Ground | GuideToLender.com - Commercial Lenders Blog()

  • Pingback: Ataque Da Piranha Hot Wheels | low - tyrepressure()

  • Pingback: Helo Nerve Wheels | tires - cheap tires()

  • Pingback: Helo Nerve Wheels | sale -tires for sale()

  • Pingback: Hot Wheels Ataque De Gorila | promotion - discout tyres()