U.S. showcases stealth fighter training on amphibious carrier

How much does anyone want to bet that those "soldiers" are in fact Marines!

Call a Marine a "soldier" , or a soldier a "Marine" and see how long it takes for you to keep your teeth!

Be nice for once for the reporters here to get things right once in a while!

Former F-35 pilot explains how the US Marine Corps’ version makes China’s ‘carrier killer’ missiles irrelevant

http://www.businessinsider.sg/f-35-pilot-f-35b-makes-chinas-carrier-killer-missiles-irrelevant-2018-2/?r=US&IR=T

Its not new technology is it? I mean the British had the Harrier. Largely the same thing or am I wrong?

Comparing the Harrier to an F-35b does both aircraft a disservice.

Price

Maintenance costs

Stealth

Length of service

Ability to attack multiple targets concurrently

Ability to link to other types of military assets

US to Japan: "This is how to do it guys!"

Matt, think of the F35B as a natural evolution of the Harrier. The 'new' part is stealth fighter on mini amphibious base.

The point is... Japan "bought" them... and now Japan's pilots need the "best" training they can get from those who know and have used them in actual missions. With the high degree of "threat" from China, Japan cannot waste any time.

They are developing a new generation fighter, but that takes time and now is not the time to wait for that new generation fighter. So this will be a good training session in preparation for the delivery of more F-35B fighters. Both B-35B and Osprey are VTOL. That is the flexibility which Japan needs with the limited mobile infrastructure to support them and to allow multitasking and maneuverability of forces.

Nonsense. That’s 1960 tactics in a 21st century, missile reality world. The US needs these aircraft because it constantly invades places around the world. Japan hasn’t invaded anywhere in two generations.

zichiMar. 24 08:45 pm JST

The Harrier would be a mini car while a F35B would be a Aston Martin.

more like an MG and an Aston Martin!

21st century, missile reality world.

The USA made that mistake in the 1960's when they thought missiles would repace everything and then had to rebuild capacity and put back guns on their aircraft, they won't repeat it. Missiles are not the answer to everything.

How much does anyone want to bet that those "soldiers" are in fact Marines!

This is a good chance to question again whether Marines are Navy soldiers or not.

Stealth fighters F-35Bs belong to the Marines, the amphibious ship that takes them belongs to the Navy, and the commander of the combined assault forces is a Navy admiral. No doubt, the Marines and the Navy work in close coordination with each other when attacking and landing enemy soil. But that doesn't mean the Marines belong to the Navy. The Marines are a separate service independent of the Navy. 

The bottom line: the Marines can't be granted the use of bases in Japan (Okinawa) because of Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.

I mean the British had the Harrier. 

The US Marines have had Harrier's over 30 years ago too, they "borrowed" the technology from the British Royal Marines if I recall correctly, and adapted it to their own close support needs.

voiceofokinawaToday 06:54 am JST

The bottom line: the Marines can't be granted the use of bases in Japan (Okinawa) because of Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.

This inane argument again...

Camp Courtney, Camp Foster, Camp Gonsalves, Camp Hansen, Camp Kinser, Camp Schwab, Camp Butler, Camp Lester, Yontan Airfield, Camp McTureous, MCAS Futenma.

OssanAmerica,

Add Iejima Auxiliary Airfield and Northern Training Area, aka Jungle Warfare Training Center, to your list. Thirteen bases in all, and they are all Marine bases, granted to the Marines for free use in violation of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.

You may counter my argument by saying that the terms “naval force” in Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Treaty may include the Marines, whereby the Marines have every right to use these bases and facilities.  But note that the terms “land, air and naval forces” in the English version are clearly defined as “the Army, Air Force and Navy” in the Japanese version of the Treaty.

This inane argument again...Camp Courtney, Camp Foster, Camp Gonsalves, Camp Hansen, Camp Kinser, Camp Schwab, Camp Butler, Camp Lester, Yontan Airfield, Camp McTureous, MCAS Futenma.

Just ignore it, times change, and it's obvious that desperate people will pull at any straws. If you keep repeating a lie over and over, you start believing it yourself, and that's all it is in this case.

The Harrier would be a mini car while a F35B would be a Aston Martin.

Im not convinced of the Aston Martin tag lol, at all. Still haven't seen these things in action in reality.

Clear blue skies. Calm waters...

Do the dynamics change a bit when there's a breeze (or something a bit stronger).. or to the point that "sorry we cant fly today?"

@zichi - yes, in terms of cost.

I wonder, whether it would be more effective to develop stealth missile/drone technology, based in Space that can be deployed to any point in the planet, than a series of aircraft carriers, that can quite easily be knocked out.

I said that it was like an Aston Martin broken down on the side of the road because only 1/2 of F-35’s are flyable due to maintenance problems and it was deleted?

This is a crap site. My name fits perfectly. idiotmods.

Yubaru (Mar. 25 01:06 pm JST):

The U.S. Marines' motto "Semper fidelis" means "always faithful" or "always loyal". Of course, you must be faithful or loyal to the supreme commander of the U.S. Forces, but if you were asked which branch of services you must be faithful or loyal, would you choose the Navy over the Marines because the Marines are subsumed under the Navy in your thinking?

I've been arguing that the Marines and the Navy are different services independent of each other although they work in close coordination when attacking and landing on enemy soil. On land it's difficult to tell the difference between the Marines and the Army because of the similarity of how they fight a ground war. Probably this might be the reason why, historically, there have been deep-rooted rivalries between the two branches. 

Here's a description of how the four services of the U.S. Armed Forces call themselves or are called by others (gleaned from the Internet): 

Army: Soldiers / Grunts / Ground Pounders

Navy: Sailors / Squids / Frogs

Air Force: Airmen / Wing Nuts / Zoomies / Fly Boys

Marine Corps: Marines / Devil Dogs / Jar Heads / Gyrenes ("leather neck" comes into my mind also.)

Certainly, marines are not sailors, squids nor frogs. Likewise, sailors are not marines, devil dogs, jar heads, gyrenes nor leather necks. The Marines and the Navy are thus different branches of service in the U.S. Armed Forces even in the mind of U.S. military personnel.