Yes Sundog I agree with you as well, the USN and USAF have different mission requirements and they should define their own platforms, no more bi or tri-service platforms. Actually as a USN example, the Navy had the F-8 then F-4 but even with these two aircraft, the USN sort of had primary and secondary-type fighter mission capabilities. The F-4 could also drop bombs where the F-8 did not but the F-8 also evolved into recce missions when the F-14 came online. The Navy definitely allowed flexibility of all of their airframes, primarily out of necessity due to deployed carrier operations.
When I was on CVN-65 in the early 1980's and on our '82-'83 WestPac, here was our aircraft mix:
F-14, A-6/KA-6, EA-6, A-7, S-3, C-2, E-2, C-1 (short haul COD), and SH-3. We also deployed EA-3 and USMC F-4s and A-6s (took them onboard when in NAS Cubi Point). With this mix, every mission covered and were very effective. Hell, the USN could have made good use of the production version of the X-32 which in its latest configuration did not look bad an would have done the job.
The USN needs is own mission-defined F/A-XX and a good semi-LO medium attack platform which they really need. A production version of the X-47B would have been good and a well defined future USN CCA, if done right, yes, just common sense.
When I was on CVN-65 in the early 1980's and on our '82-'83 WestPac, here was our aircraft mix:
F-14, A-6/KA-6, EA-6, A-7, S-3, C-2, E-2, C-1 (short haul COD), and SH-3. We also deployed EA-3 and USMC F-4s and A-6s (took them onboard when in NAS Cubi Point). With this mix, every mission covered and were very effective. Hell, the USN could have made good use of the production version of the X-32 which in its latest configuration did not look bad an would have done the job.
The USN needs is own mission-defined F/A-XX and a good semi-LO medium attack platform which they really need. A production version of the X-47B would have been good and a well defined future USN CCA, if done right, yes, just common sense.
