Originally Posted by
Heathrow Harry
I think the US Navy always felt the C model of the F-35 was a pig in a poke.
The Navy has often been frustrated with the Joint "one size fits all" mantra spouted by politicians who have little technical understanding. But they got on board the program because there was no other choice.
The US Navy has seldom gone for deep strike missions for application of naval aviation.
I don't think you have much of a clue about the US Navy, Harry. This isn't the first time I've found your assertions on that score to be out of synch. I would be curious in getting an idea about what you think deep strike is. Your definition would be of interest, but as written you have offered a vague platitude. (Your point on cruise missiles is OK, they are a mixed blessing and are good for some missions, not as good for some others).
A-5, A-6 (with EA-6B support) and A-12 (our first go at a stealth strike platform that ran into serious troubles as it was to replace our A-6 but died in the acquisition process) all are deep strike capabilities (and roles and missions areas) that go back some decades. Not_a_boffin's point on the Tomcat/Bombcat is well made. (I recall a few missions from carriers in the PG up into Northern Iraq around Tal Afar over a decade ago, CAS/Strike). Part of the appeal of A-12, had it come to fruition rather than dying a horrible death, was its capacity for strikes that avoid IADS networks, and avoid the need for the SEAD war first ...
Does the USN have a Buff (B-52)? No. That's the USAF's bailiwick.