News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:F-35 Program Cutting Corners to “Complete” Development by chrisseaton on Thursday August 30, 2018 @02:15PM (#17879212)
> Other countries operate on the principal that "if it flies, it is airforce", which moots most all of this debate

Other countries have naval aviation don't they? What do you think the French fly off their carriers? What do you think the British plan to fly off theirs? (The British are actually planning to fly both Royal Air Force and Royal Navy aviators off theirs.) The British Royal Marines also sometimes fly fast air, when they have aircraft, but only as part of the Naval Service.

Re:F-35 Program Cutting Corners to “Complete” Development by sandworm101 on Thursday August 30, 2018 @02:58PM (#17879665)
There are different approaches to naval aviation. On one end is the canadian approach, where the helicopters living on ships are run by entirely airforce crews. On the other is the American/Russian total separation of branches, to the point that navy pilots don't even call themselves pilots (Tom Cruise played a "naval aviator"). In the middle are solutions like the Australians, where all pilots are trained by the air force and are then transfered to naval aviation squadrons for type training.

All these countries have very different military cultures between air force and navy. Navies, people who drive ships, generally have more ridged rank structures. Airforces, groups that fly aircraft, delegate authority according to job descriptions. There are historical and practical reasons for this, mostly linked to minimum team sizes, but safe to say the two cultures can conflict. Keeping some degree of separation reduces conflicts and increases cooperation/safety.