Home » News » Acquisition Reform » Could the Marines Get F-35Cs?

Could the Marines Get F-35Cs?

by John Reed on November 24, 2010

Given all the bad news coming out about the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter program in recent weeks, I asked Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz if he is concerned that any cuts to the Marines troubled F-35B program could hurt the Air Force:

“If we don’t produce the same amount of airplanes, clearly there’s cost impacts” said Schwartz. “The F-35 is important to lots of folks [three U.S. armed services and eight international partners] and my expectation is that both government and industry will get after making this right.”

In the wake of Britain’s move to swap its F-35Bs for F-35C carrier variants and the recent suggestion by the presidentially-mandated deficit reduction panel that the U.S. should cut the F-35B, one has think that the Pentagon is at least considering swapping the B-model JSF and replacing it with the C.

This move would keep overall F-35 purchase numbers high and would redirect resources away from the troubled B and into the A and C-programs. The Marines would lose the ability to fly from smaller ships and austere ground sites, but with the C they would maintain a modern ship-borne fighter fleet. The Pentagon is likely asking how often the Marines’ fleet of AV-8B Harrier jump jets’s ability to fly from amphibious assault ships or random forward locations has been key to an operation?  In theory it gives the Marines a critical edge — but in practice … maybe not.

Check out this article from Armed Forces Journal weighing the merits of forward basing STOVL jets. It makes an interesting point about the cost of keeping a plane like the F-35B close to the front lines:

Forward basing is more than a logistical quagmire. As the price continues to climb and the number scheduled for purchase continues to descend, these aircraft will become national assets that are closely guarded, and the U.S. does not typically stage national assets within range of the enemy’s indirect fires.

In 2005, a rocket attack destroyed one British Harrier and damaged another while they sat on the ramp in Kandahar, Afghanistan. It seems unrealistic to expect $120-million, fifth-generation STOVL fighters like the F-35B to operate out of forward bases or austere locations. They may retain the capability to do so, but at the expense of range, useful load and a higher purchase price.

If the Marines lose the F-35B, they could try to rely on older F/A-18 Hornets and Harriers, but how useful will these legacy jets be in the coming decades against anything but insurgents? Another option is to buy new F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, a jet the Navy already plans to use in tandem with the F-35. This might make sense. The Super Hornet would give the Marines low-cost, quality fast jet air support that’s better equipped to deal with 21st Century air defenses than older F/A-18s.

However, either of these moves would reduce purchases of F-35s by the hundreds. This would increase the overall cost of the airplane — something no one wants to see given the government’s troubled fiscal climate.

Buying C-model jets would give the Marines modern, carrier-borne tacair jets with considerably more range and payload than the B and would help keep the cost of the overall F-35 program stable compared to rising fixed costs caused by dropping hundreds of jets. (There would still some financial waves via sunk costs from pulling out of the B). The amphibious service would lose its ability to operate from certain ships or bases, but it would retain a stealthy fighter capable of being deployed on ships that’s cheaper (on a per-unit basis) than the F-35B.

I’m not saying this is the best route or even what will happen. But like I said earlier, F-35 Program Manager Vice Adm. David Venlet and his team have got to be at least weighing these factors as they plot the future of the F-35 program. 

– John Reed

Share |

{ 151 comments… read them below or add one }

Charley November 24, 2010 at 11:59 am

Or they could buy F/A-18E/F's equipped with DTS. Why do you need stealth for CAS?

Reply

@Earlydawn November 24, 2010 at 7:35 pm

Nail, hammered.

Reply

Belesari November 24, 2010 at 9:08 pm

The Marines are more stuck on VTOL than stealth i believe.

Reply

Oblat November 24, 2010 at 12:16 pm

“If we don’t produce the same amount of airplanes, clearly there’s cost impacts”

Sure does, less aircraft cost less.

Reply

Michael November 24, 2010 at 1:29 pm

Less absolute cost, higher per unit cost.

I'm an accountant…and you're welcome.

Reply

danf November 24, 2010 at 11:56 pm

The billions spent so far are R&D costs. Whatever that amount is, is spread over the entire production run. Thus there is flyaway cost which is one number and there is program cost which is fly away cost plus each produced aircrafts share of R&D. Thus as you reduce the size of the buy, the cost per aircraft increases. In the twisted logic of government accounting, this unit cost increase then justifies the next program reduction…the R&D cost is sunk cost. Those dollars will never be recovered even if the entire program is cancelled.

Reply

Pat November 25, 2010 at 1:13 pm

Sorry, but cutting aircraft cost more in the long run. Congress has a history of cutting buys which jacks up the price whic results in cancelling the program.

Reply

Craig November 29, 2010 at 10:00 am

Yeah sorry but less aircraft definitely affects costs by making it rise if you dont believe me look at the almost 2 billion dollar an aircraft B-2!!!!

Reply

Oblat November 24, 2010 at 12:23 pm

The defense industry uses constant profit budgeting. The objective is not capability it is maintaining the profit no matter what is delivered. That's why they can claim that buying less aircraft costs more. It has to to maintain the profits.

The only solution is to terminate programs. Nibbling away at them makes no difference.

Reply

Belesari November 24, 2010 at 1:23 pm

Yes but when you count in the R&D dev. cost it gets to be more with the less aircraft delivered.

Reply

@Earlydawn November 24, 2010 at 7:35 pm

Have you ever studied business? You should probably look up "Economy of Scale"

Reply

Brian November 24, 2010 at 12:50 pm

The only reason for the Marines to buy the F35 is the B version, its the only one that has a unique capability, the ability to forward base. HTe F-35C's will already be on the carriers, so there is no reason for the marines to put more C's there when they can rely on the Navy on it for tactical air support.

When you get down it, what they are trying to do is take away the aviation wing away from the marines. Gates is probably thinking, why do we need another service with an air wing when they can just get air support for the navy and the air force?

Reply

Joe Schmoe November 24, 2010 at 11:07 pm

And he would be right…

Reply

@MrKopfschuss November 25, 2010 at 4:13 am

The idea of simplicity by cutting the MC Air Wing sounds nice, but it also sounds like guys on the ground would need to go through more channels to get CAS. I'm not sure if it would be as easy to get CAS from your own guys or the Navy or AF, but I'm not sure how it works.

Reply

Joe Schmoe November 25, 2010 at 5:53 am

Then that is a problem between the armed forces, and not the American taxpayer.

Reply

Beltway Bandit November 28, 2010 at 10:25 pm

Which history has shown cares SO MUCH about the service member in the first place.

Now go get your food stamps and pick up a pack of cigs. Don't worry about cancer the government has got you!

Throttle November 30, 2010 at 11:04 am

Actually, the Marines absolutely need their own air wing for CAS. Marines operate forward of most other services as part of their "force in readiness" mandate. If the President needs boots on the ground anywhere in the world, Marines will be there within 24 hours. All other branches have to wait for Congress to approve action, whereas Marines respond direclty to presidential orders. We all know Congress can't agree on anything. Therefore, for Marines need to have any and all assets available to them, including air support as part of their warfighting doctrine, know as the Marine Air-Ground Task Force.

Reply

blight November 30, 2010 at 9:32 pm

The Marines are subject to War Powers Act just like the other branches. The president can order units to areas as part of his responsibilities, but a declaration of war still requires congress (see both AUMF against "terrorists" and "Iraq").

There are constraints on moving the army around though that certainly don't exist with parking marine units…

However, I'm sure the Special Activities Division operates with little if any oversight.

Reply

mike November 25, 2010 at 1:12 pm

It's very simple, the Navy and the Air Force primaraly see to air superiority. Marine pilots are just that, Marines. They train and live hand in hand with the grunts on the ground, thay live and breath CAS. Just look at the planes they fly, how many fighter/attack aircraft does the Air Force have? The A-10 (which they have been trying to get rid of since 1991).

Reply

Joe Schmoe November 25, 2010 at 7:39 pm

Mike, please stop posting useless PR.

The AF has more planes then I can count off the top of my head:

F-15E
F-16 (all variants)
F-22
F-35 (soon)
A-10
Predator

How many do the Marines have again?

And stop the BS about live hand in hand, what are you dreaming up? By that account the AF also does that since they have their own infantry that secure the airbases.

Reply

crackedlenses November 25, 2010 at 8:12 pm

But the AF are not Marines….If I have read correctly, the Marines prefer their own supporting them from the skies…..

Reply

Joe Schmoe November 26, 2010 at 4:42 am

Then let them take it up with their psychologist.

Again, inter-service bickering has to stop, this is just stealing from the U.S. taxpayer. This is the modern age with full inter-service/unit integration, anyone who does not want to join should be disbanded, period. Then let them take it up with their psychologist.

Beltway Bandit November 28, 2010 at 10:28 pm

Actually there is some truth to his statement.
Every dropped a 500 lbs on a terrorist's forehead from a dude you used to drink beers with at the Hawk? There is a level of confidence between Marines others do not and can not understand.

Reply

phillip simpson November 24, 2010 at 12:50 pm

This is one of the best ideas, but USMC will not take it. They have sold their soul’s to the devil for VSTOL. Very few of the reasons for VSTOL actually hold up well to additional scrutiny.

1. Austure short fields….. Problem you have to get the people and supplies to that austure field which is a logistical nightmare. So instead of trucking (or flying a large aircraft) into a larger established field you now need to take tactical lift to move stuff so the VSTOL can be armed. It does not matter if your 10minutes from the front line if you have nothing to shoot or drop on the bad guy

2. Amphibs……. Putting only 6 onboard a LHA/LHD class does not give you a robust air force that can actually do anything more than piss off the country you attack. Any nation large enough or modern enough to have radar guided SAMS or and IADs…. you will need more than 6 planes…. you will need tanking… you will need AWACs…. and you dont have that onboard a LHA…. but you do on a CVN

3. Going to a pure airfleet for TACAIR. The Marines want to replace everything (Harrier, Prowler..F-18A-D) with a Common platform guess what the Navy is doing… ah yes a F-18E/F/G… outside of the VSTOL… it can do the job

Reply

Beltway Bandit November 28, 2010 at 10:29 pm

You have no clue how the USMC fights.

Reply

Seeker November 29, 2010 at 3:49 pm

I agree, VSTOL is a pipe dream. Dumb down payload and range with engines incapcable of sucking up so much as a pebble. Yeah you might land the damn thing on a road or tennis court, but it won't take off again without engine replacement. They are maintenance whores too. Give the Marines some A-10's to do CAS and the F-35 C variant for Air and Amphibious operations. Leave helos to the Gator Freighters and stop pretending you can repel a nations air force with 6 VSTOL lawn darts on a damn beach invasion!

Reply

SMSgt Mac December 1, 2010 at 10:37 pm

Depending on force package, there are anywhere from 6 to 22 F-35Bs planned for the LHAs. 2 LHAs: figure 30 F-35Bs available average. More if you use the CVs to push to the LHAs and then to shore when practical. Think reverse WW2 'Jeep' carrier concept. You've got C-130s, C-17s , and even C-5s if neccessary to push stuff forward fast as well as fast sealift if you're not going 'beyond the beach'. Yes seaborne assault is hard – that's why we have the Marines do it.
The F-18E/F is a target against all but the most primitive IADS.

Reply

blight November 24, 2010 at 1:06 pm

Tilt rotor CAS is looking better and better every day. That or spin off VTOL JSF into a seperate program and let the Marines fund it (along with EFV, V-22 etc), and continue with F-35A & C.

Logistically one would retask engineers and prioritize the rest of the JSF program first, and try and fix F-35B later on. Maybe we should've given Boeing the JSF contract and Lockheed the VTOL…

Reply

Belesari November 24, 2010 at 1:37 pm

I used to believe we needed the F-35 and that it would be worth it but, Not so much anymore.

ALL current navy fighter/bombers have far to short of legs to provide sufficent aircover for the fleet. The vaunted stealth systems have proven susceptable to even the poorer militaries.
While i agree to stealth in some aplication like the heavy bombers and such to dedicate and count on it entirely to the exclusio of everything else in our fighter and strikefighters is stupidity.

As for a VTOL aircraft for the marines? Well i think they need one. Does it need all the wizbang crap and stealth? No.

Hell make a Navalized version of the A-10….there's ya a attack bird.

Reply

@MrKopfschuss November 25, 2010 at 4:05 am

A-10N…

Do want…

Reply

SMSgt Mac November 24, 2010 at 1:56 pm

RE: "The Pentagon is likely asking how often the Marines’ fleet of AV-8B Harrier jump jets’s ability to fly from amphibious assault ships or random forward locations has been key to an operation?"

A complete swing and a miss. Try: "The Marines are likely telling the Pentagon how often the Marines’ STOVL fleet of F-35B's will be able to fly from amphibious assault ships or random forward locations, and how separating Marine Air from the big deck carrier bottleneck will enhance their abillity to project MAGTF power more quickly and to more places at the same time." There, all fixed: a more nuanced POV that has the added advantage of being true.

And BTW: I'm starting to wonder, is there an Aerospace 'JournoList' we need to know about? Just Askin'!

Reply

Tony C November 24, 2010 at 2:08 pm

The F-35 debate is reminicent of the F-111 debate in the 1960's. No one plane has ever been able to meet all of the conflicting requirements. The one plane fits all mentality from the McNamara era lead to the F-4 Phantom being used by all the services. The F-4 was not an optimal solution for CAS, so the A1-D Skyraider was the CAS. The AV-8B can perform CAS and the F-35B can perform CAS. The F-35C may be another F-4 Phantom debacle in the making for the Marine CAS. The marines in Viet Nam were not hitting the beach, but needed CAS as close as possible. Given the fiscal environment and technical difficulties, the F-35C would be better than nothing. Don't be suprised if the AH-1Z becomes the CAS and the F-35C the CAP. Two platforms to perform one mission.

Reply

Dennis November 24, 2010 at 2:11 pm

For me it seems there between a rock and a hard place. You have problems with the B version. The LHA's and LHD's cant hold enough of them ot make them a small carrir like the CVE in WW2. You cant have them on the CVN's because the carriers cannot hang around in a small area supporting marines. We learnt that lession at Guadalcanal, when we lost one carrier and almost another to submarine. To me it is more of an option that the marines hand over the duty to the Army after the beach head is secure and then the Army stablishes a airbase as quickly as possible and then the Airforce is flown in to operate from the base.

Reply

Ian James December 1, 2010 at 11:18 am

That is actually all we Marines are supposed to do….secure an area and then hand it over to the Army for the occupation but it seems that all the generals have forgotten about that.

Reply

William C. November 24, 2010 at 2:46 pm

Kill the F-35B and you might as well restart with a clean sheet of paper in my opinion. The F-35 has been a troubled program, yet it has made progress and the F-35B is the last, best hope for a new STOVL fighter anytime soon.

Reply

@Earlydawn November 24, 2010 at 6:58 pm

I've never understood your stance on this issue. The F-35 program was built around achieving economy of scale – developing one fusion of systems that can be adapted for three different purposes, without the cost of three different programs. The DoD could axe the B, and the Air Force and Navy would be all the better for it. Why throw out two decades of program because of the cancellation of the smallest component?

Besides, there's really no market for the B anymore.

Reply

John Moore November 24, 2010 at 5:02 pm

I say keep the B and the Cfor carriers but ditch the regular landing craft and go with more f-22's

Reply

ThunderFromDownUnder November 25, 2010 at 4:38 am

You do realize the F-35A is the international fighter? You know, the one all the USAs allies will be flying, if you ditch the A the foreign buys of the 35 go away, forcing the price up for ALL the other 35s the USA would buy!

Reply

gunfighter8 November 24, 2010 at 5:22 pm

Any combi airplane is not really great at any task-adequate yes-great.. no.. The A10 is a killer cas bird, The F16A was a great superiority weapon.. I see th F22 with a 146M price tag?? Still no look shoot??? When you hang all the krap on any bird it degrades the envelope. How about a cheap cas turbo (endurance) bird with lots of armor.. A superiority bird like the F16A, The chinese are building 3-5000 per type, How exactly do you cope with 150 Air to ship attacks at once?? Or maybe 300?? Will 1 get thru?? of 3 exocets 2 got thru in the Falklands. We had the best mig killer in theatre, best kill ratio bar none, and were replaced by F4 trucks that we could kill quick…..BUT we were gunfighter trained, and the whiz kids wanted a multi role (F4) dog. The F83 tested at 2.4 in 1960! " When you're out of F-8's you're out of fighters"..

Reply

pedestrian November 24, 2010 at 6:42 pm

If F-35B are going to be gone, then just build more F-22A and build the naval variant F-22N.

Reply

STemplar November 25, 2010 at 3:08 am

And take a $330 million dollar plane and turn into a half a billion dollar tactical aircraft with insufficient range. Not a terribly good idea.

Reply

mike November 25, 2010 at 1:25 pm

Can someone please explain the fasination of the F-22 to me? It is a POS, crappy aircraft. It can only serve one function (fighter, to call it an F/A is a joke). There is already talk of pirating tech from the JSF to upgrade the F-22. It doesn't have the look and shoot ability of the F/A-35, a very limited amount of armament(The JSF atleast has external hardpoints for when it nolonger needs stealth). It hansn't even seen combat and we have already lost several of them. And you want to scrap the JSF for this jem of an aircraft?

Reply

Joe Schmoe November 25, 2010 at 4:31 pm

What…Where…?

The reason the F-35 exists is because it was supposed to be a cheaper airplane, period. The F-22 is more capable in every way.

The F-22 carries more munitions, has a more advanced radar and data suite. Better range and speed to get there (supercruise). It is full stealth unlike the K-band stealth of the JSF, which is still vulnerable to the sides and rear.

And now, the F-22 costs less (if produced on same scale)…

Reply

crackedlenses November 26, 2010 at 10:42 am

I read originally that the F-35 and F-22 were supposed to complement each other, like the way the F-15 and F-16 were used. That said, I totally agree that the F-22 is more capable than the F-35…..

Reply

El Gato November 24, 2010 at 6:44 pm

Apparently many of you failed to note the design change to the new America class LHA's.
First off, there IS NO WELL DECK, THEREFORE THERE IS MORE ROOM TO CARRY MORE AIRCRAFT. There is double the amount of hangar space, and could handle up to two squadrons of B models without helos on them. It is a force multiplier, combining the B's with the new LHA's.
Secondly, give up the A-10 CAS for carriers. It's a pipe dream, not designed for such operations. The first time it caught a wire even with a beefed up tail, I could see both engines shearing off from the sudden stop. Look at the design differences between the A and C.
f-35's. Way different landing gear set up structurally. You need beef on them legs to launch and land on Carriers. Not to mention the nose landing gear on an A-10 is off center to start with. To add all the reinforcement to the A-10 to make it carrier ready would unmake it for what it is and what makes it good.
I look for the Marine Corps to do a split buy, replacing the Harriers with the B models and the F/18s with the C model. Makes more sense in the long run

Reply

@Earlydawn November 24, 2010 at 6:53 pm

I believe the idea is sacrificing the LHA F-35 complement in favor of more helicopters, and then putting the Cs on the supercarriers, as you said.

Regardless, this is all irrelevant if the Marine Corps can't afford them.

Reply

@Earlydawn November 24, 2010 at 6:49 pm

I very rarely call BS on DefenseTech's wording or reporting, but c'mon. the F/A-18 Super Hornet is only useful against "insurgents"? Give me a break. It is a perfectly viable 4.5+ generation aircraft that still carries weight against competitors. Give it a block upgrade for better sensors and fire control, and you still have an aircraft that can beat 99% of the platforms that the U.S. is remotely likely to fight this century.

Reply

Joe Schmoe November 24, 2010 at 11:17 pm

But it doesn't carry all the flashy slogans and keywords that the F-35 has..

Reply

blight November 24, 2010 at 8:08 pm

Harrier replacement is probably the most urgent; though the volume of that build is small in comparison to the numbers of F-16s et al that need replacement.

Reply

blight November 24, 2010 at 8:10 pm

If we accept that a gator force afloat was never going to have enough airpower to affect the fight, then we may as well turn them into helicopter carriers; operating in conjunction with Navy carriers.

That or if the Marines want to try JATO with a JSF-C, but I don't know if it'd make a difference in enabling takeoff.

Reply

Jonathan November 24, 2010 at 9:07 pm

Does anyone know what happened with the plan to buy the COIN aircraft? Not sure if COIN is the right term.

The Army or Marines were planning to buy propeller driven light bombers/ground attack/recon planes like the ones we had in WWII and vietnam.

I thought that was a really cool idea and was wondering what they came up with or if they ever went forward with it.

Reply

Justin H November 25, 2010 at 2:07 am

I believed they cancelled it.

Reply

STemplar November 25, 2010 at 3:12 am

And then reincarnated it. There is probably still going to be some kind of buy. The cost savings on flight hours was undeniable to say nothing of the lower per unit cost.

Reply

Justin H November 25, 2010 at 4:26 pm

It sounds like its a backburner program with not much seriousness to it.

Reply

Justin H November 25, 2010 at 12:41 am

The Marines dont always get what they want, so dont give them the F-35B. Give them Boeing's Gen 4.75 Hornet (Silent Hornet). Would it be possible to give the Marines 1 or 2 carriers that either recently retired or are going to be rertired soon? Just overhual/refurbish them.

Reply

Justin H November 25, 2010 at 12:51 am

Kitty Hawk, Constellation, and Enterprise. I don't see why we can get another 20 years of service out of two or all three of them. Load them each with Super Hornets or Silent Hornets, UCAVs, and a few attack helicopters.

Reply

Nadnerbus November 25, 2010 at 2:08 am

And all that would cost would be the one to two million dollars a day, plus sunk costs of overhauling them, recruiting and training all the 5000 sailors to man them, plus the cost of the aircraft.

Not that I am against having more carriers at sea, regardless of the service operating them, but the issue here is cost. Putting additional supercarriers to sea costs a lot of money, and those are ongoing costs, not one time costs.

Reply

praetorian November 26, 2010 at 12:34 pm

The Kitty Hawk & Constellation are both powered by gas turbines. The Enterprise,
when it was made, was made with 6 nuclear reactors. All Nimitz class carries have upgraded reactors, so they only carry two. The Enterprise might have had it's reactors
upgraded with the two new ones in one of her SLEP programs, im not sure. All LHD
ships now are non-nuclear. Does the Marines want to go nuclear ??
Just throwing this out there.

Reply

@MrKopfschuss November 26, 2010 at 10:12 pm

Yeah, outfit them with new reactors, slap on some new paint, there ya go.

Reply

@MrKopfschuss November 25, 2010 at 3:50 am

I love the Marines, but I think they'll be okay with their F-18's for the time being.

Of course they'll have to upgrade in the future, but not for another 10-20 years.

Reply

@MrKopfschuss November 25, 2010 at 3:59 am

Ha, the world's elite expeditionary force, able to be anywhere in the world in 6 hours and destroy it overnight. Efficient, swift, accurate, and incredibly lethal. Sounds like something we should scrap.

I don't why I'm feeding a troll, but I hope its rat poison.

Reply

alex November 25, 2010 at 4:10 am

And when was the last time, exactly, that they did that? For the last decade they've been straight-leg infantry with different cammo.

Reply

John November 29, 2010 at 1:38 am

When was the last time they did that?
1. The 400nm over the horizon assault on Camp Rhino in Afganistan in 2001/2002.
2. Sunami relief 2004
3. The embassay evacuation in Lebanon 2006
4. Disaster relief Bangladesh 2007
5. Disaster relief Indonesia 2009
6. Disaster relief Haiti 2010
Thats not even counting the thousands of sorties flown from ship to shore supporting ground troops in both Iraq and Afganistan.

Reply

Joe Schmoe November 29, 2010 at 12:53 pm

So disaster relief = assaulting fortified beaches?

Reply

blight December 1, 2010 at 10:37 pm

All those missions were done historically by the Marines in the 1800s, when they were embarked aboard ships to snipe enemy officers. A far cry of the Marine Corps of today, which is probably larger than many European armies. The ROKMC used to be roughly the size of the modern Marine corps, but has contracted quite significantly…

Reply

Brian Black November 25, 2010 at 7:46 am

If the future marine corps won’t be able to operate STOVL aircraft from assault ships, then is there any reason for the corps to have any fixed wing ship born aircraft at all?

Once you lose the unique STOVL capability and rely on the presence of a navy carrier to support marine ops, isn’t it time to rationalize carrier aviation within the one service?

If the marines should operate any fixed wing aircraft, surely they should get A10 and leave the big sky to the air force and navy.

Reply

Oblat November 25, 2010 at 8:10 am

Only in the imaginary world of Marine PR.

When the bases in Afghanistan needed to be destroyed the marines strung into action and drew up long lists of why they couldn't go for 6 months.

Reply

Blight November 25, 2010 at 10:36 am

In WW2 the Marines relied on CAS from Navy carriers. Guess it’s time to go back. They can go back to helicopter carriers or some sort of ski jump system to get planes on the air.

How much runway does it take to launch a Hornet? On second thought, extending the flight deck probably isn’t possible or safe..

Reply

jhstoneca November 25, 2010 at 11:47 am

Marine pilots, flying F35C and/or F/A18 providing CAS from Navy carriers seems to make the most sense. Leave CAP and Intercept to the Navy.

Forward deployment is a job for helos, not jets, otherwise resurect the Sky Raider.

Reply

Blight November 25, 2010 at 12:23 pm

Or jet powered seaplanes, which were tested decades ago. What runway…?

Reply

Joe Schmoe November 25, 2010 at 12:53 pm

Maintenance on them was insane.

And face it, do you really want them to try to invent another plane seeing how they are doing so far…

Reply

crackedlenses November 25, 2010 at 8:18 pm

I'm sure that if we all went back to anything that's not new all of our problems will magically go away and the terrorists will fall at our feet…..

sarcasm/ off

Reply

Blight November 26, 2010 at 12:11 pm

Your choice is between procuring a plane that can take off on the deck you have, switching to tilt rotor or extending flight deck and installing catapults. The issue with Marine amphib if that they are constrained by the need to embark troops and equipment which cuts into the air wing. Marine CAS would require a dedicated carrier to do properly, which would allow proper loading of vessels for troop embarkation instead of having six JSFs, parts and munitions competing for space.

Reply

Belesari November 26, 2010 at 1:47 pm

What happens when they hit high seas. Face it no matter what you do you need to have a Ship there for maitanence and repair and rearm as well as for the pilots.

None of this even matters. Current US military systems lack the range of antiships systems and no one give a dang. Hell we sell better to our allies than we use.

Pat November 25, 2010 at 1:20 pm

The Marines can whip anybody and especially Army pukes. Marines can be on the scene rapidly while the army takes weeks to get any forces in place. They can drop the 82nd in short time but with no heavy armor or artillery.

Reply

Joe Schmoe November 25, 2010 at 4:33 pm

Yes, yes.

In which imaginary world?

Name me one instance in recent years that this theoretical advantage matters, or where it might theoretically matter in the future.

Reply

El Gato November 25, 2010 at 6:32 pm

Don't see any reports of the army doing anything in A-Stan to take any territory back from the Taliban. All Marines. They cleaned up Iraq, Now they will clean up the Army's next mess they left.

Reply

Joe Schmoe November 25, 2010 at 7:42 pm

Sure… You keep thinking that. Now run along and play, let the big boys do the work which you try to take credit for.

Reply

crackedlenses November 25, 2010 at 8:16 pm

And you are……?

Blight November 26, 2010 at 12:16 pm

Marines were in Camp Rhino shortly after the CIA deposed the Taliban but haven't really done much in comparison to the Rangers and Airborne, which fought Anaconda, followed by holding actions along the AfPak border. The Taliban bloomed in the south right around Camp Rhino, so is that the Army too?

Interservice rivalry, what a mess.

Reply

Joe Schmoe November 26, 2010 at 1:24 pm

Yep, and the taxpayer pays for it.

Honestly, when will they just leave their feather prides at the door and start to work together.

Ian James December 1, 2010 at 11:37 am

We haven't done much in comparison to the Rangers or Airborne? What about taking Marjah and now running stability operations there?

crackedlenses November 26, 2010 at 10:40 am

So now we're out of room on the ships? They could have just said that early on and saved all the arguing……

sarcasm/ off

Reply

LTCMike69 November 26, 2010 at 1:35 pm

The days of Marine fixed wing aircraft for any role except CAS are over. In any conceivable operation the Marines might conduct they will have Navy aircraft employed for counter-air and strike missions before the first troops land. No more Cactus Air Force (born of necessity) of Guadalcanal. No more fighter jock aces (Joe Foss). Air interception and deep strikes are for the Navy and Air Force.

Perhaps the A-29B Super Tucano can do the CAS job if it can operate from dirt airstrips, not require a huge logistics support effort, get the weapons on target, and survive. You do not need a $125 million stealth airplane for CAS! Get an armored Skyraider or a P-47.

One can easily argue the reduction of the USMC to three active and one reserve brigades. Does anyone seriously contemplate a successful seaborne assault against a sophisticated, well trained enemy who is equipped with modern aircraft, missiles, and smart bombs? Remember, the Navy has no heavy cannons for shore bombardment and history shows even that does not work completely against a well dug in enemy. Against a less capable enemy a brigade or certainly a division could make and hold the lodgement until the Army arrives.

Reply

Infidel4LIFE November 26, 2010 at 1:58 pm

times a wastin' drop the B and go w/ the C. MAGTF will still be using Harriers. Should have sold the Raptor to the Japanese, to keep the line rolling and add more to our fleet. 187? That is low.

Reply

Blight November 26, 2010 at 2:10 pm

I would say divest the B from the other JSF and let the Marines pay for continued development. Get A and C out if it's feasible, and if having the freedom of not having to tradeoff between VTOL and conventional in the same core design can save both Programs LM can give itself a pat on the back and a bonus…

Reply

Blight November 26, 2010 at 2:12 pm

Alternatively go back to the original manufacturer of the Harrier and help them pay for a new design, or re engine based on Boeing or LM VTOL systems, plus new electronics.

Reply

Justin H November 26, 2010 at 6:49 pm

They should have slowed down production. But I'm hoping with the rising cost/delays to the F-35 and Russia working on the PAK-FA, that Congress will give the Air Force more money to buy F-22s.

Reply

Justin H November 26, 2010 at 6:45 pm

Speaking of COIN aircraft, why not arm some T-38s or F-5s. Or buy some TA-50 light attack aircraft? They are all cheaper than F-16s and F-18s, and they are still supersonic incase they need to get to a target quickly.

Reply

Justin H November 26, 2010 at 6:53 pm

Another CAS/COIN option could be the BAE Hawk. Anyway here is a pic of the TA-50 http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_

Reply

Jon November 26, 2010 at 7:34 pm

I'm just happy I'm goin back to the army, don't have to worry to much bout the leathernecks ambition to do "everything." I do agree that they need to weigh the cost and practicality benefits of the billion $$$ uber plane, but at least I know I'll be getting a new and improved m4 rifle, maybe a new one soon, and as long as someone up above is providing me accurate and effective cas I don't care if its a red baron bi plane, f35, or will smith in a UFO

Reply

RetiredSailor1 November 27, 2010 at 3:42 am

Just scrap the piece of crap and buy our jets from someone else.

Reply

Jeff M November 27, 2010 at 2:07 pm

The way I see it this isn't a question of the bottom line, this is a strategic decision that our beloved commander in chief must decide.

You can go the big and expensive direction which is many F-35C on nuclear powered nimitz class aircraft carriers, and project a wider radius over 1 location, or you can go small and nimble with diesel powered ships and fewer aircraft with shorter range, and 3 or 4 different locations.

The thing that I think shifts this picture to the small/nimble force is that our missiles are the most advanced in the world, you don't need to fly farther for deep strikes and all that, I think the job of the 21st century will be patrolling coastal territories and islands and things.

When you look at the big, strategic picture, cutting 10 billion here and losing the VTOL fighter jets is a major loss of capabilities. These nimitz class carriers cost a billion dollars a year just to operate. We'll see more 21st century engagements I think where you just need "a presence" in some region, you don't need the flotilla that comes with the nimitz in every case. You need a ship with 100 marines, the means to deliver them (helos) and air defenses (jets). Remember the F-35C is ONLY used on the nimitz class carriers. The F-35B is far more versatile.

I would scrap the F-35C entirely and buy super hornets, and keep the F-35B, if the choice were mine. The F-35C actually seems like the odd duck, to me.

Reply

Joe Schmoe November 27, 2010 at 4:16 pm

"Remember the F-35C is ONLY used on the nimitz class carriers. The F-35B is far more versatile. "

Wrong.

The F-35C is to be used by the British navy as well. The F-35B is only used by the Marine Corps. If anything scrap the F-35B.

Reply

Jeff M November 29, 2010 at 1:36 am

Are you British or something? How much longer do you think the British will have aircraft carriers? That wouldn't factor into my decision at all.

Reply

Justin H November 27, 2010 at 4:22 pm

Do any other country's Marines have attack aircraft or fighter/bombers?

Reply

arias November 28, 2010 at 4:38 pm

Here is a suggestion, shut the **** up about the f-22. Its a dead program.

Reply

Justin H November 28, 2010 at 6:40 pm

The current defense budget is already $47Billion less than what the Joint Chiefs had asked for.

Reply

PrahaPartizan November 29, 2010 at 12:32 pm

Lockheed-Martin was selected to build the JSF program solely because of their claimed ability to produce the F35B. Knock out that version and the Department of Defense suddenly finds that it should have gone with the Boeing version. Boeing isn't going to forget that and I don't suspect they will be very forgiving either. Frankly, at this point Boeing should and likely will press the Defense Department to just dump the entire JSF program and shift over to UCAVs, which offer much greater growth potential over the long run. The fly boys might not like it, but they've had their chance and stumbled badly in the process.

Reply

blight November 29, 2010 at 2:18 pm

Good point. I still think we should split VTOL from the rest of JSF, and let Boeing go ahead and finish one of the variants. Hard to imagine that any nation will have all three variants of AF, Navy and MC asides from the US. Most nations seem to want the AF variant more than anything, and won't cry so much if the MC variant drops out of commonality.

Reply

elgatoso December 1, 2010 at 1:49 am

UCAV is not there yet

Reply

Tim November 29, 2010 at 1:30 pm

As a lower cost alternative to above mentioned aircraft, what about an upgraded and weaponized version of the T-45 Goshawk? It's already in the Naval inventory, has descent range and payload and can take off from carriers. I also presume it would be simpler to maintain in the field.

Reply

Devilpup November 29, 2010 at 4:06 pm

Here is a thought, why not strip the stealth crap out of the F-35? for what the Marines are using it for, stealth really isnt necessary and its driving up the costs. but the ability to launch anywhere, at anytime due to VTOL is a skill worth having.
also, switching to the C wouldnt work as well as people think. the A and B models have a smaller wing area than the C does, and switching to the Charlie is STILL going to take up more space. shut the hell up, give the Marines a destealthed F-35, and lets get on with it!

Reply

phrogdriver December 1, 2010 at 10:02 pm

Most of the stealth "crap" is built into the airframe. It's part of the materials used to build it. There are other features, like internal weapons bays, but again, you'll pay more to take them out. It's like going to a car dealership and asking them to take $1000 off if they remove the a/c. You really won't save anything that way.

Reply

DualityOfMan November 29, 2010 at 4:44 pm

The whole program was a stupid idea in the first place. You'd think we would have learned this lesson with McNamara's F-111 – jack of all trades aircraft end up being a waste, because they're good in one role, generally bad in the others, and end up being more expensive than necessary.

Why does the USMC need a supersonic multirole stealth fighter that can take off vertically? Why can't air-to-air combat and longer-range strike be left to the Navy and Air Force? If that were the case, the Marines could have a VTOL or STOL aircraft better suited to the CAS role than the F-35B, while the Navy and Air Force would have a lighter, cheaper, more maneuverable, less-compromised aircraft.

Reply

blight November 30, 2010 at 9:34 pm

What kind of compromises are made in the macro-scale JSF aircraft in the name of compatibility with the VTOL mission? Now I really want to know out of curiosity…

Reply

DualityOfMan December 1, 2010 at 2:01 am

Size and airframe layout, probably.
There's also the need for parallel development – if Pratt & Whitney changes the size of the F135 STOVL, it changes the packaging requirement for the F-35B and, due to commonality concerns, the F-35A. It makes the whole program larger and more complicated. Smaller programs should mean shorter development times and lower costs.

Basically, the idea of replacing the F-16, F/A-18, Harrier, and A-10 with one aircraft sure sounds nice, but in practice you're probably going to run into trouble.

Each service is going to get something with features or characteristics that they don't need, because the other two services do. The Marines are going to get a supersonic stealth fighter to do mostly CAS. The Air Force and Navy are going to get a plane which has partially been designed around STOVL requirements that they won't be using. The Air Force is going to get a larger and more expensive F-16 replacement and an A-10 replacement that isn't really equivalent at all.

Reply

SMSgt Mac December 1, 2010 at 10:21 pm

Incidentally, the design at the time was a canard. But again, quoting the same engineer:
"Because the shaft-driven lift fan propulsion concept was new and
therefore considered the riskiest of the alternative propulsion
systems, it was decided to reduce the perceived risk of our aircraft
design by replacing the canard with a more conventional aft tail."
Just look at what was called the JAST. Move the wing forward and the canard to the tail and you have the Ur F-35. Marines do Interdiction and Air Superiority as well as CAS BTW
Now isn't this is better? Note that when questions are asked, I am most civil. Alas , I rarely get an opportunity to be civil here anymore. Let's hit 200 comments!

Reply

SMSgt Mac December 1, 2010 at 10:11 pm

Actually, the F-35 core design of the family is what eventually became the 'B' model. The conventional designs are 'genetically' the offspring. If there were tradeoffs at the conceptual design phase, they were made for the 'A' and the 'C'.
From the guy who invented the lift fan design:
"The conventional variant was quickly created by simply removing the lift fan and vectoring nozzle from the SSF and substituting a fuel tank and a more conventional cruise nozzle. This reduced the empty weight of the aircraft by about 15%, while
improving its range and reducing its cost".

Reply

blight December 1, 2010 at 10:36 pm

If those are the only substitutions, then it suggests that the real issue isn't airframe-related at all? Returning to the core of everything, is the issue that these babies aren't flightworthy or because there are constant changes being made that prevent production scaleup and termination of R&D and transition to full production?

Reply

Justin H November 29, 2010 at 4:50 pm

I wish the bomber generals were back in charge of the AF.

Reply

Justin H November 30, 2010 at 7:56 pm

Marine's KC-130J 'Harvest Hawk' sort-of gunship http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/marines-i

Reply

blight November 30, 2010 at 9:25 pm

Definitely sounds promising. If it were called the "Joint Medium Aircraft" with multi-functionality for refuelling and combat support and sold seperately, it would've had five billion dollars in over-runs and only 17 orders at one billion apiece.

Reply

Justin H November 30, 2010 at 10:19 pm
blight December 1, 2010 at 10:45 pm

Off topic, I wonder if the South Koreans will add to JSF for their Dokdo? Or, if they build their own and get it running, might the Marines consider purchasing?

Reply

MARINEMIKE December 16, 2010 at 6:05 pm

Many of your assumptions are based on a complete lack of knowledge of MAGTF. The Air Ground Task Force includes a Combat Element, Logistics Element, and Aviation Element. The smallest MAGTF out there is a MEU. When you all are talking about just give them more 18's you are completely ignoring that the USMC does not roll around the world with Nimitz Class Carriers sitting in their back pocket. If tomorrow a MEU was sent in to some remote country, it would be days, weeks, months before the Army, Airforce, Navy could show up in substantial force. Reference Bosina, the Marines were on the ground and in the air in 24 hours, the Army took approximately 6 weeks to show up. Thats the difference in the forces. We like to make bold statments about America's ability to project around the world, dont forget this is dude to the MEU's ability to show up at anyones door step overnight. The selling point of the MAGTF is that all the elements are under 1 MAGTF commander. This creates a synergy and to an extent gives some assurance that when you call for air support etc, it will be there. I feel the F35 is way overpriced and for what we need. But its easy to sit back behind the computer and look at numbers and warplanes and not think about what we are actually able to employ in a fight. Ultimately this all boils down to the capabilities of the Naval ships that we operate off of and currently they dont have catapults or arresting gear and with that said fixed with no vstol aircraft are not even a possibility.

2nd Lt. Loyd, USMC

Reply

Trixbat December 16, 2010 at 11:12 pm

Someone should build a VSTOL equivalent to the A-10…

Reply

Lassiterbob January 12, 2011 at 6:55 pm

It would be different if you knew what you were talking about DIP S—

Reply

Theo January 13, 2011 at 12:32 am

A MAGTF which the the Marine Air Ground Task Force is essential to the Marine doctrine of utilizing a quick and efficient combined arms role (air support, ground units,armor, and recon) to respond quickly to a security situation that poses significant threats to U.S. interest and safety. These forces are not always quickly, nor efficiently deployed from carriers, but instead from quicker and faster destroyers or littoral combat ships. The advantage gained from continued interest in the F35-B over the carrier F-35C alternative would be exemplified by the ability to take-off and land vertically. Therefore, there would maintain the essential ability for marine units to use assault support aircraft to QUICKLY concentrate superior ground forces towards a breakthrough and a surprise advantage over the enemy (crucial in all facets of warfare conventional or counterinsurgency). As the Marine Corps acting as a quick and ready response force to any threat facing our nation, it seems incredibly crucial to realize the utility of an F-35B variant. Not only is the F-35B variant potentially essential to the role of Marine aviation and as a facet to our nation's 911 ready force, but it is also important to note the inefficiency faced when coordinating cohesion between military departments (Operation Eagle Claw, Iran, 1980). Having the ability for aviation units to quickly support the critical role and needs of our Marines on the ground should be enough reason to advocate a further consideration for the F-35B variant.

Reply

@Earlydawn November 24, 2010 at 6:55 pm

I hate to break it to you, but in that situation, the limited number of F-35Bs that would still be launchable and recoverable would not be able to secure air superiority.

Reply

STemplar November 25, 2010 at 3:07 am

You are incorrect on the President only being able to order the USMC to combat. I'm not sure where this fable comes from. You need to look up the war powers act, it covers all branches of the military equally.

"The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war."

Reply

Blight November 26, 2010 at 12:06 pm

I am pretty sure only the SAD gets to go play without Congressional oversight…

Reply

Tim November 24, 2010 at 9:38 pm

The point is to make a punch into the enemy, to allow the rest of the US forces to take it from there. The Marines are not an occupation force. They just do the dirtiest work to allow other US forces to finish the job. In other words they are the cannon fodder to get the foothold, and the rest take it from there.

Reply

Joe Schmoe November 24, 2010 at 11:14 pm

Six F-35B's wouldn't even rattle any nation with an air force, they can just go right by them and hit the ships, in which case the F-35Bs have nowhere to land. 6X F-35Bs + 4 AA missiles each (internally/Stealth) = 24 Missiles in total, assuming they are even all in the air.

One word = Fail

Reply

@Earlydawn November 25, 2010 at 1:27 am

What stealth fighters? The PAK-FA? That thing is years away, of dubious stealth capability, and is probably going to be out of the budget of the Russian Federation. Intelligent combination of F-22s, F-35As and Bs, and off-board support like AWACS will prove more than a match for them.

As far as SAMs, well, that's what Growlers / SEAD are for. Specialized tools for a specialized job.

Reply

STemplar November 25, 2010 at 3:10 am

Piloted by who? Supported by who?

Amateurs talk capability, professionals talk logistics.

Reply

crackedlenses November 25, 2010 at 8:13 pm

That's why we get more….Getting rid of all of them won't solve the "too few to be effective" problem….

Reply

phillip simpson November 26, 2010 at 4:35 am

Mike….

I hate to stay for the most part, Blight is right. Marine air was intial for the “Forward Base Concept” ie WAKE… MIDWAY and other islands. Marine Air was primary defensive. At the Canal, they performed both air defense and a lesser amount of CAS. Most of the Marine CAS for the most part support Army missions (Macarthur’s push in the south pacific)in 43 and 44 and Navy air support Marine landings till late 44. In 44, Marine Air was put on some CVEs and then Marine’s actually support Marines on the Ground. Now one of the first things Marine’s did when they took a location in 43 till the end was push forward landbased air so Marines on the ground got CAS from their own airfields…..

Reply

Joe Schmoe November 26, 2010 at 4:43 am

Sorry for the repeat at the end.

Reply

crackedlenses November 26, 2010 at 10:45 am

I'm referring to the attitude that we should maintain larger numbers of older, less capable aircraft because it's cheaper and apparently no one else with fighters would like to see us gone. Looking at your response, I think we agree for the most part on this……

Reply

Joe Schmoe November 26, 2010 at 1:30 pm

There is no reason that for the most part, their amphibious assault capabilities can't be rolled into the Army. The Navy will get troops on the ships the same way the Air Force has troops guard their bases.

Walla, less taxpayer waste and more efficient operation. There is no reason the Marines cannot continue to honorably perform as part of the Army.

Reply

Belesari November 26, 2010 at 1:50 pm

The Marines arent going away.Truth to tell a larger marine corps, navy and army is farm more important than a Airforce at this time.

Marines ussually do things cheaper than any other force. So why not reduce the others instead of the marines?

Reply

Blight November 26, 2010 at 2:03 pm

To have greater range than a cruise missile would mean sacrificing manuverability and speed such that you would probably lose dogfighting ability and payload. I suppose one could go with missile boats with no dogfighting and low speed and long range but if you war-game it out is it worth it?

You would also be switching to bigger and bigger jets to carry more fuel and payload, occupying a space between the present day fighter and the bomber. Not sure if it's a good idea…

Reply

SittingHere November 26, 2010 at 7:37 pm

It's not just profit here. The unit cost for the plane will go up if fewer are built. For most metal and other component fabrications, it costs just slightly less to build 10 as it does to build 100. So if you reduce commonality or reduce overall quantities, you can't take advantage of economies of scale. The taxpayer suffers, then, when you have to buy a new or replace a plane and the unit cost is higher.

Reply

@MrKopfschuss November 26, 2010 at 10:24 pm

@ Joe Schmoe's 1st comment:

Well, we're gonna need someone to spearhead the North Korea/ Iran/ Pakistan campaigns if they (God forbid) ever happen. Could the Rangers do it? Hell yeah, but they're just a regiment. Gonna need some more men for a shock troop role. If the Corps can ever shed their MRAPs and other way-too-slow gear that HAVE made them basically a second land army (And which are undoubtedly and unfortunately required in this current theater) they'll be the ones to do it.

Reply

AMon November 29, 2010 at 4:05 am

Uh Army leqading anything is really funny. marines were ordered to stand down becuase of the overkill going on. Ask anyone who they would want first. Marines BTW had the most WIA/KIA. Read some decent fact-based info.

Reply

Joe Schmoe November 27, 2010 at 2:56 am

No they won't, unless you want a lot of people coming home in body bags.

In Iran we would go through both Iraq and Afghanistan (land).
North Korea would be through South Korea (land).
Pakistan… WTF? Land by the way.

Reply

@MrKopfschuss November 27, 2010 at 5:16 pm

So the Marines can only assault amphibiously? Many of our forces are capable of the vanguard/ shock troop role, but that's the Marine mission to go in first and secure land (And the current CMC wants to begin to make the Corps capable of it again). You speak as if they are not able in some way, like there's some hostility. I'm not Pat or El Gato, I'm not trying to stir up inter-service rivalry BS. You say that like "if the Marines assault Pyongyang/Tehran/Taliban hideouts in Pakistan they will all die because they are ill fit for land assaults". Marine does mean associated with water, but Cavalry used to mean men that rode into battle on horses. Nowadays they ride on helicopters.

Reply

Joe Schmoe November 27, 2010 at 8:15 pm

In that case, why do we need Marines?

Wouldn't you agree that the Army is better suited for land assaults, being that they do have the mechanized formations necessary to sustain a major assault.

What you are basically proposing, and what we are saying also, is that the Marines have turned into a second land army; something that we do not need.

Reply

@MrKopfschuss November 27, 2010 at 10:46 pm

I agree, that right now the Marines are operating as a second land army. A forcible entry force really isn't needed in Afghanistan or Iraq, where patrol/occupation is the usual role needed. And we do not need a second land Army. But there is no way for the Corps to operate any differently. There are not very many scenarios that call for a forcible entry force to rapidly storm an objective, which is the usual marine mission. We could of course pull the Marines out of the the Sandbox, but I think the other branches would miss the extra help.

I had two more paragraphs, but they were deleted when I logged in, so I'll add more later.

Reply

AMon November 29, 2010 at 4:15 am

Why? cause they have Admin pogues that would be able to fight their way out of something like Jessy Lynch got into! Suprised most of the convoy knew how to even load their weapon. Sorry to say but who even knows if they tried to fight back. Fighting devotion, comraderie and overwhelming force is what the Corps is about.. Seriously a Marine troll aren't you. Ask the Seals, GBs and Spec. Forces if they appreciate Marine CAS and Marsoc and Force! Ooops you probably haven't served or don't know anyone. I have inlaws that are 2nd and 3rd gen Seals and have put back a lot of drinks with FR and Seals when stationed in Hawaii. Stop trying to fuel the Branch war you loser. Marines don't need to parachute enmasse anyway! WTF, why would you need to today with HELICOPTERS. Talk about nostalgia:Parachutes= broken legged Army dogs that need 2 more men to carry. Also need a secure drop zone. Damn get a clue.

Reply

Blight November 28, 2010 at 12:00 am

Considering none of them spend on global basing the United States would have to spend even more. We also spend more on R&D rather than buying platforms.

Reply

Blight November 28, 2010 at 12:05 am

The Marines provoke ire because they're not satisfied with being a specialist branchlike the Rangers or the Airborne. Why? Because survival is guaranteed if your branch is large. It's like the hardworking employee who picks up more tasks to avoid being fired, do more, expand, look relevant. The Airborne failed to be actionable during the Cold War, leading to its gradual emasculation by loss of divisions and ending with losing out in procurement. Marines aren't keen on that fate…who would be?

Reply

Blight November 28, 2010 at 12:09 am

How much does heavier frame hurt combat performance? Ground catapults could mean shorter runways, faster launches and the possibility of jointing with the Navy.

Reply

Riceball November 29, 2010 at 11:00 am

Of which they're only likely to be actually using one and mothballing the other as soon as it's complete and at the current rate the F-35 program is going their carriers won't even have them by the time they're completed. The Invincible class is going to be retired sometime soon and for their remaining carrier needs the current plan is to share a carrier with the French.

Reply

Joe Schmoe November 29, 2010 at 12:52 pm

Troll bait, must not respond.

Reply

Joe Schmoe November 29, 2010 at 12:56 pm

Of that you are correct unfortunately.

Right now they are starting to plan for the eventuality where their carriers will go a few years without planes on them..

Reply

blight November 29, 2010 at 2:16 pm

If push comes to shove they can grab fighters from Europe, swallowing their pride. The real expense is maintaining two carriers, even if one is in storage. If they can't even pay for the carriers to go to sea, then the price of the JSFs is a bit player (though as long as they could be embarked on the smaller Invincible et al..)

Perhaps the British want to try for their own next-gen VTOL? Partner with India and the other nations interested in VTOL and do it cheaper than JSF; I imagine Lockheed would hate your guts forever and ever…

Reply

Charles November 29, 2010 at 10:48 pm

Putting your forward air bases near the front line is extremely important. By cutting out the time spent going form the carrier to the target zone back again. The time spent looking for target and bombing those targets is increased significantly. This reduces the number of planes required to keep a area with CAS. This allows you have a much larger area provided with CAS. In the likely event that a marine team does not have a CAS plane over head 24/7 then a CAS from a forwardly deployed base that is 15 miles from the line can arrive in 15 – 30 minutes at the outer most. CAS deployed from a carrier will take much longer to arrive.

VTOL airplanes allow for the efficient implementation of this concept. Harrier forward bases where not much more the a flat piece of ground and lots of fuel and bombs. Damage Harriers would divert to the main line bases for repairs. This allowed the fields to be rapidly move forward or withdrawn as the combat line fluctuates.

Reply

blight November 30, 2010 at 9:28 pm

So you're accepting that boys will be boys when it comes to interservice rivalry?

Obviously something has to come in from on high that all services must learn to train and fight together, since it is quite inevitable that they will all /die/ together on the battlefield.

I find it hilarious that people are pushing so hard for DADT but we accept interservice rivalry as totally normal, and unworthy of change.

Reply

William C. December 1, 2010 at 11:40 pm

The A-29 is a light attack aircraft. It would really only be capable of the light attack and forward observation missions. Current Marine aircraft are called expected to do more. The USAF could use some light COIN support aircraft and perhaps the Marines could too, but they still need something that can haul a large payload and defend itself against enemy aircraft and SAMs.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: