Home » News » Acquisition Reform » Amos: Marines May Buy Some F-35Cs

Amos: Marines May Buy Some F-35Cs

by John Reed on March 8, 2011

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos confirmed today that the Marines are looking to operate some F-35C carrier variant Joint Strike Fighters. This is a big deal. If the Marines buy the C, it will solidify the future of fixed wing tactical jets in the Corps if the troubled B-model gets axed. It also shows that Marine Corps aviators will keep flying long-legged (I mean long-range) strike jets off big deck aircraft carriers for the foreseeable future.

From sister site DoDBuzz:

The commandant confirmed that the Marines were looking at buying some F-35Cs, the carrier variant, to keep their hands in on carrier operations. Amos said it wasn’t clear yet whether F-35Bs will operate from carriers, which is almost certain to be the result of the combination of great thrust and heat from the plane’s engines, something that has worried testers for some time.   The Marines have been making modifications to the plane’s power plant that are supposed to ameliorate the problem, but Amos’ comments today seem to indicate they are not confident in whether they will work. Amos did not offer any numbers.

I wrote this article back in November about the Marines pulling out of the B program and purchasing C-model jets. The big question is; is the B’s ability to fly off small deck ships and small bases really worth the cost and schedule delays associated with the program? How much of an advantage does STOVL give the Corps? How many times have the V/STOL abilities of the AV-8B Harrier fleet proven critical in that jet’s decades of service?

It’s still unclear how many of the 680 jets purchased for the Navy and Marines will be B versus C model JSFs.

 

Share |

{ 68 comments… read them below or add one }

Lance March 8, 2011 at 5:12 pm

Thats good I say keep AV-8Bs in service replace the old F-18s and EA-6Bs in service since harriers can be used for years longer.

Reply

blight March 8, 2011 at 5:23 pm

In happyworld figuring out a way to re-engine the Harrier (traditional sore point of Harrier) would be the way to go. However, it would be ridiculously expensive to implement. If it could be done, though…

Reply

brian March 8, 2011 at 5:49 pm

Killing Marine Tactical Aviation was never so easy

Reply

blight March 8, 2011 at 6:13 pm

Marine aviation may have to surrender to the combined arms idea of operating Marine wings off a Navy carrier in conjunction with amphibious craft.

Alternatively, designing supercarrier-sized LPD's for the Marines…

Reply

@Earlydawn March 8, 2011 at 10:14 pm

Supercarrier-scale LPDs for the Marines?

Yeah, maybe we can get the Air Force a couple space stations, too :P

Reply

asdf March 9, 2011 at 10:32 am

or an X2 with weapons outfitted

Reply

jose March 9, 2011 at 3:20 pm

Where have you been . Combined Arms is the future.

Reply

Rick March 8, 2011 at 6:43 pm

I see that Marine F-18 squadrons are already a part of several active air wings that serve aircraft carriers.
How does this possible buy change anything?

Reply

Joe Schmoe March 8, 2011 at 6:58 pm

Finally!

About time we saw some common sense from the Marines.

Reply

Belesari March 8, 2011 at 7:11 pm

Why dont they just try to make a AV-8 2.0

Nothing huge as far as stealth make it a F-18 with STOL.

Hell use that huge damn engine.

Reply

blight March 8, 2011 at 7:18 pm

Is "Huge damn engine" supposed to be the Pegasus? In many ways LM won because the lift-fan concept was superior to the Boeing one, which was probably more Harrier-esque.

I don't know if Hawker is even interested in VTOLs anymore…not with JSF on the horizon and potentially sucking away customers.

Reply

Belesari March 8, 2011 at 10:52 pm

Yes there is a problem with its size accually. The engine (in its casing) wont fit in any air transport that can land on the carrier….

No one thought of that.

Remeber sweet the small stuff……or fiddly bits if you wish.

Reply

Curt March 9, 2011 at 2:56 am

So what? This reminds me of the earth shattering problem that you can't UNREP Tomahawks. How often do you change engines with a 5000+hrs MTF? The carrier will carry over 10 spare engines for the two F-35 squadrons, (over 50% replacement) how many do you expect to change in the course of a deployment? It may have been a big issue back in the day, but it will virtually never be an issue before the C-2 is replaced. And if it is an issue, why not with the LHA/LHDs? They could never land a COD in the first place.

Reply

El Gato March 9, 2011 at 12:32 pm

No issues with the LHA/LHD's, you CH-53's to move them! :)

Old_Bear March 9, 2011 at 1:31 pm

Ah, Hawker Siddley was merged with BAC to form British Aerospace in 1977, BAe is one of the primary partners in the F(A)-35 programme.

Reply

blight March 9, 2011 at 10:26 pm

Considering Rolls Royce built the Pegasus and the LiftSystem for F-35…any chance they can refit something like it to the Harrier?

Reply

SMSgt Mac March 8, 2011 at 7:42 pm

The fascinating thing with this post is that it focuses on the throwaway paragraph at the end of the original source instead of what was the main theme of the 'Buzz' post, which was the ttile announced as: " ‘I’m Optimistic’ On F-35B: Gen. Amos". the main point of the 'news' is that Amos woul like to shorten the B model 'probation' based on progress made. The Marines will do what they think they need to do, whether it is buy F-35Bs for their mission or F-35Cs for whatever reason – mission or political.

Reply

Black Owl March 8, 2011 at 8:41 pm

They should just buy the F/A-18E/F and stop delaying the inevitable.

Or better yet, buy the Super Hornet with international road map upgrades and get nearly the same stealth capability of an F-35 with twice the bang for the buck.

Reply

Benjamin March 8, 2011 at 9:58 pm

In most major combat in the future we should expect our air field to be taken out by missile strikes. The only aircraft that will be effective in this situation is a vertical take off aircraft. If we stay with the F-35B, I am willing to bet the Japan and Taiwan will eventually buy it in numbers equal to our own.

Reply

Sev March 8, 2011 at 9:54 pm

Well duh. For all the peple who disagree are you saying that you wouldnt attack an enemy airfield to cripple their air defence?

Reply

@Earlydawn March 8, 2011 at 10:17 pm

What hypothetical scenario do you envision in which F-35Bs can take off from damaged / austere airfields and still reach a target on one tank of gas? Isn't it a better idea to use resources to make those airfields survivable?

There wouldn't be *that* many F-35Bs, even in a full scale buy..

Reply

asdf March 9, 2011 at 11:05 am

35B is not a vertical take-off aircraft.

Reply

@Earlydawn March 9, 2011 at 1:35 pm

What's your point? The F-35B is going to pull a short takeoff from Japan, fly all the way to China, and then make it back on one tank? If you're assuming that airbases are crippled, then you have to subsequently assume that tanking is unavailable..

Reply

asdf March 9, 2011 at 5:42 pm

the point is that it's difficult to say with certanity, that the plane will be able to take off from a crippled airfield (as ben said) – damaged by missiles.

blight March 9, 2011 at 10:44 pm

With that logic we would leap to giant airship sky-carriers carrying helicopters with nuclear payloads as a new member of the strategic triad.

Alternatively, long-range helicopters, but it's hard to get long range at lower altitudes….

Reply

Mr D March 8, 2011 at 10:44 pm

I would have thought that the recent crisis in Libya/Egypt/and whatever comes next, might prove to a certain extent that having smaller ships with the B variant are valuable. All this talk of not needing vtol and not requiring stealth really seems to have been proven wrong. Not to say that the B variant will be 100% protected from air defense or fully capable for SEAD, but since the Marines are the 911 force, it would seem like in situations where you would need strikes or air cover in the vicinity of air defense, the B variant is quite necessary unless your ready to commit a carrier. And for small operations like evacuations or limited air strikes, that seems unnecessary.

As for the purchase of the C variant, i think it's a good idea, if you're going to operate it from a carrier, you might as well have 100% parts commonality with the navy.

Reply

intensedebate March 9, 2011 at 12:45 am

"Proven wrong?" Can I get a citation? I can't find reason to quibble with the rest, though.

Reply

Mr D March 9, 2011 at 1:59 am

I agree actually, saying it was "proven wrong" was too strong of wording. Let me rephrase that… People have said vertical takeoff may not be worth the cost and developmental time in the program. Allowing the aircraft to be operated from smaller ships, without a need for a larger carrier with its battle group or land base with a refueling supply chain could be useful in this situation. Some have said the Marines need a CAS aircraft like an A-10, not a high tech stealth aircraft. The current situation seems well suited for the F-35B. I think it's worth noticing there is a proper use for the F35B in the Marines.

Reply

STemplar March 9, 2011 at 2:35 am

Except it is not VTOL it is STOVL. VTOL = Vertical Take Off. STOVL = Short Take off Vertical landing. The F35B cannot lift off vertically. It is not being designed to. It needs some runaway to get airborne but can land vertically.

Frankly I don't get the point to F35 for the USMC at all. To really do what the marines need it to do it's going to have to carry external stores so stealth is out the window. We are not going to call on the USMC for day strikes/SEADs, it is not going to happen so the whole F35 seems like a waste for them.

Reply

Guest March 9, 2011 at 7:44 am

9 times out of 10, when the Marines are around stealth is already out the window. That's why they need CAS in the 1st place. So what's the difference if they carry external stores or not.

Mike March 8, 2011 at 11:30 pm

Another possibility would be of the US Marines to ask the DoD for the development of a sub-sonic attack helicopter based on the Sikorsky X2; but unlike the Apache, the X2 would be like the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II with internal weapons bay to keep the radar cross section as low as possible.

Reply

Joe Schmoe March 9, 2011 at 12:00 am

You mean like the RAH-66?

Reply

blight March 9, 2011 at 8:00 am

Navalized Comanche?

Reply

asdf March 9, 2011 at 11:02 am

there is actually no point in stealthing the helicopters, even without regards to costs.
think about why.

Reply

frinklemur March 9, 2011 at 3:44 pm

I was wondering about this being a potential option at some point as well if the F-35B gets canceled. Obviously the X2- critters would only have modest A2A-self defense ability, having to use BVRAAMS from low-altitude, but given that it is unlikely that a Marine Amphibious Warfare group would be deployed in a region with a real threat of opposition aircraft, without a big carrier or USAF coverage it might make sense.

Marine Combat Aviation would then be composed of the X-2ish strike copters on the little flat-tops and forward deployed, with Marine Fixed Wing on the big flat-tops and more distant airbases.

Reply

Oblat March 8, 2011 at 11:31 pm

So having screwed up the entire design of the F-35 by insisting on a STVOL version the marines cant work out if they actually need it.

Reply

Jacob March 8, 2011 at 11:51 pm

I'm thinking it was one of those "nice-to-haves" to begin with….

Reply

Connect March 9, 2011 at 12:47 am
Old_Bear March 9, 2011 at 1:17 pm
AmicusCuriae March 10, 2011 at 9:27 am

Affirmative, but it was the keystone to get the F-35 program sold. The "Mission X – gee whiz" factor was hard to resist for all those that were not burned by historical VTOL or STOVL failures. It is expendable now though because the F-35 program is too big to fail, and STOVL is indefensible on a cost /benefit basis.

Reply

Curt March 9, 2011 at 3:09 am

The department of the Navy has always said it will buy a mix of F-35Bs and F-35Cs but has never specified the mix although the USMC has wanted an all F-35B force. However, as part of the rationalization of USN and USMC assets, USN F-18 squadrons were decommissioned and USMC F-18 squadrons have been attached to virtually every CVW. If it is too difficult to operate F-35Bs alongside the other aircraft on the carriers, which appears to be the case, then the USMC will need to operate the F-35C or those squadrons will need to be disbanded and more USN F-35C squadrons stood up. This has been understood for years. My guess, USMC F-35Cs will replace F-18 squadrons attached to a CVW and F-35Bs will replace everything else.

Reply

Curt March 9, 2011 at 9:36 am

"How much of an advantage does STOVL give the Corps? How many times have the V/STOL abilities of the AV-8B Harrier fleet proven critical in that jet’s decades of service?"
In Gulf War 1, 20 USMC Harriers were very successfully based on an LHA in the NAG, shortening flight time from nearest available field and eliminating use of tankers. In Gulf War II, they repeated the result with 40 Harriers on 2 LHDs with similiar outstanding results.
In Gulf War I, they also based harriers out of a 4000' runway near a soccer stadium close to the Kuwait border for 8 months achieving much of the same benefit, and utilized FOB near Bagdad on a damaged airfield unusable by other aircraft and have operated from a 4300' expeditionary runway in Afghanistan.
So they have used the capability and derived significant advantages as a result. Hard to quantify what it is worth though.

Reply

asdf March 9, 2011 at 11:05 am

all those harriers were primarily strike aircraft, so just use a bunch of uav (stealthy) and we're done.

Reply

STemplar March 9, 2011 at 11:45 am

Which to me says a VTOL airplane is handy, but in those OPS did they need stealth? Did they have to dog fight? So why not just buy a new Harrier with maybe a new engine and some improved avionics. I bet that would be a hell of a lot less than F35Bs.

Reply

Old_Bear March 9, 2011 at 1:28 pm

The Spanish Navy is already upgrading it's AV-8B+ with a new, more powerful Peagus engine and new electronics.
Even if you designed a new engine to replace the Peagus, you would still have to design it to fit into the same engine bay.
Personally, I still feel that USMC should abandon the F-35 Bunter and avoid the Charlie like the plague, instead they should buy the OV-10X Super Bronco to replace the AV-8B and the Saab Gripen NG to replace the F-18C's, while buying the F/A-18F to replace the F/A-18D's. The Bronco and the Gripen would be to operate from austere airfields neart to front lines. The Foxtrots and the Gripens can operate from Fleet Carriers, while the Bronco's would be able to operate from LHA's.

Reply

Tomatojuice March 9, 2011 at 2:18 pm

The US will NOT buy Saab Gripen NGs.

Reply

Guest March 10, 2011 at 9:52 am

And there is no way your gonna land a bronco on an LHA.

Reply

Brian March 9, 2011 at 10:08 am

The F-35B program should stay intact. The C program keeps the Marine Corps in the TACAIR business, but must keep the F-35B program moving to provide the 5th Generation aircraft. If you look at the QDR and other planning documents, the F-35B is needed because the lack of runways that the C model can utilize in regions of the world that conflicts are predicted to arise. The Marine Corps needs to have the capability to operate ashore at the battle and not have to fly from another country or a carrier far away.

Reply

???? March 10, 2011 at 5:24 am

Yeah that was the same reason for the marines needing the harrier, yet in all the years its been in service this pipe dream senerio has never happened..The Marines have had more then enough chances to use this senerio in the stan and Iraq but havent done it because the US is never gonna forward deploy aircraft to unsupportable airfields or FOB's.. We will always go the carrier or supportable airfield option in country or out..

Reply

Pegasus July 10, 2012 at 1:54 am

Actually, they used their capabilities repeatedly in the Gulf War (both of them), and in Afghanistan, were they were able to operate out of fields that were unusable by regular aircraft until massive resources could be trucked in to fix the runways for the others to use.

BTW, USMC didn't decide to buy F-35C, they were ordered to by USN. This was to help lower the cost of the F-35C, and also the Navy has been using USMC squadrons (and budget) to perform regular Navy missions without having to fund the necessary assets out of regular NAVAIR budget. With USMC going to all -35Bs, they'd all fly off to support the troops and USN would have to come up with more money to fly their missions themselves..

Reply

Old_Bear March 9, 2011 at 1:15 pm

Tad,

You could build a V/STOL aircraft easily, you just design the airframe & engine system properly, instead of trying to convert a CTOL airframe and engine.
That is the crux of the problem with the Bunter, Lockhead Martin made the same mistake that designers back in the late 1950's did of trying convert CTOL aitframes into V/STOL aircraft and failed.
What they have come up with is an overcomplicated design that doesn't work.
The main practical way of building a V/STOL aircraft is to design an engine like the Peagus as V/STOL engine and then build an aircraft around it.
The only practical thing to do about the F-35 programme is to scrap the Bunter and the Charlie and concentrate on fixing the design flaws of the Alpha, that and rename it as the A-35.

Reply

SMSgt Mac March 11, 2011 at 6:56 pm

RE: you just design the airframe & engine system properly, instead of trying to convert a CTOL airframe and engine. That is the crux of the problem with the Bunter, Lockhead Martin made the same mistake that designers back in the late 1950's did of trying convert CTOL aitframes into V/STOL aircraft and failed.

You just stated an account of the F-35 design history that is completely bass-ackwards. They started with a STOVL planform concept that could be developed into a conventional planform with minimal design change.
I'd love to know where the story it was the other way around originated.

Reply

tyribulationtime March 9, 2011 at 4:22 pm

I´ agree with Bear. VTOL plane…. Myth Busted!!!. A) fly close support for anfibious A1 No one expect much assaults from the SEA. A2 so more cheap and yet useful for that role modernize AV-8B because you Never Never try so operation over a coastline where need stealth planes but you depleted ammo stores of enemy. B) If you can not built planes which take-off on short runaway…man built long runaway, I means (I not engineer, I big mouth who dare to give his opinion as if was important) Try adopt all "tricks" around the world to make F-35C needed for conventional airports. Big wheels, and new landing gear, protections on intakes, redesigned flaps, a bit powerfull afterburning, Mobile arresting wire, mobile Ski-jump (I remember something like that on a pic in Harrier tests), or "catapults". I think that is worst but more cheap to try.

Reply

???? March 10, 2011 at 2:30 am

Last time I checked the Marines dont keep harriers at FOB's they keep them on ships and airbases with long runways that support cargo planes.. so whats the big freakin deal if the Marines dont have a VTOL aircraft.. ??? The Navy and Airforce dont use harriers and yet they still seem to be getting the same CAS and attack/defense jobs done that harriers can do.. so why do we really need the B model?? the A and C models seem suited just fine to get the job done and are pretty much ready to go now so why keep holding out for the B… ??

Reply

Curt March 10, 2011 at 5:41 am

As pointed out above, the USMC used Harriers at a FOB in Iraq, in combat, in OIF, so obviously you haven't checked recently. For that matter, they even operated off roads a few times. While they didn't normally stay at the FOB, they re-armed and refueled there dramatically increasing the time on station and timeliness of response compared to USAF and Navy aircraft. They operated Harriers from ships that require STOVL aircraft and provided more timely support, longer time on station , and didn't use tankers. Those are just the facts, and no amount of pontification or hand waving changes that.

Reply

Old_Bear March 10, 2011 at 1:09 pm

Guys,

Please note the following story on the Flight International Website:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/10/3

I have one comment on the story: "Double Ouch" or if you are of Scottish descent "Ouch Squared".

Reply

robertro2 March 10, 2011 at 2:02 pm

THE MARINES WILL FLY THE EA-6B UNTIL THE END OF TIME,GREAT THEY WILL GET THE F-35C AND THEY WILL KICK ASS…..

Reply

6591 USMC March 10, 2011 at 7:04 pm

The Marines already operate Hornets including Super Hornets. This is nothing new. They were never looking to become a one plane air force. The only problem with the B is it is a more difficult and expensive technology and the heat and force from the engines is problematical on some steel decks as it was with the original AV-8A and since.

The Marines have always done more with less when they had to, taken the lead as they have since the beginning of naval aviation and usually out strategized the other services. They've had to as the Army has been trying to kill them since the early 1900s and the Air Force since the end of WWI.

But the Marines have always survived despite the odds and have always been the first to try new and controversial things that make sense for their role in DOD.

And they will continue to do so in the future.

Reply

STemplar March 9, 2011 at 11:38 am

Exactly, if you have to carry external stores why would you buy a stealth aircraft since that compromises its stealth ability. That's my point.

Reply

Guest March 9, 2011 at 12:47 pm

Well being that it's not technically a "stealth" vehicle to begin with, it's kind of a moot point. It's low observable profile/radar cross section is what's supposed to enable it to get the 1st shot off on targets. For how the Marines are going to use them is just like a harrier, but faster and with better avionics and gives the pilot 10x the situational awareness in the battle space. They most likely won't be doing deep strikes in enemy territory like that. That's what the Air Force does.

Reply

Mr D March 9, 2011 at 4:49 pm

I've never been a big fan of the F35 because of its low internal payload. I think that it is a problem that spans across all the variants of it. I do think the Marines need a CAS aircraft with a large weapons payload. None the less, the B variant does give the option to execute strikes from ships in a aircraft that has low observable features. I question the need of that considering the cost, and the F35s limited abilities. I do agree that these strikes are not something the Marines typically do. But this is the first example I have seen that is really possible for the B variant. Don't think i'm trying to defend the F35 here lol. I personally think they focused on the wrong priorities when building it. Really that's the reason why i wanted to point out that it could actually be used in this case. It's been the only example i could see to use the B model. Because in reality in a conflict any larger you'll need carriers and land bases anyways. I probably should have said "Hey, they finally found a way to use the B model in a unique way, that the A or C model couldn't be used" and left it at that.

Reply

asdf March 9, 2011 at 5:44 pm

meh, the problem of the f-35 is, that tech has gone forward and several nations have at least prototypes of planes with better stealth. too bad the lm didn't put more effort into rcs.

Reply

@Earlydawn March 9, 2011 at 10:22 pm

Right, we've established that the F-35B has that capability. I am asking you where in the world that feature would be useful.

Japan is too far away for round trips without mid-air refueling, so the austere capability doesn't help you there, whether your airbases are toasted or not.

Korea is well within the range of China's short-range ballistic missile forces, and would likely be absolutely swamped. Besides, if you're attacking China out of Korean air bases, you're better with conventional aircraft like F-22s or F-35As, in theory.

Guam is way too far away to make a difference in a battle with China. Even if you could get a refueling circuit going both ways, you're going to have such a low sortie rate and ordinance load per sortie that it wouldn't matter anyway.

The Middle East doesn't need the F-35B, and any of the assault carriers in the Persian Gulf could be hit by Iran's serious arsenal of anti-shipping missiles if the LHAs get close enough to act like border airbases.

So again, where in the world does this aircraft represent a real capability enhancement?

Reply

blight March 10, 2011 at 7:27 am

Well, you can hide all your air support out in an aircraft carrier, it just won't arrive in a timely fashion.

Thought they were land-basing CAS in Bagram. It wouldn't take much to infiltrate into rocket range, pop off a few rockets and hope to get lucky. Then again, maybe the experience in Vietnam should've taught the military a few things about aircraft kept in range of enemy rockets and sappers…

Reply

Curt March 10, 2011 at 11:05 am

Since the USMC actually did it with Harriers in OIF and did not lose any aircraft in the process, not seeing how it makes me delusional.

Reply

Guest March 10, 2011 at 9:44 am

What are you talking about? One of LMs selling points is about its survivablility based on its low observability. They put just as much effort in that just as much as the F-22, and actually improved on it in some areas.

Reply

Guest March 10, 2011 at 9:48 am

That's what the B was supposed to do from the get go anyway.

Reply

Joe Schmoe March 10, 2011 at 12:09 pm

And it was shown to be very ineffectual/inefficient due to the amount of resources tied down trying to keep the Harriers flying and resupplied compared to the actual usefulness of them there.

And that was just with a $30 million dollar plane, try that with a plane that costs 5-10 times as much.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: