Leaderboard

What's the name of the mode AV8Bs use when they carry x2 GBU54s, spend 20 minutes on station without shooting (because it takes 10 minutes to tally and longer for clearance) then dump a -54 in the ocean before they land because STOVL requirements make them unable to land with x2 500 pounders...... and then they do that daily for 4 months until they run out of bombs and have to sail home? I want to know what that mode is called because I don't think we should equip the F35 with that function. Seriously, is the juice worth the squeeze WRT STOVL? In these times of fiscal austerity, and with a national strategic switch from 2 simultaneous to 1 major war at a time, I think the obvious answer is no. The Marines are notorious for caring only about the Marines and Marine CAPES.

Enough of this "what does the F-35 bring to our tactical capes". Let's discuss the real issue: what can it do to revolutionize airshows?

Bingo. It was mentioned earlier that a reason for V/STOL fighters is because the ESG might deploy without a carrier and the MEU needs therefore needs organic OCA/DCA capability (such as it is with 4-6 V/STOL fighters with underwhelming performance.) Does anyone really think that we would deploy a MEU into a situation with a credible threat requiring OCA/DCA capability without having a CSG riding herd on it? I'm not talking Libya-esque "well what the hell, there's an ESG on station, let's let the MEU play too" situations, I'm talking "there's enough of a threat here to turn the ESG into the second iteration of Ironbottom Sound" situations. If you truly need OCA/DCA to complete the mission, there will be a big deck carrier around; this isn't 1942, and we're not at Guadalcanal. Amphibs aren't anywhere close to expendable enough to risk otherwise. And if you don't need OCA/DCA, there are other, cheaper options...even ones that don't require V/STOL, just STOL: Like I said earlier, this isn't an attack on the idea of the MAGTF (go hog wild with self contained CAS as far as I'm concerned), this is an attack on the idea that the MAGTF needs to be capable of self-contained OCA/DCA operations when operating from amphibs. If you remove that requirement a whole 'nother world of options opens up, but with it you are stuck with the navy's army's air force operating stealth fighters.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, Hoss. He was not concise.

I like how the crocodile survived in the second to last one. Well played sir.

I got on a pretty long wikipedia tangent earlier, which led me to this: List of unusual deaths Some pretty good WTF's in here. Here are some of the strangest:

OH-58D for the Army. Having them on the airfield is nice for us because they are familiar with our operations and local flying area.

^This. C'mon, even I figured it out, and everyone knows Marines (former or current) can't read past the 5th grade level...

Maybe he IS TIB?

You know how I'm finally 100% sure that you're just a troll? You defended TIB.

How about O-7 and above? Not the least bit envious - I get to do what I dreamed about as a kid. And I pay for my lawn care. I shouldn't have to pay for a General Officers also.

I won't get into the amphib V/STOL argument right now (there are valid arguments on both sides, although in an era of fiscal austerity I have serious issues with paying for a "nice to have" capability for the navy's army's air force when other services are cutting their core capabilities especially when we aren't going to deploy an ESG into a region where it faces an air threat without a big deck CSG to provide overwatch), but if we're going to have an honest conversation about the land side of this we need to define "austere" base. As the OP identified, the main LIMFAC for austere bases is logistics, to include maintenance support. Do we as a military have a need to operate out of extremely austere bases? Absolutely, and we have the logistical ability to support operations from these bases (within reason) provided they possess a runway large enough to get a C-130 in and out (assuming the base is forward enough that we don't have reliable, secure, and regular surface transport for stuff like fuel and ammo). Of course, this raises the obvious question of, "If we can get a C-130 in and out why do we need V/STOL strike aircraft?" There is "austere base with limited available support that can support conventional fixed wing operations," and then there is the definition of "austere" that V/STOL proponents use, which refers to operating out of locations that are only capable of supporting V/STOL ops. Harriers have operated in combat out of austere bases that nominally couldn't support conventional fighters (more on this in the next paragraph) but the reality is that these were more or less publicity stunts to attempt to demonstrate V/STOL's relevance. During Desert Storm the Marines operated Harriers in a V/STOL manner out of an abandoned airbase (capable of STOVL only operations) in northern Saudi Arabia (it's popularly known as operating out of a soccer stadium due to them setting up admin support in a soccer stadium next to the airfield). Despite the Harriers being marginally closer to the FEBA, a similar number of USAF A-10s were able to generate more sorties carrying more ordnance with fewer logistical bottlenecks by operating from a forward airbase capable of supporting conventional fixed wing operations. The Marines tried a similar thing during the invasion of Iraq, and have done similar things in Afghanistan (setting up a FARP outside Marjah a year or two ago, for example, to support Harrier operations out of Kandahar). The dirty little secret with all of these is that while they netted some impressive sounding metrics for the USMC and V/STOL, the cost that wasn't counted was the logistical effort necessary to keep these bases supplied with fuel, ammo, and maintenance support...as one example, one of the things that the Marines tout as being a benefit of V/STOL ops is reducing the burden on tanking support required by setting up FARPs closer to the action. That's all well and good, but you'll forgive me if I find it hard to believe that it is smarter/safer (forget cheaper) to truck fuel tankers overland outside the wire to a FARP on a road or parking lot somewhere instead of adding a few jets to the tanking support requirements for the day. The fact is that fixed wing aircraft (including USMC Hornets) were able to operate in the same areas more effectively and efficiently than Harriers doing V/STOL in each of the instances listed above, and this was due largely to the logistical burdens imposed by operating out of V/STOL only capable locations, which is why I think it is important to define what we mean when we talk about "austere" bases. And all of the above ignores the very significant differences between the F-35 and Harrier: cost (if you think the raid earlier this year on VMA-211 was bad, imagine it with F-35s being the target...putting your hundred million dollar+ stealth fighter within range of any asshole with a mortar seems like a very poor cost-benefit tradeoff), LO maintenance, increased fuel requirements, the increased heat footprint of the F-35 compared to the Harrier...all of these things further count against it from operating out of an austere V/STOL only location. I should be clear, this isn't an attack on Marines operating fixed wing aircraft, or the MAGTF concept...I think both are vital components of the way the Marine Corps does business, but if we're going to assess an idea's value we need to be honest about all its limitations, and the idea of effectively operating F-35s out of a truly forward austere base where they can only operate V/STOL is a pipe dream.

I just wanted to see what her history was because so many veterans say negative things about her on the internet. It takes less time to send the email to request the FOIA than it does to talk shit about her on this forum (2 or 3 minutes). I just wanted to see what her paperwork said. I have done this to other people running in the past. A guy was running for a senate seat in South Carolina few years back and his military records really showed a lot.... https://media.charles...irForceDocs.pdf Do you want that guy for a US Senator?

Why can't the four star hire his own lawn guys out of his own pocket if he wants his yard taken care of for him?

It's not necessarily jealousy. But in an age where we are cutting flying hours, RIFing people who want to stay (while simultaneously complaining about our retention problems), and retiring aircraft, I think a responsible leader would ask just how important is it to have a chef, leaf-bagger, on-call 737, personal motorcade, etc? We're looking for places to cut the budget, and a lot of these seem like pretty clean kills. You look at the perks these guys have, compared to what the men they are leading contend with, and tell me that it's a smart use of our money. It's also interesting to me that these guys end up with LARGER checks after they retire than when they are on active duty. For the rest of their lives. And if you really screw up, your punishment is that they announce your retirement to the media before you collect a quarter-million a year for life.

I'm actually a little disappointed in myself for not getting mentioned in the complaint.

12-year old shoots home intruder.