Marine Corps Raptors?

[contraildash]

STOVL is only a requirement because of the MEUs embarked on the LHDs.

THIS

Other than flying off the LHDs, when have AV-8Bs actually needed to use STOVL in a combat role? From what I've found, they've mostly operated from long runways (as they do now).

I say scrap the F-35B, give them the F-35C, fly off CVNs / long runways. Save money.

[SurelySerious]

THIS Other than flying off the LHDs, when have AV-8Bs actually needed to use STOVL in a combat role? From what I've found, they've mostly operated from long runways (as they do now). I say scrap the F-35B, give them the F-35C, fly off CVNs / long runways. Save money.

It's possible you might be giving up more capability by tearing apart the aviation part of the MEU than you intend, or incurring more cost elsewhere. I know amphibious assaults seem far-fetched, but it seems the LHDs provide a platform for organic CAS where you might not have any long runways to operate from, from a place where you might not want to put your carrier strike group (right off the shore, for example), or across a wider area by not being attached at the hip to a CVN (for a lesser conflict where you don't need to tie up a whole CSG). The MEUs can operate within its own expeditionary strike group independent of carrier strike groups, so I guess it could tie up the Marines' freedom of movement or incur the cost of more CVN strike groups to cover them, which gets expensive also.

I guess, in short, you'd be tearing apart the whole MAGTF structure. I'm not an expert on the Navy/Marine side though, so I could be totally wrong; just some food for thought.

Edited October 15, 2011 by SurelySerious

[di1630]

The problem with designs lie the F-22 and F-35 is that once designed, it is very expensive to update for new emerging capes. They can't find an affordable way to put Aim-9x or a helmet in the F-22. The F-35 will have optics sub par compared to legacy fighters carrying the newest targeting pods because its system was designed 10 yrs ago and you have to replace 6 camera systems to update. WTF do we need a STOVL version? Buy more raptors, make them A/A only. The F-35 program has proven a failure in terms of cost benefit. Buy block 60 F-16's and start designing a "suitable" A-10 replacement. In 10 years our deep strike option will consist of X-47 type UCAVs. Manned 5th Gen is great for airshows and recruitment but I doubt we send any piloted jet into a high threat area while we have drones on the shelf that can do the mission.

[SuperWSO]

Other than flying off the LHDs, when have AV-8Bs actually needed to use STOVL in a combat role? From what I've found, they've mostly operated from long runways (as they do now).

I say scrap the F-35B, give them the F-35C, fly off CVNs / long runways. Save money.

Read up on the UK Falklands campaign. AV-8s flew off of container ships. STOVL allows the Marines to fly out of much smaller airstrips than a conventional fighter can use. In the last several wars the US has fought, we have had access to significant stretches of concrete in countries that were willing to host us. That might not always be the case.

The problem with designs lie the F-22 and F-35 is that once designed, it is very expensive to update for new emerging capes. They can't find an affordable way to put Aim-9x or a helmet in the F-22.

F-22 can carry AIM-9X. Let me distill your argument - we should continue to add capabilities to existing systems because it is impossible to add capabilities to systems that are still in design/production. YGBSM?

People continue to say that drones should be the only thing we buy/build. Drones will either rely on a link back to friendly territory that can be jammed, or preprogrammed with a set target list. How many years has it been since USAF assets have taken off with a "planned" target? I can't see the X-45 doing CAS any time in the next 20 years.

Edited October 15, 2011 by SuperWSO

[di1630]

F-22 uses Aim-9x since when? My point was that legacy fighters are easier to upgrade. Targeting pod outdated.....slap a new one on. JSF optics outdated....too damn bad, can't afford to replace all 6 cameras. I am not a drone proponenet. I am just saying that we will use them until proven we can't. Ff 5 years from now we need to bomb Iran and it is X-45 vs F-22.....the drone will go first. You are right, if someone can take down our link, we need manned airframes.

[brabus]

They can't find an affordable way to put Aim-9x or a helmet in the F-22. The F-35 will have optics sub par compared to legacy fighters carrying the newest targeting pods because its system was designed 10 yrs ago and you have to replace 6 camera systems to update

Where are you getting your info...WOMs?

Buy more raptors, make them A/A only.

Agreed...and their limited A/G ability does not detract from their A/A ability, so there's no reason to "make them A/A only."

I doubt we send any piloted jet into a high threat area while we have drones on the shelf that can do the mission.

Right...good luck with that hypothesis.

[contraildash]

Read up on the UK Falklands campaign. AV-8s flew off of container ships. STOVL allows the Marines to fly out of much smaller airstrips than a conventional fighter can use. In the last several wars the US has fought, we have had access to significant stretches of concrete in countries that were willing to host us. That might not always be the case.

I have. It's a great read. The Falklands campaign is a bad counter example. The entire reason the British used Harriers: they were the only carrier fighter they had. And even then they didn't have enough. They supplemented the Sea Harrier squadrons with RAF Harriers / pilots. The British used two container ships to bring in extra Harriers to replace attrition losses. They didn't operate off them, but were in fact transported from Ascension Island along with a dozen or so helicopters. Once close enough, the Harriers were flown to the two carriers. Not sure if any were lost when the Atlantic Conveyor was sunk by Exocets.

I'm pretty sure that if the RN still had the Ark Royal, they would have had a SQ or two of F-4s wreckin' havoc on the Argentinians.

If anything, Surely's point is a more valid argument for retaining a VSTOL fighter capability within the USMC.

[MKopack]

All of the Harriers (FAA Sea Harriers and RAF GR.3's) had previously been flown off the Atlantic Conveyor, but the ship went down with six Wessex and four of the five Chinooks that were being carried. The only Chinook to survive was "Bravo November" that has now served in the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan with four of her pilots being awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.

You're right that a deck full of Phantoms and Buccaneers on the Ark Royal would have made the Falklands a completely different campaign. STOVL adds quite a bit of flexibility, but usually at the cost of capability.

[Majestik Møøse]

seems to me a swarm of AT-6s (or updated A-10s) makes a lot more sense for marine CAS

Could an AT-6 take off from one of those LHD ships? Prolly not but I wish somebody would try.

[BQZip01]

I've never seen STOL used, or been somewhere it was required. Anything is possile in the future, but cost exceeds benefit for that capability in my opinion.

And few of them have necessary arresting gear for fighters. They can fly off of smaller ships (i.e. amphibious assault ships) where F-22s can't. The Marine Corps also has a requirement to be a stand-alone force. That stand alone force needs air cover and, since the Marine Corps doesn't have a carrier to its name, this leaves helicopters (VTOL) and VSTOL jets like the Harrier as the only solution. Marine Corps Hornets are great (got to fly with some of 'em), but they need land bases that may not be accessible in certain tactical situations.

[SuperWSO]

I have. It's a great read. The Falklands campaign is a bad counter example. The entire reason the British used Harriers: they were the only carrier fighter they had.

I'm pretty sure that if the RN still had the Ark Royal, they would have had a SQ or two of F-4s wreckin' havoc on the Argentinians.

If anything, Surely's point is a more valid argument for retaining a VSTOL fighter capability within the USMC.

Quibbling. The question was when has an AV-8 ever been used in a combat role that required STOVL. I provided a historical example. I'm not sure what makes it a "bad" example. Then you go on to wish that the British had retained a carrier that was more capable. I'll be sure to check with you when the USAF is wishing they had a tanker sooner/ bomber earlier / more F-22s. The British (govt, not military) failed to learn that you can't always predict when you will need that little used capability like a carrier, and its a path the US military is being led down now. My two cents.

[Guest CAVEMAN]

The Senate in the last decade funded the building of brand new LHD's to replace the old LHA's. These new LHD's were built with the MAGTF(MEU) in mind and they are expected to be around for a long time. The Marine Corps need to make the F-35B program work or else, the US Navy will need to dedicate more flat tops thereby making the LHD investment a waste.

[contraildash]

Quibbling. The question was when has an AV-8 ever been used in a combat role that required STOVL. I provided a historical example. I'm not sure what makes it a "bad" example.

Historical comprehension. Operations in the Falklands didn't require STOVL. RN ops in the Falklands required carriers. The only carriers in the RN were the short decks w/ Harriers. As far as the Ark Royal, I was just stating that had it still been operational it probably would have been down there to fufill the operational requirement.

[BlackKnight]

Marines are stupid. Too stupid to be ######ing around with airplanes in the first place, let alone the F/A-22.

Pulled bait from bait bin, put on the hook, cast in to the water, sat and waited.

No bites.

Nice try/troll though...

[di1630]

Where are you getting your info...WOMs?

Agreed...and their limited A/G ability does not detract from their A/A ability, so there's no reason to "make them A/A only."

Right...good luck with that hypothesis.

I heard the complaints direct from guys flying and working on both projects about how tough it is to upgrade vs legacy fighter.

You upgrade one system, due to the fusion, you gotta change a lot of things. The A/G mission does detract from A/A. Instead of getting A/A upgrades, they spend money on A/G upgrades.

You really think they are going to send a manned fighter into complex IADs if a RPA can do it instead? I think my hypothesis holds weight.

[brabus]

I heard the complaints direct from guys flying and working on both projects about how tough it is to upgrade vs legacy fighter.

You upgrade one system, due to the fusion, you gotta change a lot of things

I'll buy the fact about the fusion problem. Things being more complicated to replace, update, etc. is just something that goes along with getting more advanced stuff. Yes it's easier to slap a new radar into a legacy fighter, but there's good reason why we need new planes and not just constant upgrades. Not to say I don't want an AESA radar right now, but you can only upgrade so much on a 20+ yr old fighter. The increased PITA of sensor fusion, etc. upgrades is worth having those things to begin with.

Instead of getting A/A upgrades, they spend money on A/G upgrades

Just because money is spent on A/G upgrades does not mean the jet is suffering A/A. The Raptor is doing just fine in the A/A realm.

You really think they are going to send a manned fighter into complex IADs if a RPA can do it instead?

Yes. Do you think complex IADs aren't trained against by manned fighters today? Do you really think the AF won't send manned aircraft flying through multiple MEZs to get the job done? Additionall, the operative phrase in you statement being "a RPA can do it instead." I'm not blind, maybe in 20 years, but for now the job simply cannot be done via RPAs alone. Not now, not anytime in the near future. Yes technology continues to evolve and maybe we'll have a RPA only solution to that problem down the road, but there is nothing on the shelf that solves this problem without manned assets.

[di1630]

Just because money is spent on A/G upgrades does not mean the jet is suffering A/A. The Raptor is doing just fine in the A/A realm.

Yes. Do you think complex IADs aren't trained against by manned fighters today?

Sure the Raptor is doing fine but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of good unfunded upgrades to their A/A mission that could be funded if they didn;t have to worry about A/G.

Of course IADs are "TRAINED" against for worst case scenario. That doesn't negate the fact that if a low observable RPA can go in and do the job without risking a manned fighter, they'll send it first. The only reason they won't is if they need to prove the worth of the manned fighter in question (which I could see). I am not advocating RPA use over manned fighters, I just know that's the reality of it and the defense industry does too from the insiders I've talked to....which is why they are spending a ton of $$ developing these things before the military has even put out a requirement for them. They know the damn things will sell in the future.

[StoleIt]

Sure the Raptor is doing fine but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of good unfunded upgrades to their A/A mission that could be funded if they didn;t have to worry about A/G.

Of course IADs are "TRAINED" against for worst case scenario. That doesn't negate the fact that if a low observable RPA can go in and do the job without risking a manned fighter, they'll send it first. The only reason they won't is if they need to prove the worth of the manned fighter in question (which I could see). I am not advocating RPA use over manned fighters, I just know that's the reality of it and the defense industry does too from the insiders I've talked to....which is why they are spending a ton of $$ developing these things before the military has even put out a requirement for them. They know the damn things will sell in the future.

I agree with a lot of what your saying..but it's hard to remotely hack into a manned fighter.

China isn't going to play fair if we start going at it. What are we going to do with our RPA's when they take out all our satallites? Or jam the waves? Etc etc.

It's a lot easier to design a virus than it is an anti virus. In the digital battle of sword vs shield, sword wins and the shield is months behind.

[FallingOsh]

Also, wtf are the marines going to do with essentially a -15C?

WTF is the Air Force going to do with essentially a -15C?

I kid. But seriously...

We could have light attack aircraft for a fraction of the price while still pumping out Raptors for the A/A roll. We've gotten so far away from building mission specific aircraft that we've created one that doesn't fit any niche. It's like trying to design a block that is round and square and triangle all at the same time so you can just use one block to fill all the holes. (sts?) Turns out it doesn't fit any. It's a neat looking block, though.

Everything is joint to the point of breakdown. The entire -35 program has been one compromise after another in order to build a joint platform. It's not an expert at anything. It's too expensive to buy in meaningful numbers. The order is too small to replace any of the airframes it's designed to replace. If you think the -35 is going to deploy to remote locations where STOVL is needed then I think you're diluted. $200M airframes aren't sent to play in the dirt. What we have is an unbelievably expensive airframe that doesn't deliver to any of the services, missions, or original goals of the program.

Reminds me of The Homer Car.

Edited October 18, 2011 by FallingOsh

[Guest]

China isn't going to play fair if we start going at it. What are we going to do with our RPA's when they take out all our satallites? Or jam the waves? Etc etc.

You are assuming they're going to have the opportunity to throw the first punch.

They have to have an operating capability to manage a sophisticated cyber attack in order to come after us. We're better at this than they are. Way better.

Just sayin'...

[Guest]

I'm not blind, maybe in 20 years, but for now the job simply cannot be done via RPAs alone. Not now, not anytime in the near future. Yes technology continues to evolve and maybe we'll have a RPA only solution to that problem down the road, but there is nothing on the shelf that solves this problem without manned assets.

I know you haven't been part of a night one strike package so you haven't had an up close and personal look at exactly how we do this "who/what goes first" act but be advised, it is not manned airplanes...

[StoleIt]

Everything is joint to the point of breakdown. The entire -35 program has been one compromise after another in order to build a joint platform. It's not an expert at anything.

One can argue the F-15E and F-16 fit into that definition and they are pretty successful.

It's too expensive to buy in meaningful numbers. The order is too small to replace any of the airframes it's designed to replace/

According to "GlobalSecurity.org" the USAF has 1,763 ordered.

If you think the -35 is going to deploy to remote locations where STOVL is needed then I think you're diluted. $200M airframes aren't sent to play in the dirt. What we have is an unbelievably expensive airframe that doesn't deliver to any of the services, missions, or original goals of the program.

So I guess the Marines/Navy should retire all their amphibious assault ships then. Just because it has STOVL doesn't mean it's going to be parking under a bridge and operating off a two lane highway. The Marines don't even do that with their Harriers.

And how do you know that the F-35 doesn't deliver? The only thing you are judging is based on finances and delays. Yes, the over runs and delays are staggering, but that doesn't mean the F-35 isn't a far leap ahead of F-16s and F-15s.

Edited October 19, 2011 by StoleIt

[Buddy Spike]

I know you haven't been part of a night one strike package so you haven't had an up close and personal look at exactly how we do this "who/what goes first" act but be advised, it is not manned airplanes...

Seriously? You of all people should know better.

[brabus]

I know you haven't been part of a night one strike package so you haven't had an up close and personal look at exactly how we do this "who/what goes first" act but be advised, it is not manned airplanes...

I'm aware. Hence why "can we get CALCM's to target X,Y,Z?" is one of the first questions asked in MPC, and of course naturally we get denied 99% of the time. Oh well, always worth asking. My comments had absolutely zero to do with CALCMs, TLAMs, HARPY, etc.

And yes, as I'm sure you're aware, the AF is willing to not wait on the aforementioned and go straight up manned fighters out the door night one into an IADs. Definitely not in every scenario, but they certainly will in some.

Edited October 19, 2011 by brabus

[Guest]

I'm aware. Hence why "can we get CALCM's to target X,Y,Z?" is one of the first questions asked in MPC, and of course naturally we get denied 99% of the time. Oh well, always worth asking. My comments had absolutely zero to do with CALCMs, TLAMs, HARPY, etc.

At RF, yes the assets are denied. That makes you better, which is good. At the show, however, they are not denied. They're required.

And yes, as I'm sure you're aware, the AF is willing to not wait on the aforementioned and go straight up manned fighters out the door night one into an IADs. Definitely not in every scenario, but they certainly will in some.

Uh, not so fast...it depends. On a lot. And those scenarios you described as "some" I would descibe as "very few."

Seriously? You of all people should know better.

Yes, I was raised as an iron ass Reagan baby...Cold War mindset "Chop-chop, Ivan's coming and don't ask about the threats because you allready know the answer is yes, full-up and everywhere."

As for current day, you know what I mean about willingness to take risks, minimum assets to support a package and why I can't go into detail. My point to a young guy was that there is much work done wrt IADS that is not done by manned aircraft or visible at the squadron level of planning. Lack /fallout of that activity is a no-go. It is part of our past, current and future.

One final word so that no one gets the impression that I'm afraid of the dark or Henny Penny when it comes to showing a little leg in the target area...

All of you, as operators, train to the worst case scenario so you can press naked. You have been and are now willing to face those threats. That is what makes the USAF great. And what makes you fucking studs that chicks dig.

A-10s going in medium altitude to shoot G model mavericks at SA-6s on day 1 of DS was blasphemy. Everyone knew the only way to defeat an SA-6 was to go in at USAFE combat standard 50' AGL and gun it. That was the prevailing tactical mindset at that time. What we realized was there really was more than one way to skin the cat.

Post DS the USAF got on the technology train and developed an amazing spectrum of capabilities to manage the threat risks. We got so good at it that the risk of losing an airplane became unthinkable because it was not necessary.

Fast forward to 2003 and Intel's naming of the night one OIF IADS as the "Super MEZ" which pissed many off, myself included. What the Iraqis had that first night was a fraction of the capability you train to today but the Intel bedwetters just summed up the number of potential threats, assumed they were all manned by level 9 operators and came up with a sexy name to put on all their graphics.

But, to cut intel a bit of a break, they did that for a reason. The boss forced them to be conservative. Buzz was especially concerned about "our kids" as he used to refer to all the folks flying. He did not want to understate the threat or allow for complacency. Did people press even when we had fallout? Yes. Were they really pressing into a Super MEZ? Fuck no.

So, do I think our first position is ever going to be send manned assets into contested airspace first if we have a choice to do otherwise? Nope. We will use our growing arsenal of "unique capabilities", as Obama described them at the beginning of WW Libya, to manage the risk.

I know you fuckers are willing to plow dick-balls-forecranium into any threat in the world. I know you're not pussies. I also know that it is not your decision to make. That's all I'm sayin'...