Tactical need for the F-35B?

[Catbox]

Maybe that effort of yours should be spent figuring out Air Force doctrine; it seems you guys have an identity crisis going on and can't figure out where/how you want to fit in.

Oh come on, our only problem is we have no sense of our own legacy and history, no idea where we are going in the future, subject to ridicule at all levels of government, our swaggering bomber and fighter pilot leaders with natural talents have been exchanged for a long string of cooperate types who still bow to things like TQM (or whatever the latest iteration of it is titled)...leaders who yearn for fashionable new uniforms above all else. If that’s all we have to worry about, we surely can tell the Marines how to do their mission.

Seriously though, thanks for your take...the deployment time issue and the self-contained package is not something I'd considered. Still not sold but it does make sense.

[BB Stacker]

Maybe the doctrine is a problem.

It may be time for the Marines to rethink the "we must be able to do everything all by ourselves (except drive the boat)" theory that they seem to believe is absolutely vital.

I would argue personally that our support of this theory has more than once negatively impacted overall joint capabilities. And joint capabilities--not Marine capabilities--should really be what it's all about.

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.

Edited November 21, 2012 by BB Stacker

[Guest]

Not bad at all...IYAAYAS!

[billy pilgrim]

Those who think we DON'T need this aircraft only need to reference the Lockheed Martin website:

For the first time in aviation history, the most lethal fighter characteristics – supersonic speed, radar-evading stealth, extreme agility and short takeoff/vertical landing capability (STOVL) – have been combined in a single platform; the F-35B.

With the F-35B in their fleet, expeditionary forces, like the U.S. Marine Corps, have a decisive advantage over their adversaries. The F-35B’s versatility, as demonstrated onboard the USS WASP (LHD-1), will revolutionize expeditionary combat power in all threat environments by allowing operations from major bases, damaged airstrips, remote locations and a wide range of air-capable ships.

The F-35B gives warfighters the ability to accomplish their mission, wherever and whenever duty calls. - https://www.lockheedm...vl-variant.html

Uh yeah - and according to the stats this $237M (wikipedia) 7.0g capable aircraft carries TWO 1,000lb JDAMS as well as DUAL AMRAAMS. At least it will probably be cheap to fly and have stellar MC rates?

[Almansur]

Uh yeah - and according to the stats this $237M (wikipedia) 7.0g capable aircraft carries TWO 1,000lb JDAMS as well as DUAL AMRAAMS. At least it will probably be cheap to fly and have stellar MC rates?

Internally, in full stealth mode. In legacy mode it can carry a whole lot more.

[Guest]

Internally, in full stealth mode. In legacy mode it can carry a whole lot more.

Interesting. I have not heard of "legacy mode" before. Is there anything aside from external stores that come with the "legacy mode" upgrade?

What is the name for the mode where we expect to conduct STOVL combat operations with heavy weight SCLs (legacy mode) out of no shit austere locations like Bagram?

[tac airlifter]

Internally, in full stealth mode. In legacy mode it can carry a whole lot more.

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.

[Guest]

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.

That's what I was thinking was "legacy mode" but was too polite to say anything.

[Almansur]

Interesting. I have not heard of "legacy mode" before. Is there anything aside from external stores that come with the "legacy mode" upgrade?

Non-stealth, that's all that was meant, things under wings. With internals only, the F-35B can bring back everything to the ship. Not sure what if can bring back hanging. Funny thing, I was looking at the picture yesterday of the Israeli F-15C-equivalent with 3 JDAMs and fastpacks and was thinking it might take off with it, but I doubt it would be cleared to land like that...

[Almansur]

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.

I've never been a fan of STOVL. But there are two types of STOVL considerations. One is like the RAF wanting to buy F-35Bs because they used Harriers, although the situation has changed dramatically. The other is being stuck with "helicopter carriers" that cannot use anything else remotely viable. And that goes double for Spain, Italy and the RN. And very likely to Japan.

[Guest]

Non-stealth, that's all that was meant, things under wings. With internals only, the F-35B can bring back everything to the ship. Not sure what if can bring back hanging.

Ah, right. So in other words, you don't know the square root of fuck all about any of this except what you read about in books and you're making shit up as you go to sound smart, correct?

And BTW, I'm cool with that...just setting the gain appropriately.

Funny thing, I was looking at the picture yesterday of the Israeli F-15C-equivalent with 3 JDAMs and fastpacks and was thinking it might take off with it, but I doubt it would be cleared to land like that...

Interesting observation. Not really.

I've finally realized that you're not a pilot. That was obvious, I'm sure, to everyone else around here but it just hit me in the cranium.

Are you an aviation enthusiast from Spain, maybe?

Edited November 21, 2012 by Rainman A-10

[HuggyU2]

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?

[Almansur]

Ah, right. So in other words, you don't know the square root of ###### all about any of this except what you read about in books and you're making shit up as you go to sound smart, correct?

...

Interesting observation. Not really.

See it as you like on part 1. On part two, if the Israelis had put a mudhen gear and associated strengthening on that bird, which they did not because the obvious tells on the main gear are not there, maybe you'd be right. It is even possible that you are right nevertheless, but I'd be willing to wager that minimum fuel plus THAT load and the Eagle must be very close to maximum landing weight.

But don't let me spoil your fun. Goodbye.

[Guest]

See it as you like on part 1.

Will do.

But don't let me spoil your fun.

Don't worry about that one bit. Thanks for your concern. I wasn't trying to out you, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFV_LjXID_w.

Goodbye.

[Swanee]

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.

Sheesh, scotch and posting on the internets mixes so well for me. At the time I think it fires me up, looking back it makes me look like every other Yut Yut who is afraid that one day Congress is going to decide to do away with my beloved Corps.

No you're right on a few levels. We won't put them in places like Camp Bastion, or even further forward deployed. They are National Treasures- I don't want to think about what would happen if we lost 8 F-35s like we lost those 8 Harriers. I seriously doubt that we will put this airplane in that same threat environment.

And that is the talk, do we as Marines really need all of the capability that the F-35 gives? Maybe, but probably not. Deep strike capabilites, those are a carry over from when we flew A-6s, off of big CVs and CVNs. We don't do that. We shouldn't do that. The Navy and you AF types should be in that business.

I do think we need some DCA/OCA ability. An ESG is cheaper than a CSG, and if we can get away from having to deploy with the Carrier Air Wing it makes sense. So we'll take it. That doesn't mean we're only sending an ESG to go big some boot up Iran/NK/China's ass, but it means that we can operate independently and have the ability to deal with some type of air threat. We can also do things like give localized air superiority so our CAS and Assault Support guys can operate for those first few days in a reduced A/A threat environment. Plus that frees up other services sorties for other missions.

The F-35 for a CAS asset is... well, time will tell. What we need is a light attack airplane. Something with longer/faster legs than a Helo but that also has loiter time. A-29, AT-6 come to mind. But how to we get those off of a small deck with a full combat load? I'm not an engineer, I don't know.

Make no mistake, the guys I've talked to who fly it tell me it's a game changer. It has some great capabilities and it has the ability to grow.

As far as MAGTF capabilities, the focus of the Marine Corps is to get away from the land army that we have become. We are getting rid of all of those big ass vehicles that we've been riding around in in Iraq and AFG. We want to be a 911 force, first strike and boots on the ground in a matter of hours from getting the call. We fight long enough to get everyone else's logistical shit together so you guys can come with the Army and roll though the asshole. That's the idea at least. We'll see what happens.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Swanee

[Prozac]

The F-35 for a CAS asset is... well, time will tell. What we need is a light attack airplane. Something with longer/faster legs than a Helo but that also has loiter time. A-29, AT-6 come to mind. But how to we get those off of a small deck with a full combat load? I'm not an engineer, I don't know.

Did you see the picture above of the OV-10 on the back of the Boxer? Why don't you guys pull those things out of the boneyard? Or better(?) yet, take Boeing up on their proposal to build some new ones. You could probably have a squadron of those things for the cost of one F-35.

[Swanee]

Did you see the picture above of the OV-10 on the back of the Boxer? Why don't you guys pull those things out of the boneyard? Or better(?) yet, take Boeing up on their proposal to build some new ones. You could probably have a squadron of those things for the cost of one F-35.

OV-10X. Can't take off with a full combat load and gas to get there and back. Would need tanker support- that defeats the purpose.

[contraildash]

[Danny Noonin]

As to the second- the Marine Corps isn't going away from the MAGTF idea. It is what makes us who we are, it's how we fight. If you can get a battalion(+) of Army dudes with all of their shit they need to fight for 15 days and have their air support with them ready to go anywhere in the world in a matter of hours you can talk about changing Marine Corps doctrine.

We as a service have a very specific purpose, (one that has been bastardized as a second land army in the last 10 years, but we're getting away from that) and we know what that purpose is.

Maybe that effort of yours should be spent figuring out Air Force doctrine; it seems you guys have an identity crisis going on and can't figure out where/how you want to fit in.

Oh, ok. So if we're talking about buying extraordinarily expensive things to support our own self-written doctrine, then I'll take another 400 F-22s please. After all, air superiority is item #1 in AF doctrine--and as you are well aware, USMC doctrine requires that as well. We all know that a handful of Harriers in a MAGTF can't provide that and the F-35--while a a technological leap above the Harrier--does not have the ordnance or gas to provide that, let alone the numbers within a MAGTF.

So as for identity crisis in the AF, copy shot. There is definitely some validity there. But the USMC might look in the mirror once in a while and what I suspect you'll see is that you ARE a second land army and always will be, regardless of what your doctrine states.

[Swanee]

But the USMC might look in the mirror once in a while and what I suspect you'll see is that you ARE a second land army and always will be, regardless of what your doctrine states.

We aren't, we were used as one but it required a lot of stuff to get us there. I don't think you truly understand what the Marine Corps brings to the fight. But I don't expect you to. We have 237 years of operating off of ships, 100 years of flying airplanes, we've been around longer than your service, we do it cheaper, and in many cases better than the others. We cut programs that we don't need- look at the EFV.

Again I ask, what should Marine TACAIR fly if we don't fly the F-35? It's too big to fail, we put all of our eggs in that basket and without it we lose the VMFA, VMA and VMAQ squadron in a few short years.

The Marine Corps will always have it's own TACAIR, and it has to be capable of effectively operating from a boat to justify the Marine Corps owning it.

But hey, I'm just a dumb Yut who is trying to explain why MY service needs this airplane. You seem to know more about being a Marine and what the Marine Corps is than I do. Tell me, where did you learn this? Where did you earn your Eagle, Globe and Anchor?

[Danny Noonin]

Never claimed to know more about the Marine Corps than you, but I do in fact have a pretty good grasp of what the Marine Corps brings to the fight given what I do for a living right now. What I am suggesting is that we--as a DoD and a nation--are facing tough financial choices and that we can't keep doing everything the way we've always done them, regardless of how long anyone has been around, and regardless of how we would do things in a "perfect world". We just don't have the money. And like it or not, money drives strategy now, not vice versa.

While I do not think the Marines will ever lose TACAIR and have zero doubt the the F-35 is a reality for the Marines, I personally think there is a conversation worth having by reasonable, mature, non-parochial adults about whether the JOINT forces can provide the air support the Marines need, instead of requiring that air support to be organic. This nation has an ability to project airpower rapidly and at great distances, so I'm not convinced that the organic option is the only or best option. There certainly are other ways. The requirement to have that air support be organic has a significant cost, and it's more than money. For example, it has resulted in the next primary tactical aircraft for the USN, USAF and USMC being far less capable than it should be in this 5th generation age. It's a new world and everyone has had to adapt to the new reality. The fact that you've been around for a long time and had the same doctrine for a long time does not change that, nor should it.

Having said all of that, the train has left the station. Eliminating the USMC version of the F-35 now will not change the absurd design compormises and skyrocketing costs associated with the other two versions. So what I'm saying is that this whole conversation is N/A since, as you said, it's too big to fail now.

[Dupe]

I worry that the Marine Corps is about to learn a hard lesson on the dramatic costs of LO maintanence that we've learned over nearly 30 years now. Either that, or they simply will not accomplish LO maintanence thereby throwing away so much of what the costs of the F-35B are to begin with.

[Guest]

I don't think you truly understand what the Marine Corps brings to the fight. But I don't expect you to. We have 237 years of operating off of ships, 100 years of flying airplanes, we've been around longer than your service, we do it cheaper, and in many cases better than the others.

If this were reasonable logic we would all be asking Africa what to do.

The Marine Corps will always have it's own TACAIR...

Why?

You seem to know more about being a Marine and what the Marine Corps is than I do. Tell me, where did you learn this? Where did you earn your Eagle, Globe and Anchor?

Ugh.

I have always respected Marines, grunts and aviators. We could talk about CAS without them asking me the question you asked.

I have flown plenty of sorties supporting Marines on the ground. I didn't need to be a Marine to do it and they didn't send me away because I didn't have an eagle, globe or anchor on my uniform or USMC painted on my jet.

[BB Stacker]

I worry that the Marine Corps is about to learn a hard lesson on the dramatic costs of LO maintanence that we've learned over nearly 30 years now. Either that, or they simply will not accomplish LO maintanence thereby throwing away so much of what the costs of the F-35B are to begin with.

Probably option 2, especially if we're in a day 30 permissive airspace situation, which is likely to be most of what the F-35B specifically and the F-35 in general is used for...which raises the question of why the hell did we need LO in the first place. For that matter, I'm looking forward to seeing what the Navy's plan is for LO with the -C, operating continuously in a corrosive environment with limited maintenance facilities on board a ship.

[Smokin]

I'm pretty sure the F-35 was not designed for day 30 permissive airspace. Our 4th gen jets work just fine for that. But this gets back to the question I asked previously. The AF has put too many eggs in the F-35 basket to let it get dropped now, but I don't see the Marines needing the real capes of the F-35 in a stand alone MEF. Instead, something like the AT-6 with some JATO seems like it would be a fairly good fit. We as a military need to stop thinking that we can make a single $200M+ tool that will fix every problem.