Tactical need for the F-35B?

[Catbox]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/19/marine-corps-forms-squadron-to-fly-new-next-generation-strike-fighter-jet/?test=latestnews

The Marines just broke ground on their first F-35 squadron at Yuma with flights planned before the end of the year.

After all the ass-pain of the VSTOL variant, I'm curious if there as any real tactical viability (or even need) to operate from "unimproved surfaces at austere bases" and special amphibious landing ships (although I've heard the Marines are going to have to operate some C models because of their fleet commitments to the Navy).

After 30 years with the Harrier has this tactical need shown itself enough to go through all the trouble we are going through with this specific model of the F-35? Do they really put everything they need launch fighters (fuel, MX, etc...) at austere bases?

I have a couple of friends who are with the F-35 test squadrons and they say that the plane is a very capable platform but that the B model issues have had a major impact on the entire program.

Just throwing this out there because I honestly have no idea but have my doubts...

[sky_king]

Of course there's a need.

Aaahhnalld has to fly something in the remake.

[Danger41]

After 30 years with the Harrier has this tactical need shown itself enough to go through all the trouble we are going through with this specific model of the F-35? Do they really put everything they need launch fighters (fuel, MX, etc...) at austere bases?

They won't have every single possible perk, but they will bring the essentials along. Hell, ask some older cranium Hog dudes and airlift guys about early days at Bagram.

And due to the expeditionary nature of the Marines, having that capability is necessary. Like you pointed out, the Harrier hasn't had to do that (to my knowledge), but having that capability is a nice card to have.

[Guest]

They won't have every single possible perk, but they will bring the essentials along. Hell, ask some older cranium Hog dudes and airlift guys about early days at Bagram.

The simple answer is yes, we need to be able to operate out of austere locations.

That said, no way Bagram could've handled F-35s, or vice versa.

[nsplayr]

After all the ass-pain of the VSTOL variant, I'm curious if there as any real tactical viability (or even need) to operate from...special amphibious landing ships...

This has beed done. Whether it is long-term viable or better than other methods of delivering warheads to foreheads or a real need, I feel you on that since the B model is driving costs higher.

I have to say though, kinda seems like AF dudes would be talking out of their ass WRT the strategic need to VSTOL-launch fighters off of a smaller boat...kinda like when Army guys say we should just chop A-10s and preds to the Army and downsize the rest of the AF because what good are they doing anyways?

Edited November 20, 2012 by nsplayr

[BB Stacker]

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.

Edited November 20, 2012 by BB Stacker

[RAMurai]

[FallingOsh]

That said, no way Bagram could've handled F-35s, or vice versa.

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.

My thoughts exactly. Even if logistics weren't a limfac, what do you think the odds are a $160M jet will spend one day in a truly austere location?

I also found it funny the Marines went ahead and stood up a squadron.

Edited November 20, 2012 by FallingOsh

[Almansur]

My 2cts: no reasonable justification for an F-35B in terms of austere air bases or forward locations on land. Very different story at sea. Only thing going for the Marines "assault ships", Spanish, Italian and UK carriers, as well as the "disguised carriers" being built by Japan.

[10percenttruth]

one gigantic run-on sentence

3 paragraphs & roughly 4 periods... That was painful. I think there were some valid points buried in there somewhere though.

[Catbox]

My 2cts: no reasonable justification for an F-35B in terms of austere air bases or forward locations on land. Very different story at sea. Only thing going for the Marines "assault ships", Spanish, Italian and UK carriers, as well as the "disguised carriers" being built by Japan.

But if they are buying the C model anyways, why the need for special amphibious operations? Can the amphibious ships get in closer to where the traditional MAGTF guys are going to be operating than a normal full up carrier?

I have to say though, kinda seems like AF dudes would be talking out of their ass WRT the strategic need to VSTOL-launch fighters off of a smaller boat...kinda like when Army guys say we should just chop A-10s and preds to the Army and downsize the rest of the AF because what good are they doing anyways?

Agree because like I said, I honestly have no idea how the Marines expect to operate their jets but their requirements (which I don't think have been very well spelled out except for the "nice to have" argument) has seriously impacted the AF and the roll out of our new material.

My thoughts exactly. Even if logistics weren't a limfac, what do you think the odds are a $160M jet will spend one day in a truly austere location?

I also found it funny the Marines went ahead and stood up a squadron.

$160 million for the AF base model...B model is $240 million.

Several edits later: I'm new at the internet.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Catbox

[Almansur]

But if they are buying the C model anyways, why the need for special amphibious operations? Can the amphibious ships get in closer to where the traditional MAGTF guys are going to be operating than a normal full up carrier?

Only big carriers equipped with catapults and arresting gear can operate the F-35C. The Marines use Amphibious Assault Ships (Tarawa and Wasp classes) of which there are nine in commission, that can only support the AV-8B Harrier in terms of fixed wing fighter component, or their successor, the F-35B. Same for the two British carriers under construction. Same for the Spanish and Italian carriers, same for the Japanese.

*fixed typo

Edited November 20, 2012 by Almansur

[Phil Ken Sebben]

Also, the amphibs are probably something the Navy would be more willing to put closer to the fight than carrier groups. Just a thought.

[FallingOsh]

$160 million for the AF base model...B model is $240 million.

My apologies. What's a hundred million dollars between friends?

Only big carriers equipped with catapults and arresting gear a giant net can operate the F-35C.

Edited November 20, 2012 by FallingOsh

[Swanee]

But if they are buying the C model anyways, why the need for special amphibious operations? Can the amphibious ships get in closer to where the traditional MAGTF guys are going to be operating than a normal full up carrier?

It's all about having fixed wing air assets organic to the MEU. We don't deploy entire squadrons of Harriers- instead 4-6 are attached to the HMM (Phrog) or VMM (Osprey) squadron, along with some Cobras and Hueys.

Because the ESG doesn't go out with the CSG those Harriers and now F-35s are it. We put the old APG-65s into the Harrier to give them some DCA and OCA capability as well as improve their mud moving abilities/give them all weather attack ability.

That is the cool thing about a MEU- you get a complete fighting unit with air, ground and logistic support anywhere in the world for 15+ days before they need to be resupplied. Without a VSTOL capable fixed wing jet you don't get that.

[Smokin]

I completely understand the need for organic airpower in a MEU. But do they really need the F-35? I just don't see a MEU counting on organic airpower for 5th gen air superiority and deep strike against double digit IADs.

[Swanee]

I completely understand the need for organic airpower in a MEU. But do they really need the F-35? I just don't see a MEU counting on organic airpower for 5th gen air superiority and deep strike against double digit IADs.

What else are we going to use? Are there any other jets out there capable of taking off and landing from an LHD/LPD/LSD? Our Harriers aren't exactly low time airframes. Our Hornets aren't any better.

We needed this stuff years ago. We have cadre'd squadrons because we don't have enough airplanes to go around. We can't wait for another airplane to be developed.

[Guest]

What else are we going to use?

Choppers.

[Swanee]

Choppers.

Doctrinally that is a problem. Helos alone can't provide the 6 functions of Marine Air. Nor can they fill the fairly large gap that losing organic fixed wing assets leaves. The MEU couldn't do what it did in Libya with only some HMLA types.

We Marines are frugal types, if we don't need it we'd rather spend the money elsewhere on shit we do need.

[matmacwc]

Ohhh shit, you just argued against choppers to Rainman.

[Danny Noonin]

Doctrinally that is a problem.

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.

[busdriver]

From what I've gathered, the Marines don't really need an LO fighter, what they really need is a new STOVL fighter to operate off their mini carriers. It just so happens the only option for the foreseeable future is the F-35B.

Although I'd have to agree with Danny Noonin, do we need to take another look at what we expect the MAGTF to be capable of on their own?

Edited November 21, 2012 by busdriver

[ThreeHoler]

Choppers.

[Swanee]

From what I've gathered, the Marines don't really need an LO fighter, what they really need is a new STOVL fighter to operate off their mini carriers. It just so happens the only option for the foreseeable future is the F-35B.

Although I'd have to agree with Danny Noonin, do we need to take another look at what we expect the MAGTF to be capable of on their own?

There are many in my world that agree to the first.

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.

[nsplayr]