Search
Notices
Military Military Aviation

F18

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-04-2013, 08:52 AM
  #31  
Gets Weekends Off
 
F15andMD11's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2005
Position: 787 FO
Posts: 792
Default

The USMC's "B" has incredibly short legs. The USAF's "A" has underperformed in almost every category (even though it is the only version of the 3 that is remotely on schedule). The NAVY's "C" has had constant development problems.
There are serious concerns with the F-35, primarily in range and weight. The A and the C each have issues, the B is really in trouble, IMO. Do we really need STOL? Have the Marines ever used that capability from a remote strip? The B can't vertically takeoff, too heavy. It can only vertically land, and that's on a very well prepared surface. Forget highway strip, it will melt the asphalt. The B also can't land vertically with munitions that it returns with, again too heavy...really? Its so heavy, because if its required STOL gear that it has no range. We can save billions on that project alone.
F15andMD11 is offline  
Old 04-04-2013, 09:53 AM
  #32  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Adlerdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Default

Originally Posted by F15andMD11 View Post
There are serious concerns with the F-35, primarily in range and weight. The A and the C each have issues, the B is really in trouble, IMO. Do we really need STOL? Have the Marines ever used that capability from a remote strip? The B can't vertically takeoff, too heavy. It can only vertically land, and that's on a very well prepared surface. Forget highway strip, it will melt the asphalt. The B also can't land vertically with munitions that it returns with, again too heavy...really? Its so heavy, because if its required STOL gear that it has no range. We can save billions on that project alone.
A Harrier expert can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think:

Current marine corps use of the Harrier already deals with most of the limitations you attribute to the F-35B. The whole Marine corps aviation program off amphibious assault ships depends on STOL, so unless they're going to abandon that, then they need STOL. That's really where the STOL requirement comes in, not so much for remote strip ops.

Currently, the Harrier doesn't take off vertically with a combat load.
It also doesn't land with munitions because it's too heavy also.
Adlerdriver is offline  
Old 04-04-2013, 09:58 AM
  #33  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,293
Default

Originally Posted by F15andMD11 View Post
Do we really need STOL? Have the Marines ever used that capability from a remote strip? The B can't vertically takeoff, too heavy. It can only vertically land, and that's on a very well prepared surface. Forget highway strip, it will melt the asphalt. The B also can't land vertically with munitions that it returns with, again too heavy...really? Its so heavy, because if its required STOL gear that it has no range. We can save billions on that project alone.

The remote-strip mission would be applicable during an invasion scenario. It's part of USMC doctrine for expeditionary ops. Do we still need to do amphib invasions? That's a higher-level issue. Maybe the B mission could be handled by carrier-based aircraft instead.

But the day-to-day application of STOVL is to provide strike/fighter capability to the Amphibious Ready Groups. This is a legit requirement since the ESGs often operate far from any other support. STOVL allows them to provide CAS to their ground forces, and self-defense if needed. An ARG is a lot of people and hardware, and could be vulnerable to red air in some circumstances. Lack of STOVL would alter ARG capability, and that's not an insignificant part of our global forward presence.

You could even argue that AV-8Bs are too limited, particularly in the fighter role, and that the F-35 is actually a long-needed fix to that shortfall.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 04-04-2013, 10:19 AM
  #34  
Gets Weekends Off
 
F15andMD11's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2005
Position: 787 FO
Posts: 792
Default

This is a legit requirement since the ESGs often operate far from any other support.
On paper...last utilized when?
Maybe the B mission could be handled by carrier-based aircraft instead.
Exactly! Which begs the question, do the Marines really need an air arm besides helos. That should get the Marines responding!
The whole Marine corps aviation program off amphibious assault ships depends on STOL, so unless they're going to abandon that, then they need STOL.
What do you know! LOL!
So perhaps we can save on Marine dedicated boats too.
F15andMD11 is offline  
Old 04-04-2013, 11:35 AM
  #35  
Get me outta here...
 
HuggyU2's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: Boeing right seat
Posts: 1,541
Default

Originally Posted by F15andMD11 View Post
On paper...last utilized when?
In Iraq. I'll find out the year, but within the last 10 years.

When was the last time we delivered a tactical nuke via a fighter?
Does that make it obsolete?
HuggyU2 is offline  
Old 04-04-2013, 01:06 PM
  #36  
Gets Weekends Off
 
USMCFLYR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Default

Originally Posted by F15andMD11 View Post
On paper...last utilized when?
Exactly! Which begs the question, do the Marines really need an air arm besides helos. That should get the Marines responding!
What do you know! LOL!
So perhaps we can save on Marine dedicated boats too.
ABSOLUTELY!
If one believe in the concept of the MAGTF - then of course there has to be all functions of Marine Air.
We'll leave the rest at that
USMCFLYR is offline  
Old 04-04-2013, 01:12 PM
  #37  
Gets Weekends Off
 
USMCFLYR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Default

If you study your history - the support given from the sea during the last 10 years of war answers that question.
Go back further and see what having a MEF off the coast of Kuwait did with the Iraqi defenses.
Go back further and the Harriers (though it pains for me to admit!)
A little further back - well a long time now - and we can look at the success of STVOL during the Falklands of course.

As ALL know that have read my comments on the F-35B before - I'm no fan.
I think it will be a failure.
I personally didn't see the Harriers forward deploy with the advance during IOF, but rather stay right there in Al Jabar. I thought they would move forward to the southern Iraqi airfields taken if not operate from FOBs or those highways strips like they practice in Camp Lejuene - BUT THEY DIDN'T (as far as I know at least - Harriers experts feel free to provide other evidence); but even I have to give them the successes they have earned and, at least in a planning stages, the requirements for the aircraft.
USMCFLYR is offline  
Old 04-04-2013, 01:21 PM
  #38  
Gets Weekends Off
 
RedeyeAV8r's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
Default

=F15andMD11;1384930
Exactly! Which begs the question, do the Marines really need an air arm besides helos. That should get the Marines responding!
What do you know! LOL!
So perhaps we can save on Marine dedicated boats too.
Nobody does CAS like the Marines! Nobody.

When the grunts call for Air support, thry can always count on their Marine Air buds to be there.
RedeyeAV8r is offline  
Old 04-04-2013, 01:55 PM
  #39  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,193
Default

Originally Posted by RedeyeAV8r View Post
Nobody does CAS like the Marines! Nobody.

When the grunts call for Air support, thry can always count on their Marine Air buds to be there.
Yeah, for about 5 minutes until the Harriers bingo out, with their one GBU-12

FWIW the best CAS platform out there in the last 10 years is a toss up between the A-10 and F-15E. Suphornet would be a close contender if we didn't have to keep going back to the boat to make recovery times and could hang out on station for the entire duration of the TIC.
Grumble is offline  
Old 04-04-2013, 02:02 PM
  #40  
Gets Weekends Off
 
BDGERJMN's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Walmart Greeter
Posts: 694
Default

Originally Posted by F15andMD11 View Post
On paper...last utilized when?
2012 and they were effective.
BDGERJMN is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
skypine27
Cargo
78
08-09-2007 12:27 PM
DazednConfused
Military
29
10-10-2006 09:31 AM
captain_drew
Hangar Talk
33
06-09-2006 08:41 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices