Grumble, the Navy does that to themselves each time a boat swaps in/out of the AOR and the CSG has a hard on for set cycle times. Incorporating a flex deck CONOPS into cyclic OPS would allow the very thing you talk about. Rhinos would be on par with Strike Eagles in that regard.

Every day. Like I said, they are a significant part of our forward global presence and in most cases just being present within easy reach of potential trouble fulfills the mission.

I'm not a huge F-35 (or B) advocate, but deleting the B model has larger ramifications than just taking an airshow tow away from the Corps. This is fact, and not really debatable.

You can debate whether we need a forward military presence, whether we need a Marine Corps, or whether we need ARGs. But it doesn't make sense to just delete the B model without considering the bigger issues involved.

But I agree with USMCFLYER, I suspect it will end up being too expensive, too unreliable, have too many operational limitations, or all of the above.

Also, equal time for an opposing view...and a good read:

Hovering at a precipice - August 2010 - Armed Forces Journal - Military Strategy, Global Defense Strategy

Agreed. Hard to convince the boat (handler) to buy in though. Self imposed limitations.

As far as STOVL, I would submit that it's needed for the MEU capabilitiy and that's been proven time and again. Afghanistan is a different animal in that being so far inland everyone is looking at the capability as something we could cut. What will the next conflict need though, and can we afford it in the form of the F-35B?

I don't disagree, but Marine aviation sold themselves out on the B, and as Whisper so eloquently outlined in the article I posted above, lost out when they failed to realize they needed to buy the F model Superhornet..certainly a different discussion altogether.

That wasn't really my point. Even carriers are getting drones. You can hang those bombs on the drone that launches from the carrier. That's my point. The manned aircraft aspect is just not that critical, at least for the future.

Logistically, it might be easier/cheaper to rotate subs than resupply carriers, I don't know, but it's a mess of man and machine. It's maybe a ways off before we don't need carriers, but I can see the future for manned aircraft is bleak.

Shack. Throw a LITENING II POD on it, and wow. What a CAS platform. :eek:

How do you satisfy the fast air/CAS req for a MEU though without either 1.) sending a CVN along or 2.) baseing them ashore? Rhetorical question that we probably can't solve here. :D And I'm not advocating for the B. Whisper brough up a great point about the British Harrier that was rocketed. Think more recently to the 6 Harriers that were lost at K-har. Imagine if that had been 6 B's. All points he brings up in his discussion about forward deploying national assets.

Subs are a (limited) strategic asset that you can't just roll in and out of theater hucking TLAM. They bring a whole host of much more complicated security concerns too with regard to their on going operation in a theater.

Umm...no. This statement doesn't support the discussion, sorry. Did the Brits have a choice in which carrier they could send down there? Sure they used STVOL because that's all they had. If it was our war would we have sent a carrier group or simply a MEF?

We're Americans - we would have overdone everything :D
A MEF probably could have handled it.
Ummm. No - it proves the point very well.
STVOL worked - whether it was for us or someone else. Aren't we arguing about the CONCEPT of STOVOL here?

JNB - could you remind us of your military background? I remember Army I think - but what did you do in the USA.
Some of your ideas and thought process on some of the capabilities, resources, and TTPs are a little out there.

Army, and Air Defense Artillery. My point wasn't that technology is "ready" and "replacing" right now, just that the idea of projecting power with a carrier full of manned fighters is simply not realistic for the future. And if we move past the carrier, we might be able to develop drones that can fly from much smaller ships. A huge amount of resources go towards keeping carriers going (my brother is a Navy Nuke), in terms of support ships, rebuilds, maint, etc. I think that for the near future we need them, but our development programs and procurement should be looking ahead at this point.

I might be way out of my league while commenting on air power, but:

F35? Yes, stupidly out of control cost. Not all that different than many other procurement programs though. I'm not for cutting it now, although I wouldn't think any less of someone that is, because someone really should have made that call much earlier or put the pressure on the development so it didn't get to the point it was now, but these are the last generations of manned fighters/bombers and in that respect I think they will be the interim while we develop technologies that are easier to deploy and just as effective. That's where I was coming from with the "carrier power" aspect. Some will argue that nothing can match the "psychological effect", but I'm sure we will work around even that...