F-16.net

swanee wrote:

You are right. I was more getting at the fact that the AF will use the A-10 until they start to fall out of the sky. I don't see the AF getting rid of the A-10, nor do I see them allowing anyone else to fly them. With all the money that is being thrown into them right now the AF will want to keep them around for a long while.

Though I have heard of a group (albeit small) within the Corp that wants to get the A-10 from from the AF. The boat argument holds up, but Marine Prowlers and C-130s don't see the boat.

Marine 130's and Prowlers are an intirely differnt animal then a service dedicated CAS platform. Prowlers being a National Asset aircraft they are really only the Marine Corps aircraft so far as they have Marine Crews and Marine Markings with Marines maintaining them. And the 130 is also finding its self in this type of role. The fact of the matter is the Marine Corps wants to emphasis its expeditionary doctrine and it cant do that with aircraft that are undeployable from anything other then land bases. Look at the Hornets, when the D goes there is no plan to replace it with anything other then Stovl JSF.

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Newbie Joined: Aug 29, 2007 Posts: 3 Status: Offline

It is truly a shame the U.S. Marines won't trade the F-35B for the C model. They would gain double the warload, 30% increase in range, common support with the U.S. Navy and could procure many more aircraft for the same funding. They would easily operate from U.S. Navy carriers or land bases, just as they do now with their F-18 squadrons. The ability to operate a F-35B from a LHD 25 miles offshore is nearly pointless; carrier(s) will be nearby in support for any signifigant operation. The Harrier, while a incredible aircraft, is too limited in endurance and warload and is much more expensive to operate with a higher accident / loss rate, compared to a CTOL. The F-35B improves on the Harrier, but the large reduction in endurance / warload and much higher price over the F-35C makes its procurement a waste of money for no REAL gain in capability. I vote to cut the F-35B, get the Marines an increased number of F-35Cs and offer the Brits the F-35C or let them navalize Typhoon, which many Brits seem to want in the first place.

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 23, 2005 Posts: 64 Status: Offline

Navalizing of the Typhoon is not possible... just like navalizong of F-16, and few other aircrafts that were designed for land bases.

F-35B gives "no REAL gain in capability" ? Look at its specs and compare it to the F/A-18D and AV-8B+. Those two airplanes today give them what they need, F-35B will still have more range than the Hornet, and allow for more warload than Harrier, with quicker reaction times than both airframes, operating independently from LHDs.

Navy won't get more aircraft carriers then it have today so where do you want to put those few additional squadrons that are flying Harriers and you want them to switch to carrier based aircraft ?

awin266 wrote:

It is truly a shame the U.S. Marines won't trade the F-35B for the C model. They would gain double the warload, 30% increase in range, common support with the U.S. Navy and could procure many more aircraft for the same funding. They would easily operate from U.S. Navy carriers or land bases, just as they do now with their F-18 squadrons. The ability to operate a F-35B from a LHD 25 miles offshore is nearly pointless; carrier(s) will be nearby in support for any signifigant operation. The Harrier, while a incredible aircraft, is too limited in endurance and warload and is much more expensive to operate with a higher accident / loss rate, compared to a CTOL. The F-35B improves on the Harrier, but the large reduction in endurance / warload and much higher price over the F-35C makes its procurement a waste of money for no REAL gain in capability. I vote to cut the F-35B, get the Marines an increased number of F-35Cs and offer the Brits the F-35C or let them navalize Typhoon, which many Brits seem to want in the first place.

Cutting the F-35B would not be a wise idea considering we have just seen how important STOVL has been in Afghanistan and to a lesser extent Iraq. Operating CTOL aircraft with their higher payload and endurance is a great idea - if you have places to operate them from. Initially in Afghanistan this wasn't easily done, and to this day CTOL aircraft are limited to where they can operate from in Afghanistan. So the Harrier has shown how important and useful it really is in these hostile places.

The poor conditions of a lot of airfields in Afghanistan have limited them to helicopters, harriers and a few other aircraft like the A-10. We were lucky to have the harrier as it has added enhanced air support and increased flexibility for military commanders in Afghanistan. USMC Harriers and RAF harriers have shown to be a god send. Cutting the F-35B would be a poor decision.

Quote:

F-35B gives "no REAL gain in capability" ? Look at its specs and compare it to the F/A-18D and AV-8B+.

Of course it is an increase in capability against legacy hornets and harriers, but it is a decided step down from the F-35C which the Navy is getting.

If the Marines will still be expected to provide on squadron of AC in each carrier air wing then the Marine squadrons currently flying hornets should get F-35Cs and not Bs.

Quote:

Cutting the F-35B would not be a wise idea

Because it would screw the British and Italians who have banked on using them on their baby carriers. It's got nothing to do with CAS in Afghanistan.

The correct thing to do is have the Marines reduce the F-35B buy so that they only replace Harriers and have the legacy Marine hornets replaced either by SH or F-35C.

Newbie Joined: Aug 30, 2007 Posts: 3 Status: Offline

People had the same concerns about the harrier when it was introduced but look at the falklands war. The 35b will be an asset.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Of course it is an increase in capability against legacy hornets and harriers, but it is a decided step down from the F-35C which the Navy is getting.

...because the F-35B does a few extra tricks. You lose fuel and payload for vertical thrust. Yes its nice to have extra range but its also nice to have flexibility - which the F-35B provides.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Because it would screw the British and Italians who have banked on using them on their baby carriers. It's got nothing to do with CAS in Afghanistan.

Take it you have never spoken to anyone who has served in Afghanistan? In fact weren't the USAF looking into the F-35B as well because of Afghanistan? Short unprepared airfields on hostile terrain, sounds like a job for a STOVL aircraft, and in fact it was the job for a STOVL aircraft - the harrier. Along with the A-10 it was a God send in that campaign. And seeing as the A-10 is to be phased out lets hope it is replaced with something that has nearly as good CAS capabilities and ability to operate from rough airfields - it looks like the F-35B is the only candidate for that role.

The British are not using baby carriers with the F-35B, we have discussed this already in a previous thread. Also seeing as the British have stuck by the US in both the Iraq and Afghanistan campaign losing a hell of a lot of popularity and credibility in the EU and to a lesser extent the rest of the world, perhaps you should show some consideration to their needs as well. Yes of course you always put your own country first, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't show a lot of consideration to an ally who has stayed with the US this long and indeed all the other allies there, whilst others have cut & run from these campaigns.

Thumper3181 wrote:

The correct thing to do is have the Marines reduce the F-35B buy so that they only replace Harriers and have the legacy Marine hornets replaced either by SH or F-35C.

I sort of agree and disagree. I would like to hear the opinion of various USMC pilots, crews, planners etc on the matter rather than just the top brass, as they have more experience than me and you put together.

Quote:

because the F-35B does a few extra tricks.

Other than short take off and vertical landing, such as?

Quote:

Yes its nice to have extra range but its also nice to have flexibility - which the F-35B provides.

We are talking about an aircraft carrier here. We are talking about a loss in payload, range, and reduced commonality.

Quote:

Take it you have never spoken to anyone who has served in Afghanistan

No but we all read about the British office who said he would rather have an A-10 on station than a Harrier. But that really is not the point is it. Again, we are talking about aircraft carriers, not Afghanistan.

Quote:

The British are not using baby carriers with the F-35B

They changed the design of POW and QE to accommodate F-35Cs? Since when?

Quote:

British have stuck by the US in both the Iraq and Afghanistan campaign losing a hell of a lot of popularity and credibility in the EU and to a lesser extent the rest of the world, perhaps you should show some consideration to their needs as well.

You need to stop misunderstanding what is being written. Where in this thread did I say to do away with the F-35B? But if England really wants to get in bed with France and Germany who are we to stop them?

Quote:

I sort of agree and disagree. I would like to hear the opinion of various USMC pilots,

The marines want an all f-35B force which would include squadrons deployed on carriers. The Navy is against it for the reasons stated above.

Enthusiast Joined: Jul 27, 2004 Posts: 90 Status: Offline

In my mind, the B and C serve very different functions and it doesn't make sense to state that one is better than the other.

In my opinion, the F-35B is better suited for the Marines' mission of supporting troops. It may not always be practical or wise to station a CVN off shore, round the clock, indefinitely to provide CAS. For the carrier to be kept safe, it has to be some distance off shore which increases flight time and decreases loiter time. The Marines have made very good use of STOVL capability by flying off LHDs, refueling and rearming at asture bases close to the action, and recovering to the LHD at the end of the mission. This minimizes response time and maximizes time on station.

Of course no one really knows what the future will bring so it makes sense in my opinion for the Navy to maintain a longer range, stealthy strike capability such as found in the F-35C.

In so far as the Marines can afford to specialize in CAS, the B is the better choice in my opinion. If they have to contribute to Navy strike power, than perhaps the C is the better machine for that role. If it were up to me however, I'd let the Marines do what they do best, support the troops on the ground. To be a jack of all trades is to be master of none.

Mike

Newbie Joined: Aug 30, 2007 Posts: 3 Status: Offline

I agree with mike that the marine corps are better suited with the 'B' model. It fits their warfighting role better especially in the expeditionary sense.

Quote:

In my mind, the B and C serve very different functions and it doesn't make sense to state that one is better than the other.

Agreed, but for the Navy the F-35C is by far the better choice. The sad fact is that the Pentagon (Rumsfeld) forced the Navy and Marines to exchange squadrons on a rotating basis. This has the effect of having one squadron out of four on a carrier being from the Marines.

This is not so big a deal when they are flying Hornets since both services fly the same plane. It is a very big deal when the Marines bring their F-35Bs optimized for CAS to the carrier. Either the Marines should replace their F-18's with F-35Cs or they get less Bs (enough to replace the Harriers only)and the Navy gets enough Cs to form four squadrons per wing.

Enthusiast Joined: Jul 27, 2004 Posts: 90 Status: Offline

Thumper3181 wrote:

Agreed, but for the Navy the F-35C is by far the better choice. The sad fact is that the Pentagon (Rumsfeld) forced the Navy and Marines to exchange squadrons on a rotating basis. This has the effect of having one squadron out of four on a carrier being from the Marines.

This is not so big a deal when they are flying Hornets since both services fly the same plane. It is a very big deal when the Marines bring their F-35Bs optimized for CAS to the carrier. Either the Marines should replace their F-18's with F-35Cs or they get less Bs (enough to replace the Harriers only)and the Navy gets enough Cs to form four squadrons per wing.

I've enjoyed many of your past thoughtful posts and it seems we see eye to eye here too. In my mind, DOD forcing the Marines to lend a squadron to a carrier air wing may have been Rumsfeld's attempt to weaken the rationale for having a separate air arm for the Marines. I hope the next administration reverses this decision.

Thanks Mike. I agree, this is another one of Rummies brainfarts. While my background is engineering and business, I realize that many concepts that look good in a power point presentation do not turn out to be such good ideas in practice.

Ideally, the Navy should get enough AC (either F-35C or SH) for all four squadrons in a CAW to be Navy and the Marines should get all F-35Bs in numbers that replace both the Harriers and the F-18s.

Considering the fact that air wings have shrunk over the years this would allow the Marines to get what they want and provide a surge capability for the carriers if need be since there really is no reason why they could not operate 5 or even 6 squadrons.

Imagine, during wartime a single carrier would embark two squadrons of SH, two squadrons of F-35C, and two squadrons of Marine F-35B plus EW, AEW, and ASW/SAR assets. This would equate to 26 SH, 20 - 24 F-35C, 20 -24 F35B, 6 F/A-18G, 4 - 5 E2-D, and 6 Seahawks.

Carriers routinely operated with 85-90 AC in the past so deploying with the above during times of crisis or war should be no problem. The Marines would still have enough F-35Bs to deploy on the LHAs and LHDs. The Marine F-35Bs that replace the Hornets would have a home afloat if need be both to provide additional firepower for the carrier or be flown ashore to support the Marines as conditions dictate.

As for the next administration, who knows. I think defense spending could go either way. Defense spending seems to cross party lines so it really depends not on the party in power but what type of party member(s) get elected both as president and in Congress.

Newbie Joined: Aug 29, 2007 Posts: 3 Status: Offline

While I agree with many of the points made here, I fear many are not accepting the fiscal realities of the JSF program. While I believe JSF is going to be a very useful multi-role fighter, many "features" have been dropped or reduced to keep the cost down (supercruise, Mach 2 dash, etc.) .In particular, the F-35B has been small sized with reduced warload and reduced fuel capacity to achieve the STOVL capability to operate from LHA / LHD / FARPs. With the F-35B costing 20 million plus more per airframe compared with F-35C, the U.S. Marines will be very luck with our "fiscally responsible" Congress to get half the F-35B airframes they have requested. I still believe the U.S. Marines would gain capability if they flew the F-35C over the F-35B. The reduced price would almost certainly mean 30% more F-35C (again, compared to the F-35B) airframes for the Marines, with greater endurance and twice the warload (internal / best stealth signature). Yes, I understand F-35C wont be flying off an LHD, and will have to come from a carrier or airbase, but LHDs don't have that much space to operate fast jets with MV-22s, CH-53s, AH-1s, UH-1s cycling off the deck. I believe the greater weapon load, endurance / loiter and manuverability (bigger wing / control surfaces) of the F-35C would more than offset STOVL operation. "Gator" navy ships (LHA / LHD / LPD and others) don't operate without heavy support from outside air / surface / sub-surface defense assets. In nearly any tactical situation, at least one CVN battle group is going to be range to provide air cover for the landing ships. The debate is almost academic, as the Congress prepares to fund items such as federalized healthcare, civilian infrastructure restoration, mortgage bailouts - the list is almost endless and the largest tax increase in U.S. history won't come close to covering the costs. Nope, BIG cuts in military programs are coming soon; I pray for the survival of the U.S. military as an effective force; anyone remember the Jimmy Carter years?

Both types (F-35B & F-35C) are very important to the USN/USMC doctrine. Yet, there is little advantage in operating shorter range F-35B's from CVN's. In all likely hood the USMC will reluctantly except a small number of F-35C's. Otherwise, I think they will be pushed out of USN Carrier Air Wings. Losing aircraft in the process!

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Are the F-35's going to be used for the US Navy?