blain wrote:Too bad Marines.
no thanks, we're very happy.
one of the reasons we have different services is to avoid duplication of effort. If you want it done like the Navy go to the Navy, want it done like the USAF, go the USAF
As I have been saying you guys are buying too many Bs.
We don't care what you think, Even if you knew what you were talking about.
Instead of a lift fan you could be carrying more fuel, payload, and AMRAAMs.
Golly, you'd almost get the impression the Marines think other things are more important...
up until very recently, US Harriers didn't even have AMRAAMS at all.
1. Do the Marines really need to 340 F-35Bs for large deck amphibs?
No we need even more than that but we had to buy some C's
If you assume that there are 10. A few could not deploy in the short term because they are in overhaul. If there is a war in the Pacific more will carry MEUs with a traditional ACE that only includes 6 F-35Bs than will be outfitted as light carriers. The maximum number of F-35Bs an LHA/LHD can carry is 20. If you are able to deploy ALL the large decks amphibs not in overhaul you are looking at less than 100 Bs.
A war in the pacific is going to be "all in" we aren't just going to be sending just 100 of anything. It would only be the largest war in human history after all
Add on to that austere locations - which are difficult to support and defend. The also B has less range than the C or A and will be dependent on AR.
No.
in 1991 Harriers being able to be based close actually relieved hard press Aerial refueling units as Harriers didn't require them, freeing them up to take care of the airplanes you think are more important and effective.
Win-win.
because Even though the F-35B is the "shortest range F-35" its still got a pretty damn impressive range comparatively. Its light years ahead of anything else we've ever had its (very loosely,) a Hornet that can STOVL with a Prowler packed into. it might also be the only option when known airfields get plastered, and the USN gets too antsy in situations where it won't risk the fleet (not that that has ever happened before in the pacific...)
You might not even need to operate off of a highway or small air field but are you really going to have another 100 Bs operating from these locations?
Yes.
An Air University study by an F-22 pilot identified over 250 air fields capable of supporting FARPs for F-22s between the first and second island chains.
Are these FARPS "hard to defend and difficult to supply" and more "vulnerable" or does that only happen when the planes say "Marines" on the side with their wacky ideas and backwards thinking?
No worry about not having enough AMRAAM though!

Welcome aboard F-22
2. Carriers have excess deck capacity as CVWs are smaller than in the past. You will need to augment CVWs with non deployed squadrons but at some point you are going to have attrition if the war goes long.
You sure will!
Marine air can both add capacity and act as a reserve.
its not going to be reserve, that was the point of the F-35B.
What's going to be more important in a near peer conflict?
Large carriers or light carriers?
both or Whatever is left/on hand I'm betting.
By this logic, why does the navy even bother with L-class, Marines, or the Gator Navy at all?
Youre looking at it backwards. L-class ships aren't going anywhere, The Gator navy is still going to be required especially in the pacific. So if youre going to have them there anyway, why not augment them with something more than helicopters, while increasing net firepower for the entire fleet and having unbeatable support during amphibious landings??
Is the Navy not going to bring its L-class ships, and Gator Navy Against China? Im pretty sure the MEU(SOC) has been a verified and successful tool Hasn't it?
3. Where are the Marine Cs going to operate from? As mentioned, carriers. But the same place where they operated from in Vietnam and the wars in the Middle East. From land bases. Which platforms dropped more payload and conduct more sorties in the ME? Intruders/Hornets or Harriers?
Harriers in 91 were doing 6- 8 sorties a day IIRC correctly.
Hornets going to Afghanistan had a helluva long trip and had to tank 4-6 times. Iraq in 2007 was 4 tanker hits I know.
Operation Desert Storm in 1991 was highlighted by expeditionary air operations performed by the AV-8B. The Harrier II was the first Marine Corps tactical strike platform to arrive in theater, and subsequently operated from various basing postures. Three squadrons, totaling 60 aircraft, and one six-aircraft detachment operated ashore from an expeditionary airfield, while one squadron of 20 aircraft operated from a sea platform. During the ground war, AV-8Bs were based as close as 35 nautical miles (40.22 miles) from the Kuwait border, making them the most forward deployed tactical strike aircraft in theater. The AV-8B flew 3,380 sorties for a total of 4,083 flight hours while maintaining a mission capable rate in excess of 90%. Average turnaround time during the ground war surge rate flight operations was 23 minutes.
blain wrote:Boeing needs to kept in the game so they can compete for the PCA with that version of the X-32.
OUCH

Now thats funny.
blain wrote:
If you want a high sortie generation rate you do not go the austere basing route.
False
Why?
Less aircraft
Difficult to support logistically with fuel, parts, and munitions
And yet those thickheaded Marines manage to do it even now. Spellbinding. They should be studied.
I guess its proof that if you train enough with something you can teach a monkey to do anything
You maybe a lot closer to the enemy. The enemy is a lot closer to you.
That the whole idea, champ
Or you could be based at larger air field farther away which is easier to defend or a carrier.
[/quote]
You mean the Chinese Bullseyes?
I don't mean to be terse, but frankly youre not the first person to complain about this. I think its only been covered again and again since about roughly the start of the JSF program. Even before that if you want to include the entire notion of the Harrier pre and post falklands. So basically over 40 years. As long as we have been using STOVL/VSTOL in an expeditionary capacity. (in other words, other than defensive counter air over Europe)
I'm wiling to play this game, but please don't complain we are too close to the action while also complaining we will need AR (I thought we were super close?) Or that we will be harder to supply while also complaining that the F-35B actually has less weapons, fuel, etc. (Should be easier to supply then no?) or that the F-22 can play the improvisation game with no danger or consequence, or wargaming big scenarios while thinking no one else is going to take big hits. (You think Kadina or Okinawa are yokota are going to be operating at full capacity and sortie generation 72 hours in? China just "forgot" to waste every airbase in the region?) "safety" is going to be very relative. Difficult to sustain and support is going to be everyone.
Its late and I'm tired, but I actually have some Deja vu? have we talked about this before in another thread? I know somewhere on this forum I've gone on at length about it, because again everyone accuses the USMC of "ruining" the JSF program and has questioned its need from the beginning.
The F-35B is lightyears ahead of what its going to be replacing. Youre complaining about "problems" we've never had the joy of having before. We didn't worry about not having enough AMRAAMs, because we didn't have any --so 4 is very nice. We didn't worry about payload-- because the harrier had less, and often had to dump it in order to land back on the boat. The B is "slower" on the back end, and yet is fastest at the start and goes mach 1.6 (harriers couldn't break mach 1) We aren't as worried about supply because we have more in common now with USN and USAF F-35s which will be around. We are actually in that "we need a new matress because this one is has too much money stuffed in it" happy problem phase. Its not that there aren't challenges, and its not like bad things won't happen. But this is the method in which Marines make war. F-35B fits that method better.
How many aircraft do you consider superior to a harrier? (might have to take your shoes off to count) How many are superior to an F-35B? (shouldn't need more than 1 hand, F-22 and then its trading places depending on metrics with the other 2 F-35 variants)
For as bad and problematic as harriers are, for all the trade offs and compromises theres nothing else that can do what it can. The Hornet was never able to. And we operate both, for decades now in a lotta wars.
There is about zero things I can think of that the F-35B doesn't make vastly better compared to what we were using. Does it come up 3rd place in a lot of things the C and A do better? absolutely However the other aircraft have trade offs too, and of course can't do things the F-35B can do.
What Marines want is available firepower to seize and defend advanced naval bases and in amphibious operations. Theyre more concerned about an F-35B being close to the action to support ground forces (flying artillery, think A-10) and dropping dozens of bombs a day very quickly on a rapidly changing battlefield, Rathn than having more fuel and AMRAAMS and hours away.
The mission and the need isn't going away. The USMC could switch to all F-35C tomorrow and just leave a massive gaping hole when the Harrier retires, and theres no amount of F-35C that can fill it.