Harrier vs Hornet in CAS?

I put this thread here because I was wondering how the USMC would compare the capabilities of the Harrier II vs the Hornet in the role of CAS. As many don't believe the F-35A/B/C is an adequate replacement for the A-10 in USAF Service???

In line with the spirit of this thread, I'm surprised that there's seemingly no priority to get SDB into USMC service in parallel with the Bees. Without the SDB, isn't there a gap in missions requiring multiple pin point low collateral effects (CAS)?

Possibly because multi-point low collateral PGM not a capability for existing USMC legacy aircraft either. The SDB-II is due 2020. Until then, there won't be that many Bs around in any case.

SDB is not a "naval" weapon.

SDB-II will be.

In line with the spirit of this thread, I'm surprised that there's seemingly no priority to get SDB into USMC service in parallel with the Bees. Without the SDB, isn't there a gap in missions requiring multiple pin point low collateral effects (CAS)?

Where have you been? They've been doing just fine without SDB in Iraq and Af'stan for many years.

Harrier has it all over the Hornet here, no question.

I should know, I've built several scale models of both. Some you had to glue together too...

Harrier has it all over the Hornet here, no question.

I should know, I've built several scale models of both. Some you had to glue together too...

In what way??? The Harrier has a single engine with hot exposed exhaust gases under the wings. Which, make them an idea target for MANPADS. Plus, they're slower than the Hornets and carry less weapons load and cannon shells.

Really, the only advantage of the Harrier II's are STOVL. Which, give them the option to operate closer to the front from either Amphibious Ships or Short Landing Strips.

Honestly, the F-35B will have the advantages of both the Harrier and the Hornet!

Man-man-man, what are we reading here.

For CAS speed is your ennemy, and wing area is your friend.

You have to stay on, or close over target, so slower speeds are better for CAS, but you need turning, and turning, and nose pointing capability. And, you need a good gun.

You can not come screaming in at zillion speed and then need 5-7 miles to turn and come back.

Situational awareness and nose pointing capability and are what makes CAS succesful. (and a good gun)

Harrier has it all over the Hornet here, no question.

I should know, I've built several scale models of both. Some you had to glue together too...

In what way??? The Harrier has a single engine with hot exposed exhaust gases under the wings. Which, make them an idea target for MANPADS. Plus, they're slower than the Hornets and carry less weapons load and cannon shells.

Really, the only advantage of the Harrier II's are STOVL. Which, give them the option to operate closer to the front from either Amphibious Ships or Short Landing Strips.

Honestly, the F-35B will have the advantages of both the Harrier and the Hornet!

* Forward basing vs. Hornet
* Can get slower/lower
* Can stick around longer since base isn't as far
* Bigger gun
* Not falling apart at the seams

Let's hear from the grunts on the ground!!!

Each tribe will claim superiority in some fashion or the other, but it's essentially a wash. Same weapons, same sensor (Litening w/ downlink), same delivery speeds (500 kts [+/- 50] is 500 kts folks), similar TOS (basing dependent).

FW CAS these days is dominated by use of Pod and downlink. SA on both ends of those links a world different than it once was, particularly in the open desert(s).

Where have you been? They've been doing just fine without SDB in Iraq and Af'stan for many years.

You're missing my point. I'm not saying it's impossible to do CAS without SDB, I'm saying that the standoff CAS envisioned for F-35 has the SDB/F-35 combination replacing a lot of the limited collateral roles currently filled by rockets, guns and GBU-12s (not to mention the overall usefulness of the SDB). None of the F-35 are slated for rocket integration AFAIK, the gun requires proximity and even if the environment doesn't require absolute stealth, being externally as clean as possible still maximizes fuel efficiency and multi-internal-carriage of SDB would permit that sleekness.

I'm basing this off a weapons integration presentation off the web that's over a year old, though, so maybe it's no longer accurately represent USMC intent since the SDB II fit test in the F-35B happened since then. Naturally, I can't find the PDF in question now that I want to link to it.

Searching for SDB II PDFs found this 2010 instance:

Naval Aviation Vision • January 2010

"...Small-Diameter Bomb Increment II
The Small-Diameter Bomb Increment II (SDB II) is a joint program that provides warfighters with the capability to attack mobile targets at standoff ranges in all types of weather. This 250-pound-class weapon addresses the following additional requirements: multiple ordnance carriage; all-weather operations; precision munitions capability; reduced munitions footprint; increased weapon effectiveness; minimized potential for collateral damage; reduced susceptibility of munitions to countermeasures; and a migration path to a network-centric operations capability. Incremental development to pursue network-centric interoperability will continue. SDB II integration is planned for the F-35B/C Lightning II, with weapon system initial operational capability on the Marine Corps’ F-35B scheduled for fiscal year 2016. Initial operational capability on the Navy’s F-35C carrier variant will follow soon thereafter. There is a potential for future integration on the Navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet...."

http://nae.ahf.nmci.navy.mil/downloads/ ... ons_sp.pdf (3.1Mb)
&
Block 4 Candidate Weapons 2012

"...Small Diameter Bomb, Increment II (SDB-II)..."

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012annual_psr/WERTH.pdf (0.7Mb)

The latest selected acquisition report (released every year) for SDB II indicates that the threshold date for SDB II integration into F-35B is Sep 2020. F-15E will get it first followed by USMC 35B & USN 35C. According to the SAR, it was originally planned for blk 3.X but slipped due to SDD delays. These delays are due to the bomb rack (see link below).

http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y201 ... B_2013.pdf

The air force BRU-61/A can not be used for internal bay for F-35 hence the JMM BRU, now designated BRU-61A/A is being developed for internal carriage. Hence according to the link, the integration slipped to blk 4 (and yr 2020).As USAF doesn't have problem using the existing rack for the legacy aircraft, the SDB II can be integrated first with the F-15E.

Always the fine print - from 'weasel' pdf link above:

"...A. Mission Description and Budget Item Justification
The Joint Miniature Munitions Bomb Rack Unit (JMM BRU) is an Air Force led ACAT III program. It is required for the DoN carriage of the SDB II weapon in the internal bay of the F-35B and F-35C and operation in the Department of Navy environment. The SDB II Capability Development Document states that it must be operable on the Miniature Munitions Smart Rack BRU-61/A. The BRU-61/A, currently in production in the USAF, does not meet the needs to operate with SDB II within the F-35 internal bay in the DoN environment. The JMM BRU, designated BRU-61A/A, fills the capability gap required by the DoN. Efforts include development of a dual power capability to meet the SDB II operating environment on the F-35.

SDB II and the JMM BRU integration were moved from F-35 Block 3 to Block 4. Budgets and schedules have been modified to meet the F-35 Block 4 schedule."

http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y201 ... B_2013.pdf (0.3Mb)

Might be an opportune time to highlight the alternative MBDA Meteor-Spear combo designed for UK Bs.