2017 U.S. Marine Corps Aviation Plan

Variants for different customers or mission profiles
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post09 Apr 2017, 13:09

Ha. I should probably read the captions before commenting. :doh:
Usually, if you show a cad graphic instead of an actual picture, it means you don't have a physical product to take a picture of.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2251
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post10 Apr 2017, 04:23

gc wrote:Such a waste that USAF and USN is not procuring these wingkits in large numbers. These wingkit can greatly enhance the survivability of current non-stealth platforms by allowing greater standoff. Even the stealthy but extremely valuable B-2 will benefit from such kits as it no longer have to fly within a dozen miles of any high value target to deliver its weapons.


SDB = wing-kitted 250lb
JSOW = wing-kitted 1000lb
JASSM = wing-kitted >2000lb

Already in service in sufficient numbers.
Offline

h-bomb

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 318
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2009, 20:07
  • Location: South Central USA

Unread post10 Apr 2017, 22:52

sferrin wrote:"enough to equip all seven L-Class ships"

Is this a typo? There are EIGHT Wasps, an America, and another America under construction. :?:


Yes but the Navy has 1 or 2 in overhaul or scheduled incremental unavailable periods for heavy maintenance. Just like the big CV's.
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2896
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post13 Apr 2017, 05:30

http://www.marines.mil/News/News-Displa ... abilities/

VMGR-152, VMFA-121 fuel capabilities

By Lance Cpl. Joseph Abrego,
Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan

Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni -- U.S. Marines with Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron (VMGR) 152 conducted aviation delivered ground refueling with Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan, April 11, 2017. The ADGR marked the first evolution of this form of refueling for VMFA-121’s F-35B Lightning II aircraft. The purpose of the training was to establish flow rates of fuel in gallons per minute distributed to the F-35B Lightning II aircraft by KC-130J Hercules, to see how fast the process would be if used in a real-world scenario. “It felt great to be a part of today’s refueling, it was surreal,” said U.S. Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Keon Willingham, a powerline mechanic with VMFA-121. “Being able to participate in the first ADGR with the F-35 is something I can look back on and be eager to tell stories about.” Successfully completing the aviation delivered ground refueling is a landmark that increases the capabilities of the squadron, offering the ability to refuel by C-130 aircraft in austere locations when other resources aren’t available. Despite reaching a milestone in aviation, the training offered more than memories. 

“I’m going to take away how multi-face this operation was,” said U.S. Marine Corps Cpl. Matthew Schoon, ordnance technician with VMFA-121. “We had to deal with different components from the pilot in a running F-35, to a running KC-130 and Marines from VMGR 152. There was a lot of communication, and I had to keep my head on a swivel the whole time. That’s something I’ll be able to apply in any situation.” The Marines with both squadrons faced issues with the climate but didn’t let it stop them from accomplishing their tasks. “The weather played a big factor in the training today with safety, visibility and communication,” said Schoon. “Training with the engines on the aircraft still running made it very hard to hear so we had to use hand signals. The rain made visibility with eye protection on difficult, so we had to ensure we were being thorough and making safety a priority.” VMFA-121 used the ADGR on the air station as a stepping stone to prepare for real-time refueling in remote locations. “Completing this training is a huge confidence boost for us,” said Willingham. “Being the first to successfully complete this training and being able to do so safely, gives everyone involved the state of mind that they can accomplish anything. We will continue to train, and we will improve anywhere we can.”
:)

photos at the link.......not the fuel truck I'm familiar with...... :wink:
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post13 Apr 2017, 07:45

The only thing I like about the USMC air modernization plan is that they will at some point have C models. I don't understand the value of STOVL. Cost vs utility. Are we really expecting another Guadalcanal? Wherever the Marines deploy they will either have carrier air or land based Marine/USAF CAS.

Cost, small fuel capacity, and smaller weapons capacity is not worth minuscule chance you will need STOVL/VSTOL capability.
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2896
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post13 Apr 2017, 08:35

blain wrote:The only thing I like about the USMC air modernization plan is that they will at some point have C models. I don't understand the value of STOVL. Cost vs utility. Are we really expecting another Guadalcanal? Wherever the Marines deploy they will either have carrier air or land based Marine/USAF CAS.

Cost, small fuel capacity, and smaller weapons capacity is not worth minuscule chance you will need STOVL/VSTOL capability.

...yes, abit more for the fan, yes, 5,000 lbs less fuel than the A, yes, smaller weapons but only internally, the same weapons externally, STOVL required to launch/ land from the "L" ships...

....respectfully, please consider the "L" ships don't typically travel with the CVN crowd.... LHA/ LHD are escorted by other L types and more and more with DDGs (more or less 11 smaller aviation groups to put out smaller fires).... putting the ISR capable "Bee" in place of the worn out Hornets and slower Harriers brings the latest and most accurate tactical data to the Marines in planning and executing their air/ amphibious assault. The "Bee" capability to defeat both air/ ground defenses in comparison to the 4 and 4+ generation a/c is being noticed by both the Air Force and the Navy. As you rightfully pointed out the "Bee" is limited by the ship it launches from but the 1,600 marines traveling with them are a huge mobile asset when the forward operating bases (FARPs) are established to rearm and refuel the "Bee" without the need for secure runways or returning to the ship. IMHO, the ultimate in CAS is deserved for defending the Marine assault.
:)
ps. 10/ 16 with VMFA-121 are currently stationed 400 miles from S. Korea on Okinawa and have completed training with the S. Koreans on practice bombing attacks in S. Korea.
- a potential of "Day One" stealth attack with 1,000 lb. JDAMs/ Paveways, etc.
- "Day Two" more capacity than a B-17G (17,600 lbs.).
:wink:
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1275
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post13 Apr 2017, 17:30

blain wrote:The only thing I like about the USMC air modernization plan is that they will at some point have C models. I don't understand the value of STOVL. Cost vs utility. Are we really expecting another Guadalcanal? Wherever the Marines deploy they will either have carrier air or land based Marine/USAF CAS.

Cost, small fuel capacity, and smaller weapons capacity is not worth minuscule chance you will need STOVL/VSTOL capability.

you said, "...I don`t understand the value of STOVL..."

That is your problem, and not the USMC`s problem.

Range is a number, that translates along with many other factors into operational capabilities. Range doesn`t do anything. It is one factor that enables something to be done.

The USMC is a mobile expeditionary force, that is built and designed to be first in, forward leaning. Despite it`s use the last decade or so, it is NOT a second army, NOR a backup air force. Even if you were right, and you`re not, then the USMC shouldn`t get anything. The USAF should just get more A`s and the Navy more C`s. That highlights the problem with your position.

If I launch from 500 miles away, I do two things. First I am delayed in responding to a time sensitive mission (CAS). I get there at least 30 minutes later, maybe as much as an hour, than the flight that takes off from 200 miles or less from an unimproved roadway. STOVL allows me to do that. People (troops in contact) die in that time. Secondly, and this is an "and/or" I burn fuel to get that extra distance, or to loiter to be there on time. Fuel equals weight. Weight for fuel is taken from weight available for ordinance. So even though the specs say I have more, can carry more .. I can`t! I just carry more fuel to burn off because I`m limited to "runways/CATOBAR".

Finally, the extra cost is misleading when you look at the 10 or so small carriers (LHA/D) that can cover for the CVN-CTF forces in many cases. That`s what the British discovered when they looked at going with the C`s. Big CatTrap carriers are very expensive. I can get up to 50 or 100 extra fighters for the cost difference. So 70-120 B`s is a lot more capability than 20 C`s if I go that way.

STOVL allows the Marine Air to keep up with it`s forward leaning ground forces. And right now it`s Japanese based squadron is one of the most powerful fighter attack squadron deployed in the world. Only F-22`s challenge that reality, and the Marines are getting close to having more F-35`s than there are F-22`s. With STOVL, they will all be closer to the battle than all but the Harriers and Helo`s.

That`s what STOVL does. I`m sorry you don`t "understand."

MHO
BP
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6392
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post13 Apr 2017, 20:58

Image



blain wrote:The only thing I like about the USMC air modernization plan is that they will at some point have C models. I don't understand the value of STOVL. Cost vs utility. Are we really expecting another Guadalcanal?


Oh hey look its this again. If you think the only time its nice to have STOVL is for the Guadalcanal Straw Man argument put forth by Bill Sweetman and his ilk you haven't bothered to do a damn bit of actual research. Have you heard of the Falkland Islands? That wasn't some Tom Clancy book. STOVL has been proven in combat.

STOVL has been used by the USMC the last 4+ decades. You don't have to go back to a WWII style scenario to see its current utility-- WE USE IT EVERYDAY. Its not hypothetical. everytime a harrier lands/takes off on a L-class ship without wires or cats, its using STOVL and you don'y have to go back 75 years to find good reasons to have it.

Besides the way the navy tells it, they are experiencing a massive fighter shortfall. Thank god the Marines are there to pick up the slack. The Marines are going to have more advanced fighters than the USN, and far more of them until the mid 2020s at least. The Navy can't be depended on to support Marines with the advanced capabilities the Marines are using themselves. The best fighter taking off a ship right now, is the F-35B.

Ironic aye?

IF you want to get into cost vs utility I suggest you take a look at the cost of a Ford Class Carrier and crew. You can also compare load outs, fuel, range etc with CVN based fighters vs land based fighters.

Wherever the Marines deploy they will either have carrier air or land based Marine/USAF CAS.


except all those times they have not, and will not. MEUs by defintion do not have attached carriers, and may be forced to act on time sensitive missions that will find the Marines Deploying alone with follow forces in route. Not to mention support of Spec. Ops. Spec ops missions that don't always rate a full CVBG

Cost, small fuel capacity, and smaller weapons capacity is not worth minuscule chance you will need STOVL/VSTOL capability.


USMC needs STOVL/VSTOL EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. And outside the USMC, for nations that use that as their primary fixed wing aircraft.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24388
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Apr 2017, 22:02

Thanks for responses 'BP' & 'XC' - USN/USMC & LM lean forward again....
Weekly Update LM F-35 GM
06 Apr 2017 Jeff Babione

"...Enhancing F-35B Shipboard Sustainment
A few weeks ago at the Lockheed Martin Center for Innovation, also known as the Lighthouse, members of the F-35 Team joined with nearly 200 members of the U.S Navy, Marine Corps, and civilian personnel to conduct a weeklong exercise aiming to successfully integrate the F-35B into the Fleet. The F-35B Shipboard Sustainment Wargame (SSWG) focused on the Marine Corps F-35B, using a "day-in-the-life" approach to analyze operations and logistics integration with the Navy's amphibious assault ships. This event was the culminating activity of nine months of preparation, led by Vice Adm. Thomas Rowden, Commander, Naval Surface Forces, in partnership with Headquarters, Marine Corps Aviation and Commander, Naval Air Forces.

"The Wargame was one of the best venues to utilize in order to educate, analyze or find possible issues for the F-35B as it prepares for deployment," said Gunnery Sgt. Hector Pacheco, one of the key exercise participants and an F-35B maintenance advisor assigned to Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron 1...."

Source: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... 4_6_17.pdf (1Mb)
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post13 Apr 2017, 22:33

XanderCrews wrote:Have you heard of the Falkland Islands?

USMC needs STOVL/VSTOL EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. And outside the USMC, for nations that use that as their primary fixed wing aircraft.


First, the British used Harriers in the Falklands because they had to due to their failure to retain conventional carriers and their air wing. Defense budgets are limited. This is a perfect illustration of the cost of not prioritizing funding on critical capabilities. The loss of life and shipping would have been much less if the RN had a Nimitz or even a Midway Class carrier. They are lucky they didn't lose the Hermes and Invisible. A conventional carrier with fighters and support aircraft would have enabled the British to push their fleet out further and fight more effectively. Do you think an E-2C would have enabled the RN to more effectively counter the Argentine Exocet attacks? Well if the Marines are going it alone then they are not going to have that support.

So what are those cases when the Marines will conduct operations without USAF tacair or carrier air?

If the United States needs to rely on LHDs with F-35B to fight a future high intensity conflict we are in trouble. That scenario is on the extreme part of the spectrum of future contingencies. How many MEUs and CH-53s/MV-22s are you going to displace in order to carry two squadrons of F-35s? Or are you going to rely 6 F-35Bs per big deck amphib? And what type of firepower/capability will that give to the joint forces commander? Without AWACS, tanking, EA, and ISR support? During the Gulf War the Navy reconfigured the air wing on the Nassau with 20 Harriers. It got the Harriers a little closer to the fight. They used it. Maybe they thought they needed it. I'd like to see someone argue that it would have been missed or that it was a must have capability. I think its key value was clearing more ramp space for other fixed wing fighters.

So we are left with low intensity operations - situations where the U.S. does not have the time or means to bring in air support and the MEU just happens to be in the area with 6 F-35s. Would any president commit a MEU to combat operations with just 6 F-35s to combat against a nation with more than a handful of fighters without preparing the battlespace first with counter air strikes? Probably not. The most likely scenarios where such a small contingent of fighters would be valuable would be the evacuation of non combatants in a relatively benign environment or an amphibious raid. It might be nice to have F-35s flying cover with AH-1Zs. But is it really needed.

Just because the Marines uses the Harrier and F-35B everyday is not an argument for the capability. Its not worth the cost and the trade off in range and payload. Money that is spent on a capability that is not critical to the operation of the Marines means less money for a capabilities which are more important. It is water under the bridge. But the Marine brass have made other poor decisions in pursuit of maintaining their amphibious capability - the EFV program and to some extent the V-22.

The fighter shortfall: And if the Marines standardized on a common airframe with the Navy how many more F-35s could they have purchased? Do you want more fighters or VSTOL?
Last edited by blain on 14 Apr 2017, 00:17, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2506
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post13 Apr 2017, 22:55

blain wrote:...

But the Marine brass have made other poor decisions in pursuit of maintaining their amphibious capability - the EFV program and to some extent the V-22.

The fighter shortfall: And if the Marines standardized on a common airframe with the Navy how many more F-35s could they have purchased? Do you want more fighters or VSTOL?


Me thinks you're picking the wrong fight around these parts... but, whatever...

BP gave you a rather thoughtful answer, but you dismissed it out of hand (or didn't even acknowledge distributed/dispersed ops).

Why are you picking on the V-22? It has become the most requested / most in-demand vertical lift capability in the Corps. It has enabled entirely new concepts of operations that were not possible with helos.

Regarding your question about no Bees and consolodating all Cees...

You are aware of the history of the F-35 / Joint Strike Fighter, aren't you? You know... the part where the original concept for the JSF grew out of the Marine Corps SSF (that would be the STOVL Strike Fighter) study? The Corp couldn't afford their own tactical aircraft program AND the V-22 at the same time. Since the V-22 was critical to the Corps at that time, and the Air Force was looking for an F-16 replacement in the MRF (MultiRole Fighter), the two were combined into the CALF (Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter). The bottom line, STOVL was baked into the F-35 from the get go. If there had been NO STOVL, there would not have been a JSF and hence no F-35.

But to your question about consolodating all Cees... the way the Navy may be going... there may be many fewer Cees if Boing get's its way and the Navee buys obsolete F/A-18 Super Duper Hornets.

As it is... if the Navy does swing Boing's way... and only buys one squadron of Cees for every three squadrons of SHornets... then the LHA/LHDs with F-35Bs may end up being CVBG escorts so the Navee can even get there...
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post14 Apr 2017, 02:06

steve2267 wrote:Me thinks you're picking the wrong fight around these parts... but, whatever...


Why does it have to be a "fight?" Why does this discussion need to be personalized? Why does it have to devolve into "whatever..."? Why can't it be a discussion of what's best for the U.S. military and how the Pentagon should prioritize its spending?

"Picking" on the V-22? I wasn't aware that I was being a V-22 bully. Did the cost both in money and lives justify the operational benefits of a tilt rotor - namely an increase in range and speed? Tactically there were also trade offs for a transport that had limitations in getting Marines in and out of the LZ. Embarking on a "revolutionary" system there were also trade offs with the force structure.

The Marines have been very poor at force modernization. They kept the CH-46 in service too long. The same goes for the AAV-7. I remember riding in an LVTP-7 as a seven year old. I am over 50. That is pathetic. They are currently having difficulty maintaining combat readiness of the legacy Hornets. Is there a possibility that maybe they should have looked at alternatives? Maybe if they were a little more realistic with their requirements they would have been able to replace older systems - increasing the safety Marines and also combat capability?
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3033
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post14 Apr 2017, 02:27

Troll alert.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2251
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post14 Apr 2017, 03:02

Agree with points that its not jut the cost of he plane but the carrier or the airbase. No point buying more Cs or As if you can't bring those into the fight. Consider the cost diff of a CVN vs LHD. The LHD further doubles as a meb carrier. Seen in that light, the justification of the B becomes self evident.
Offline
User avatar

smsgtmac

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 866
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2013, 04:22
  • Location: Texas

Unread post14 Apr 2017, 03:10

blain wrote:,,, I wasn't aware that I was being a V-22 bully. Did the cost both in money and lives justify the operational benefits of a tilt rotor - namely an increase in range and speed? Tactically there were also trade offs for a transport that had limitations in getting Marines in and out of the LZ. Embarking on a "revolutionary" system there were also trade offs with the force structure...


Answered your own question. One might wonder why someone would second guess force planners and leadership. I would ask What kind of expertise would a single person not involved in same for a living believe they possessed to second guess those doing the work?

blain wrote: The Marines have been very poor at force modernization. They kept the CH-46 in service too long. The same goes for the AAV-7. I remember riding in an LVTP-7 as a seven year old. I am over 50. That is pathetic. They are currently having difficulty maintaining combat readiness of the legacy Hornets. Is there a possibility that maybe they should have looked at alternatives? Maybe if they were a little more realistic with their requirements they would have been able to replace older systems - increasing the safety Marines and also combat capability?


Hmmm.
Plans are useless, planning is essential.
Plans never go to plan.
"Novices in mathematics, science, or engineering are forever demanding infallible, universal, mechanical methods for solving problems."--JR Pierce
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -Yogi Berra
"Hindsight is 20/20." -unknown
Operational requirements drive fighter aircraft design. Operational requirements by definition are 'realistic'.-me
--The ultimate weapon is the mind of man.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests