Forum: General F-35 Forum

About STOVL in general:

"Marine generals love to argue it gives them the capability to go fight close to the front lines, without air bases, but never bother to add how many truckloads of fuel and supplies and men and defense weaponry will have to be hauled over land to that forward base, and at what cost and vulnerability to enemy attack."

"...but its STOVL characteristics were rarely, if ever, critical to the conduct of operations. If anything, the capability was a liability when it came to the requirement for long on-station times, multiple ordnance options, and tedious scanning of compounds and cities with targeting pods in support of troops on the ground."

And about the F-35B in particular:

"The extraordinary complexity and demands of the F-35B have undoubtedly hampered the whole F-35 problem, creating technical problems and sucking up limited (in Pentagon terms) development dollars and engineering resources. The need to redesign the whole aircraft (all three models) to take out weight was largely an effort to salvage any combat payload for the B-model. Now, with the airframes of early planes showing cracks and wear and tear early in their lives one has to wonder how much of those and future problems will be due to weight reduction for the F-35B."

http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk ... f-35b.html

F-16.net Sponsor

*cough* Libya.

Really? Libya was practically a purely STOVL and VTOL conflict! Even when not operating from dirt roads STOVL fighters come in pretty handy when operating off of LHAs.

tacf-x wrote:

Really? Libya was practically a purely STOVL and VTOL conflict! Even when not operating from dirt roads STOVL fighters come in pretty handy when operating off of LHAs.

I think that many NATO members, France, Sweden, et al, would have a different opinion considering they provided the bulk of tactical sorties. Even the AV-8Bs supporting the (much publicized) F-15 crew rescue had to be relieved by F-16s because they had to tank - a fact less emphasized by the USMC publicity machine.

The advantage of STOVL is they provide insurance against an enemy force taking out your runways. An airforce without runways to take off from and land on is pretty much useless. The F-35B guarantees that you will be able to put up planes regardless of the conditions of your airfields.

It is strange if true that an USMC C-130 pilot about to be retired sooner than later gets a 'headline' compared to all the other Marines who categorically state the usefulness of the F-35B and how they are preparing to use it. Strange indeed.

The F-35B isn't just about us. For decades, our allies (excepting France) have been mostly limited to a mere support role when it comes to naval aviation because they were unable or unwilling to shoulder the cost of aircraft carriers capable of launching conventional, fixed-wing aircraft. Don't get me wrong, the UK did a great job with Harriers against Argentina, but one could easily argue that the Falklands war would never have taken place had the UK's CATOBAR carriers still been in service. The F-35B brings top-tier naval TACAIR capability back within reach of many friendly nations, not only those already operating STOVL ships, but also those who may not have seen the point of building vessels that could only launch AV-8s. If the F-35B proves itself on US and Italian ships, it is foreseeable that many other countries will reconsider carriers as part of their fleets, taking a great deal of security burden off of the USN.

Well said '1st503rdsgt' , and it is about time the odd disagreeable Marine gets less attention. Very Happy

(for the sgt) [Not only has this gyrene spat the dummy but chucked a tanty]. {Got angry and had a tantrum in OzSpeke} Cool

Salute!

@ maus: Saw a lotta quote doofers, mouse(maus) , but how do you really feel and what experience, if any, in these matters do you bring to the table?

Our country, the U.S.A, is withdrawing from the bases we have had since 1945. So without forward operating base agreements for the fixed wing planes, we rely on carriers and 30-hour missions by B-2 folks. I fully realize that the U.S. cannot be the only international power to react to rogue nations, pirates, etc. But we have the resources that many like-minded nations do not. So we carry the load. Simple as that.

The "B", which I shall now refer to as the "Bee", offers a capability such as the Brits employed in the Falkland episode. And I was personally debriefed by some of the folks that flew the RAF Harriers there. Really great war stories. I also have many comrades that flew exchange tours with the Brits in Harriers, Jags, and others. My flight commander in Deuce training was a Brit Lightning jock. I'll take their opinions about the value of a STOVL any day. After all, we are only two countries separated by a common language, heh heh.

My personal feeling is that the Bee is expensive, will likely require more $$ for maintenance, and have its share of accidents compared to the "A" and the "C". Nevertheless, it provides a capability, a niche, that could make a huge difference in the coming scenarios.

Gums sends...

tacf-x wrote:

Really? Libya was practically a purely STOVL and VTOL conflict! Even when not operating from dirt roads STOVL fighters come in pretty handy when operating off of LHAs.

That is completely wrong. Utterly wrong. it was the tanker bridge from Italy and the vipers that made Libya run. I know this from personal experience. I don't know where you got your data from but dude you gotta check your source

I question the need for a stealthy CAS platform. The f-35B should be put on hold and the A/C numbers increased until we have a strong foundation of A/A and A/I fighters. As far as I see it the marines in thier stubborn pride have cost this nation a decade+ of military insecurity and they should be ashamed.

This isn't guadalcanal any more. If the marines are on the beach then there are at least 2-3 carriers in the water at thier backs. Marine aviation can operate off of them with more gas and more bombs...oh and more jets because we would have had more to go around without the B screwing everything up.

Honestly i think the marines realized that without a stovl then thier aviation has little reason to exist. You wanna help save 500Billion ? cut Marine aviation...this is the 21st century. we aren't defending little outpost islands in the pacific anymore. And before anyone gets all red in the face and replies with how crazy that is...really think hard about why you would need a jump jet in modern combat with our capabilities. Look past your pride.

alloycowboy wrote:

The advantage of STOVL is they provide insurance against an enemy force taking out your runways. An airforce without runways to take off from and land on is pretty much useless. The F-35B guarantees that you will be able to put up planes regardless of the conditions of your airfields.

So does an engineer battalion with rapid runway repair capability. Funny we don't see the same level of investment in that or in defending these runways from attack in the first place, despite the bulk of our forces being CTOL.

Obviously such a threat is highly thought of...

deadseal wrote:

Honestly i think the marines realized that without a stovl then thier aviation has little reason to exist. You wanna help save 500Billion ? cut Marine aviation...this is the 21st century. we aren't defending little outpost islands in the pacific anymore. And before anyone gets all red in the face and replies with how crazy that is...really think hard about why you would need a jump jet in modern combat with our capabilities. Look past your pride.

Look past your stupidity. Marine airpower is used all the time.

Last edited by maus92 on Jan 29, 2012 - 04:09 PM; edited 1 time in total

Gums wrote:

@ maus: Saw a lotta quote doofers, mouse(maus) , but how do you really feel and what experience, if any, in these matters do you bring to the table?

I have made it a policy in this forum not to question the credentials of others as a tool to discredit the presentation of facts and related conclusions from referenced sources. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the opinions expressed in the materials referenced should have little to do with the experiences of the person posting the materials.

Not exactly sure what a "quote doofer" is, but the quoted material is from the referenced link.

Appears Mr. Munson's new line of work is his own website. And how would he promote that site? Well, controversy and hits per day sells advertising or sponsorship.

We even get Boeing shills popping up to comment or post it in other locations. The APA zombies will be next.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Value of STOVL jets, Harrier and F-35B questioned. Again.