Forum: General F-35 Forum

Until the BEE demonstrates it's CAS and ISR tactics in the field for the Marines, this speculation will continue as along as we are plagued with politicians. Laughing

F-16.net Sponsor

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.

Marines were NEVER "first to fight"! This goes back past WW II, however I will start there. The Army was the first to fight in the Pacific (Philippines) and conducted the first offensive mission against Japan (Doolittle raid). And many Army divisions went island hopping right along side the Marines. The Army was first to fight in Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan. The Army conducted the biggest amphibious assault in history and pioneered special operations. Being that the Marines ARE NOT first to fight, I don't see how they'd need the F-35B. Using AV-8Bs was probably just a little stunt used to justify the need for STOVL aircraft.

With all that said, we still need a Marine Corps and they still need aviation. I say this because they're the masters of "combined arms". Like I've said before, we should let them have the F-35C. That will still allow them to perform expeditionary operations. Marines are expeditionary by nature and I think the top brass has ignored that for so long. This has made many get confused in terms of what hardware and platforms the USMC needs. The Army/Navy aviation support the Marines to a considerable degree. Taking away the Corps own aviation assets would not spread well amongst the other branches. But, by all means, chop the F-35B. I see it as a liability.

discofishing wrote:

Marines were NEVER "first to fight"! This goes back past WW II, however I will start there. The Army was the first to fight in the Pacific (Philippines) and conducted the first offensive mission against Japan (Doolittle raid). And many Army divisions went island hopping right along side the Marines. The Army was first to fight in Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan. The Army conducted the biggest amphibious assault in history and pioneered special operations. Being that the Marines ARE NOT first to fight, I don't see how they'd need the F-35B. Using AV-8Bs was probably just a little stunt used to justify the need for STOVL aircraft.

Actually that's not true at all. WWII is the aberration in history. If you look past it you see the Marines involved in dozens interventions in places like the Philippines, Latin America, Middle East and Africa. In times of peace, the Marines were the first force to be deployed abroad and were primarily responsible for the conduct of small wars. They were the primary instrument of US national interests for over two hundred years.

Today the US military offers far more instruments to carry out military interventions, from Airpower, Special Forces to cruise missiles. Still the Marines remain the first force to get a significant number of boots on the ground.In 2004 Liberia was near collapse, the USMC brigade was kept on the horizon, same as in Lybia last year.

sferrin wrote:

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.

I think that misses deadseal's point (though I disagree with his point). He feels air support for the Marines would be cheaper and at least adequately effective using ordinary carrier planes instead of STOVL planes. However, the Navy already has ordinary carrier planes. Therefore it would be redundant for the Marines to have their own aircraft when the Navy already has the same aircraft capable of the same mission. Therefore, he feels, the Marines trumped up a phony STOVL requirement only to ensure that the Navy's capabilities could not exactly replace the Marines' capabilites. His solution is to call the Marines liars, take away all their planes (since they don't need STOVL, and without STOVL the Navy can do more cheaply anything the Marines themselves could do with identical carrier planes), and have them rely on Navy planes for their CAS. Once they're ashore and establish some forward bases, have them operate under USAF CAS planes.

I would argue that's a step either too far, or not far enough, but it's a halfway compromise that wrecks Marines capabilities while still paying for most of the former capabilites even while we no longer have them. Without organic air support, why have the Marines at all? Marines who operate under the umbrella of a carrier or AFB, or not at all, are pointless to have as a separate service. They're ground troops with a Navy escort, or under USAF escort they're just Army under a different command. So if you get rid of the F-35B, fold the corps, put them directly under Army or Navy, and save even more. Or if there's a point in having them (I think so*), they're going to need organic air support that is integrated with their ground troops movement to keep their capabilities demonstrably credible at all times. (And that ignores historical Marines experience that Navy and USAF priorities often deny them CAS from those providers right when they need it most.) Keeping the Marines credible and viable requires ensuring they have their own air support.

*It is a better trade of our resources for enemy resources for us to keep the Marines as at least a potential threat to enemy coasts. We have no realistic amphibious landing capability against any near-peer enemy. The Marines will probably never be used as actual marines again. But they serve as a cost-effective checkmate on everyone else. We only need to pay for the capability to exploit one coastal location of opportunity. The enemy needs to pay the costs of fortifying their entire coastline to leave no such targets of opportunity. Without the Marines, our every enemy can save a fortune on coastal defense. We save, but they save more, a net loss to us.

river_otter wrote:

sferrin wrote:

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.

I think that misses deadseal's point (though I disagree with his point). He feels air support for the Marines would be cheaper and at least adequately effective using ordinary carrier planes instead of STOVL planes. However, the Navy already has ordinary carrier planes. Therefore it would be redundant for the Marines to have their own aircraft when the Navy already has the same aircraft capable of the same mission. Therefore, he feels, the Marines trumped up a phony STOVL requirement only to ensure that the Navy's capabilities could not exactly replace the Marines' capabilites. His solution is to call the Marines liars, take away all their planes (since they don't need STOVL, and without STOVL the Navy can do more cheaply anything the Marines themselves could do with identical carrier planes), and have them rely on Navy planes for their CAS. Once they're ashore and establish some forward bases, have them operate under USAF CAS planes.

I would argue that's a step either too far, or not far enough, but it's a halfway compromise that wrecks Marines capabilities while still paying for most of the former capabilites even while we no longer have them. Without organic air support, why have the Marines at all? Marines who operate under the umbrella of a carrier or AFB, or not at all, are pointless to have as a separate service. They're ground troops with a Navy escort, or under USAF escort they're just Army under a different command. So if you get rid of the F-35B, fold the corps, put them directly under Army or Navy, and save even more. Or if there's a point in having them (I think so*), they're going to need organic air support that is integrated with their ground troops movement to keep their capabilities demonstrably credible at all times. (And that ignores historical Marines experience that Navy and USAF priorities often deny them CAS from those providers right when they need it most.) Keeping the Marines credible and viable requires ensuring they have their own air support.

*It is a better trade of our resources for enemy resources for us to keep the Marines as at least a potential threat to enemy coasts. We have no realistic amphibious landing capability against any near-peer enemy. The Marines will probably never be used as actual marines again. But they serve as a cost-effective checkmate on everyone else. We only need to pay for the capability to exploit one coastal location of opportunity. The enemy needs to pay the costs of fortifying their entire coastline to leave no such targets of opportunity. Without the Marines, our every enemy can save a fortune on coastal defense. We save, but they save more, a net loss to us.

I think you have a very good point. I had not thought about that.

Quote:

Actually that's not true at all. WWII is the aberration in history. If you look past it you see the Marines involved in dozens interventions in places like the Philippines, Latin America, Middle East and Africa. In times of peace, the Marines were the first force to be deployed abroad and were primarily responsible for the conduct of small wars. They were the primary instrument of US national interests for over two hundred years.

I disagree. I'm not saying Marines weren't involved in heavy fighting, they were. I'm saying they WERE NOT the first ones in. They've never really been the first military force into a conflict or operation. Marines (minus MARSOC) are NOT special operators. The first ones in are Navy SEALs, Green Berets, and Delta Force (with support from AFSOC). SOCOM troops are the first ones in. Paving the way for SOCOM is CIA paramilitary operators. Now, when it comes to evacuating embassies, I'd would say they're the first force there, only because they've been there anyways. If F-35Bs were to be given to the military, AFSOC would probably put them to better use than Marines.

discofishing wrote:

Quote:

Actually that's not true at all. WWII is the aberration in history. If you look past it you see the Marines involved in dozens interventions in places like the Philippines, Latin America, Middle East and Africa. In times of peace, the Marines were the first force to be deployed abroad and were primarily responsible for the conduct of small wars. They were the primary instrument of US national interests for over two hundred years.

I disagree. I'm not saying Marines weren't involved in heavy fighting, they were. I'm saying they WERE NOT the first ones in. They've never really been the first military force into a conflict or operation. Marines (minus MARSOC) are NOT special operators. The first ones in are Navy SEALs, Green Berets, and Delta Force (with support from AFSOC). SOCOM troops are the first ones in. Paving the way for SOCOM is CIA paramilitary operators. Now, when it comes to evacuating embassies, I'd would say they're the first force there, only because they've been there anyways. If F-35Bs were to be given to the military, AFSOC would probably put them to better use than Marines.

The use of special forces is a relatively new phenomenon, while the Marines has been in existence for over 200 years. By comparison, all the stuff you're talking about has really only been in existence for the past fifty years. There are over 20 separate wars in Latin America alone between 1890 to 1950. During WWII landing preparation was often undertaken a Marine Reconnaissance Battalion.

Second, Special forces are not conventional warfare units, nor can they be. Obviously SF and CIA are often there "first." However they are most commonly there to undertake is FID or a very specialized warfare capability. That's really not a "war fighting" in the conventional sense; they have little ability to actually undertake true cohesive operations against an organized determined conventional opponent. If there was a war in Taiwan for example, sending a couple hundred special forces to stop a chinese armored brigade from taking an objective would be a suicide mission. A MEU is configured, armed and trained to operate against such a threat.

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.

Rafales coming from CdeG were a lot more useful.

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.

Without those same runways, the F-35B can't get fuel and munitions flown in. STOVL is great for getting jets onto small ships, but the expeditionary qualities usually have practical limitations and those will only get worse with a plan that can carry twice the load and twice the fuel than the Harrier II. Last time I checked, we weren't building a STOVL cargo plane. By the time you've build a runway long enough for a C-17 which is required to airlift out a damaged aircraft, F-35Cs would be able to operate.

That would be interesting if the USMC has not devised other tactics for expeditionary support; as well as ashore there is the 'sea base' and OMTF Operational Maneuver from the Sea and on and on. Go read about Bold Alligator 2012 at SLDinfo or other USMC material on this subject. Thanks. And it is not just this link but many others that tell and add to this story elsewhere:

http://www.sldinfo.com/from-being-a-gre ... s-the-way/

There is even a forum now for BA12: http://www.sldforum.com/

http://www.sldforum.com/2012/01/bold-al ... he-future/

"...What will be featured in the exercise is the use of the VM-22 as a logistical enabler leveraging the flight decks on the T-AKE ships. The Libyan operation of the ARG underscored a central role of the VM-22 as the Fed Ex Service re-supplying the ARG to, among other things, keep the Harriers at a much higher sortie generation rate than would have been possible by more traditional re-supply....

...Third, the F-35 combat systems will be part of the exercise as well. The BACH1-11 aircraft carrying the F-35 radar, distributed aperture system as well as other systems will provide contributions to the exercise in anticipation to the arrival of the F-35B as a core element of the newly enabled ARG. During the exercise, the BACH1-11 will perform as a big wing ISR platform in support of the forces...."

Interesting... Once again a long interview/article so best to go read it there as always:

From Afghanistan, to Bold Alligator 2012, to the Future: The USMC Re-shapes Its Capabilities

http://www.sldinfo.com/from-afghanistan ... abilities/

"...We focused on building FOB Dwyer. Why was FOB Dwyer so important? Because we knew when we went into Afghanistan the Marines were going to take this town called Marja. In order to take Marja, you needed to be able to build up combat power as quickly as possible and posture your air support assets in such a way that they could surge support and exponentially increase the sortie rate in support of the ground forces. FOB Dwyer offered just such an opportunity. By building a 4,000 foot strip out there we could flow KC-130s loaded with supplies and gave us more than enough runway to hot rearm, hot refuel our AV-8Bs. Without FOB Dwyer we would have to take off from our main base (30 minute transit), stay over the target and expend our ammunition in one vul period (or extend via KC-130 tankers), then once “Winchester” head back to our main base (30 minute transit). With FOB Dywer, a 5 minute flight to be overhead Marja, we could drop in, get hot gas and re-arm without ever shutting down our motors, then launch and be overhead Marja 5 minutes later. FOB Dwyer was immensely important to surging sorties in support of the GCE for that fight. Remember, while we can take gas from a tanker, we can’t get an ordnance reload airborne.

From the time they left station and the time they were back overhead in about 30, 35 minutes. That kind of performance and capability is unique for a TACAIR platform. By investing up front in FOB Dwyer, we could take 10 STOVL attack aircraft and make 10 airplanes perform like 40 anywhere else.

FOB Dwyer was more than just a Harrier strip. It was a combat strip. We based some of our VMUs down there flying both Scan Eagle and Shadow UAVs. . We initially sized the length of Dwyer based on what it took us to get a fully loaded C130 with a full bag of gas and full logistics load in there. And on a hot day, and at the filed elevations we are dealing with in that part of Afghanistan that comes out to about a 4,000 foot strip. The template for the Marine Corps in the future should allow us to operate at full capability wherever we can put 4,000 foot strip.

The other part of the logistics challenge of a place like Afghanistan is we had to ensure very high readiness and reliability rates with our aircraft. We can go and operate in the dirt. We can go and operate in austere locations. We have helicopters and airplanes, which can do that....

Sounds like that's an argument to keep Harriers not buy F-35B.

May well be however with a bit of imagination and a look at what BA12 has in store you may get some understanding of how the USMC will use the F-35B. If the USMC wanted to keep the Harriers forever they would have done so - no?

FOB Dwyer also supported USMC F/A-18s, and had portable arresting gear installed. Eventually the runway length was extended enough to accomodate C-17s.

The comments of the KC-130 pilot - who has probably seen many Harrier tanking evolutions - should not be dismissed out of hand. Plenty of other naval aviators (usually not senior officers guarding their careers, legacies, or prospects) have questioned the value (capability / effectiveness / decisiveness vs. cost) of STOVL. The author of the TIME article, Chuck Spinney has been around the DoD long enough to hear what other say privately "I have heard many Marines utter similar critiques in hushed tones behind closed doors since the late 1970s, but few have stated them openly." Others have said so in print and on the record:

"After 30 years of STOVL aircraft operations with the AV-8B Harrier, the logistical challenge of supplying fuel and ordnance remains the critical constraint to the sustainability of operating STOVL aircraft near the forward edge of the battle area. In Operation Desert Storm in 1991 and Operation Iraqi Freedom since 2003, there has been no demand for sustained STOVL operations from forward bases or austere locations. Although battlefield conditions did not necessitate dispersed operations, the Harrier’s limited range and payload required forward basing so that higher sortie rates could compensate for inferior performance.

In Desert Storm, Harriers operated out of conventional bases alongside CTOL aircraft. There were instances of forward arming and refueling points (FARPs) established in soccer stadiums along the Saudi border, but only for contingency operations in the early hours of the offensive.

In the opening days of Iraqi Freedom, only one Harrier squadron was operating ashore, and that shore base was a conventional field with long runways. The remaining five Harrier squadrons operated from amphibious ships in the northern Arabian Gulf. Fuel tanker availability constricted the use of FARPs because it was difficult to keep fuel moving forward with the rapidly advancing coalition forces. On the one occasion that Marine Corps Harriers were able to operate on the side of a highway outside Baghdad, the FARP was rocketed minutes after the aircraft departed. After that incident, STOVL forward operations were limited to captured enemy airfields."

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2010/07/4679496

LTC Jay Stout, USMC got himself into trouble with senior Marine leadership over his evaluation of V/STOVL Harriers in his book "Hornets Over Kuwait," and later in an article for Marine Gazette about the F-35B: "STOVL and JSF: Let’s Not Handicap a Winner,” Marine Corps Gazette.

A statement from from Harrier pilot Ben D. Hancock, Maj, USMC:

“[T]he only two-lane road that the vast majority of USMC Harrier pilots have ever flown off of or landed on is Lyman Road in Camp Lejeune, N.C. In my own personal experience involving 1,300 hours of Harrier flight time which includes two deployments to the Mediterranean, a Western Pacific deployment, and Desert Shield/Desert Storm, I have never landed on a road or austere VSTOL pad except at Camp Lejeune.... Except to prove the concept, USMC AV-8Bs do not operate off of grass strips either. If STOVL jets will take-off with full internal fuel and any significant payload, then a lot more than just a pad is needed.” [Remember that F-35B is a significantly larger aircraft.]

"The STOVL Joint Strike Fighter in Support of the 21st Century Marine Corps," Thesis (Quantico, VA: United States Marine Corps Command and Staff College)

Another statement from Hancock:

“When operating from unprepared surfaces, such as grass clearings or asphalt roads, the effect of vertical jet blast is swift and destructive. Since the exhaust is deflected downward in a hover or slow flight, a STOVL jet can dig a hole and tear up huge chunks of asphalt and flying debris that can either damage the airframe or be ingested into the engine.... The increase in thrust for the JSF (35,000 pound-thrust class engine versus 23,000 pound-thrust class for the Harrier) will increase the energy directed on the landing surface and may increase the possibilities for self-induced FOD.”

A paper written by Major John O. Jordan, USMC presents STOVL certainly in a different light than Marine leadership, concluding:

"The Marine Corps must get over the unfounded fear that if STOVL goes away, so does the rest of Marine Corps TacAir. STOVL TacAir has done nothing in combat that conventional aviation could not have accomplished. What makes the USMC unique is not a piece of machinery or a kind of technology. The Corps’ utility to the United States depends on combat effectiveness, which stems from making smart choices. The future foundation of Marine Corps fire support must be built upon the rock of proven performance, and not in the shifting sands of novelty. The laws of physics dictate unwaveringly that the penalties of STOVL are a reduction in performance. The wiser choice by far is to invest time, effort and resources into the development of short takeoff and landing techniques that can be utilized by more conventional aircraft. By doing this, future aircraft will inevitably out-perform STOVL in payload, combat radius, time on station, survivability, maintainability, safety, and most importantly, mission effectiveness."

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA401159

The point is the KC-130 pilot is not some sort of heretic deserving no attention. Plenty of others share his viewpoint in what continues as long and ongoing debate.

The USAF would be wise to re-examine the issue of basing operability and availability to see how STOVL capability could contribute. Way back in time during the Cold War there was an exercise called Salty Demo designed to see what the Soviets might be able to do to our basing operability. The results were frightening so we did what rigid bureaucracies do when they don't like the facts--they ignore them. Now technology for attacking bases has improved significantly, but we continue to ignore the problem. Ask how often "realistic" Red Flags address the issue of basing operability? Does exercise realism begin only when the wheels are in the well and end when they come back down again? Would the Chinese do anything to ruin this approach to airpower?

Forum: General F-35 Forum

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