I want some opinions of how useful the F-35B will be to the Marine Corps. With no internal gun, a weapons bay that is reduced by 50% to meet the V/STOL engineering demands, and 39% less fuel than the CTOL version, how useful can it be? The plane (clean) is already less stealthy than the F-22 and F-117, and now it looks to me like external stores will be required for most any mission profile. So it will be about as stealthy as a F-16 basically. And this aircraft is supposed to be viable through 2040 or 2050? With no thrust vectoring, limited stealth, and no high-end supersonic performance, this plane is going to be very inferior to the top line 21st century Russian and European fighters. The adversary types already have as good or better long-range missiles in development, great off bore-sight IR missiles, and are developing advanced AESA radar suites. The F-35B can't even go up "clean" and get in a gun fight with these types because it has no gun in the clean configuration (and will bingo fuel very quickly). So, is the Corps just getting "stuck" with this plane? Or will it really be a war winner through its service life? Opinions please.

Col

How much researd have you done on the stealth or the F-35B? All weapons will be stored internaly just as they are on the F-117 and the F-22. That's a big part of why they are stealth...

I have researched it a lot. In order to make the VSTOL system work, the weapons bay had to be reduced in size by 50%. The F-35B weapons bay holds two 1000lb weapons, vs two 2000lb weapons for the A and C variant. This was not the original bill of sale, but they just couldn't make it work for the birds they will put into production. I think Lockeed did what they had to, to win the contract, knowing that the VSTOL system would require reengineering. And DOD bought it hook, line and sinker. The VSTOL advantage was supposedly the number one reason the X-35 was selected over the X-32. In the end, the production F-35B (the one the Marines and Brits will end up with) can only carry a very limited payload unless it uses external stores (which eliminates the stealth profile). Additionally, there is no internal gun on the B variant for the same reason. And as I said, the fuel capacity is reduced by 39% vs the A variant and even more vs the Navy variant. So you have a plane with short legs, no gun, and small internal weapons payload. If you attach the gun externally, or other payload, again you negate most of the stealth profile. Plus, the added drag reduces the range even more. I think the B variant will be a good short-range dog fighter supposing the AIM-9X lives up to expectations. But as a strike aircraft from 2010 to 2040 and beyond as they are billing it, it seems to be very deficient in a lot of areas. I'd like to hear other opinions. I hope I am wrong, as a grunt, I know Marine aviation is an important combat multiplier. It just seems to me this platform will have short legs (which means little time on station for CAS) and will take twice the sorties to get the job done if the stealth feature is to be utilized.

Col

What was your MOS in the Army?

quote:

What was your MOS in the Army?

Multiple. Air Defense and Ordnance primarily. I did a tour in the Cav. But I worked as straight-leg infantry during my tour in Afghanistan as a imbedded trainer with the Afghan Infantry. When we needed CAS, if F-16s or Harriers showed up, we were disappointed. They were too fast to be effective, and the Harriers especially had short legs. When the A-10s showed up, it was sweet. They were really twice as effective as the other types.

Air Force A-10s killed Marines in Iraq in a friendly-fire incident...many Maries would rather see Marine Air than anything else..

I'm with you about the Marines F-35B, Colonel; I've even gotten into that debate a little on the Marine Super Hornet thread I started, too.

First of all, I've served arm's length from Harriers on combat ops on the boat over Albania in 1999 and I was disappointed - Army Apaches carried more ordinance and could loiter in the area longer than the Harriers, (and don’t even get me started on the inferiority of the AH-1W we had parked right next to the Longbow Apaches on the flight line at Camp Able Sentry in Skopje!)

In my opinion, the Corps really does not even have an all too terribly effective VSTOL/STOVL attack aircraft platform that even warrants replacement – you can’t replace that of which you do not have! The Harriers had issues such as where they couldn't pickle their paltry load on target and so would come back to the ship fat and heavy; one of them even parked his Harrier in the bottom of the Adriatic because he was too heavy and could not establish a hover when coming into the boat. Later when we went in to "liberate" Kosovo and conducted ops out of Skopje, the Harriers were told they were simply not needed in theater (because they were about as useful as t¡ts on a bull) and so they went to Israel where they subsequently performed 3 out of the 4 weeks they were there in a safety stand-down because of an issue at the Rolls Royce plant requiring all the engines to be inspected for a small cotter pin or something - and when you need to get to the engine in a Harrier you have to take the entire wing off the aircraft! Needless to say, Harriers are cool and they are great for airshows, but that's about it.

But even that aside, my argument against an all F-35B fleet for the Corps is based upon logic: unless we build all new carriers for the future of the Marine Air Combat Element (ACE), current Marine Hornets that serve on USN CVN's (and of which will be replaced as is now the case by STOVL F-35B’s) will still have to deploy on USN CVN’s – and that is incredibly inefficient since the USN’s F-35C will have a 30% larger wing area which will enable USN F-35C’s to carry more ordinance and fuel, be able to go a longer range and remain on station for a longer period of time, as well as also being able to bring back significantly more ordinance than USMC F-35B’s. So if the USMC is going to have to deploy their F-35B’s on USN CVN’s, they would be better off buying the F-35C’s.

So how does the “new” Corps go about building a case for their all F-35B fleet? They literally take the well deck out of the new LHA-R’s to make room for all their F-35B's and make it an aviation only “amphibious” assault ship even though minus the well deck it’s little more than a modern version of WWII “escort” carrier, (not to mention a ridulous economic inefficiency given the USN still operates full sized CVN's!) How can Marine generals possibly look the grunts in the eye with a straight face when they try and justify a new LHA replacement without a well deck to carry ANY of their ground vehicles?! Are our politicians this clueless as well, does not anybody stand up and raise the bullsh¡t flag?! And that is just the LHA-R (AV) because whenever a future MEU and its ACE deploys on an LHD, those Marine F-35B’s would still have to go over to the USN CVN’s because there is not enough room for them all and that’s just inefficient, less effective, and not to mention more expensive than it would be to operate USMC F-35C’s.

To me, that is just how far those that be in the Corps today have come when it comes to twisting the realms of fiscal reality and logical reasoning - as Lee Iacocca writes in his book, "Where have all the leaders gone?" I surely cannot beleive Marines of any rank selling out to defense contractors and/or politicans and I honestly do not believe that to be the case, but where's the logic? (And I'm referring to a variety of the current Marine Air Wing modernization plans.)

Despite my argument in the other thread about the logic of a USMC Super Hornet buy, I am totally flabbergasted about an all aviation LHA-R and/or operating STOVL F-35B’s off of USN CVN’s.

Sure, I understand that buying less F-35B’s means the costs go up per unit, but conversely the costs go down just as well for all those F-35C’s that the Corps would buy as well. We all know that the Corps wants Marines on station providing CAS and FAC(A) for Marines, so if the USN is going to be performing such roles in their Super Hornets and F-35C’s, than I believe the Corps would be wise to share those same cost synergies by buying those same platforms as well.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: AirKnight,

Air Knight, I couldn't agree with you more. Good post. First to clear a few things up. I am an active MAJ not a retired COL. There are a couple Bird Dogs and apparently I have the other's profile somehow. Now on the Harriers we had in Afghanistan, they were British. The Brits didn't even like them compared to the A-10. The A-10 could loiter for hours and see and pound what ever needed to be hit. As for as a Frat incident in '91, that's one incident a long time ago. It also means more intra-service training is needed. Plus, situational awareness of pilots of all branches is quite a bit higher now due to better sensors and training.

If we were in a world where cost effectiveness and killing the enemy took precednce over defense contract pork, the Marines would have A-10s flying off the big CVAs just as you suggest. No jet has better low speed handling, so landing a A-10 on a flat-top would be an easy adaptation. It seems to me that Marines on the ground would love nothing better than having Marine pilots loitering over their AO for hours with all that firepower ready to rain down. A-10s and Super Bugs would make a great one-two strike punch. But neither is all that sexy, and the A-10s are way too cost effective, so we have to buy the low payload, short-range, and very expensive F-35. Sad. Defense pork is more important than killing the enemy.

quote:

If we were in a world where cost effectiveness and killing the enemy took precednce over defense contract pork, the Marines would have A-10s flying off the big CVAs just as you suggest.

Once the A10 is adapted for shipboard use it would loose at least half if not more of it's ordnace & fuel capability.
The frame would have to be beefed up for tailhook arrested landing so it wouldn't pull the tail section apart, the wing's would have to be modified for folding stowage as shipboard parking space is at a premium, and the landing gear itself would have to be strengthened for the hard pounding encountered in arrested landings. All these necessary mod's would come at a steep price, namely a huge loss of fuel and ordance capacities.

The BEST carrier qualified close air support attack aircraft has already been developed and is still flying in a specialized form to this day, the venerable A6 Intruder. Put a gun pod on it and I'd take it over an A10 warthog anyday....

Now I have never been a grunt on the ground during combat so I can't speak for them but I'm gonna have to call "bullshiat" that they care what airframe is providing close air support, as long as it's killing the enemy.....
And from what I've read, Marine grunts prefer Marine air support.

That said, if I was pinned down under fire and had a choice of an airframe to come in and wipe the enemy out quickly, if it wasn't a Marine attack aircraft, ANY Marine attack aircraft, I'd call on an AC130 Gunship......

It's Power from the Sea fellows......

quote:

They literally take the well deck out of the new LHA-R’s to make room for all their F-35B's and make it an aviation only “amphibious” assault ship even though minus the well deck it’s little more than a modern version of WWII “escort” carrier, (not to mention a ridulous economic inefficiency given the USN still operates full sized CVN's!)

I am sure that the Brits would have enjoyed the capabilities of a couple of CVN's during their Faulkins Island campaign.

They would have not had the casualties and the sunken vessels that they did if they had the aircraft that can operate from a big flat top.

Mainly E-2's to vector fighters into on coming enemy aircraft.



Small Carries do have their short coming and limitations.

We are able to utilize them because of the CVN's that are operating in the area.

Col/Major

Feel free to adjust your Bio, if your not a LtCol please do so. Or explain it in your bio, Marines regard rank highly. If you need help doing this ask one of the Modrators as we can help you.

As to your insight that the Harrier is a not a good aircraft. Have you asked any of the Marine Grunts if the felt the same way? They train with the Harriers much more than you have. Marine Air is that, Marine Air. Not the Army or Air Force way. We train the way the our Grunt Marines need us to perform. We will help other branches and other Countrys but our primary mission is to Support the Marine Grunt.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: TomHansen,

I signed up and sign in as Bird Dog, but somehow keep getting on as birddog. I hope I don't piss the Colonel off:-). I'll try to fix it.

I'm not saying the Harrier is a bad plane. I'm saying it has no legs. In Afghanistan you were lucky to get one to stay on station for more than 15 minutes unless you were very close to the Air Base. The F-16s did a lot better - it is known to be easy on gas. But neither could pound targets like the A-10. In the low ADA threat environment, it is hard to beat. I disagree that new (not converted) A-10s couldn't quite easily be made for carrier use. The modern techniques for doing so are not as weight critical as they were in 1970. Plus it's a rugged design to start with - much more rugged than the YF-17 was and a much better low-speed handler too. I can't argue with the earlier post on the A-6 though. A new batch of those 10 years ago would look like an awfully smart procurement right now. Not sexy though. Hell, the Air Force fighter-jock generals tried to get rid of the A-10 the same way. Smarter heads prevailed there. They are being fitted with new wings and avionics and will be around until 2030 now. You'd think the same could be done with the A-6. A F-35B will take 6 sorties (in stealth mode) to deliver what an EW supported A-6 could in 1 sortie. But the F-35 sure looks cool and is making someone a lot of money. Actually I think the A and C models are going to be very good planes for their jobs, but the Marines seem to be getting stuck with a very limited option in the B model considering CAS and BAI is their primary mission.

Birddog

For a non combat Pilot you do have a high opinion of the Air Force. Once again there is a reason why the Marine Corps has 4 Air Wings, it is not for the rides on the C-130's. There is a reason why Marine Generals run the Air Wings, not Army Officers. In today's world 1 laser guided 1000 pounder is more affect than a A-6 filled with 8 500 pounders.

quote:

Originally posted by TomHansen:
Birddog

For a non combat Pilot you do have a high opinion of the Air Force. Once again there is a reason why the Marine Corps has 4 Air Wings, it is not for the rides on the C-130's. There is a reason why Marine Generals run the Air Wings, not Army Officers. In today's world 1 laser guided 1000 pounder is more affect than a A-6 filled with 8 500 pounders.

But even in today's world in a theater such as Iraq or AFG, A-6E's carrying JDAMs and GBU-12's is a better CAS platform than the USMC F/A-18D or what the F-35B will ever be. A-6E's DIANE even back in Vietnam was actually a fairly potent package. A-6F's or a modern day A-12 is what the Corps really needs even if they had to operate them off of USN CVN's.

I agree, I otherwise like the JSF but I am just not a fan of the F-35B in that I don't believe it's highest price out of the three variants and it's compromised performance numbers are worth the STOVL gains. Remember, an F-16 with one of those GE F110-132 engines and it's 32,000+ lbs/ thrust can propel an empty F-16 to the air in 700 to 800 feet; sure, throw in a max payload and such and still, you're only talking a few thousand short feet; I'll take an F-35C off of a CVN or nearby ground airfield over an F-35B even off an LHA-R or some FARP and I'll have a better CAS and/or deep strike platform for the mission I'm trying to fulfill.

quote:

Originally posted by TomHansen:
Birddog

For a non combat Pilot you do have a high opinion of the Air Force. Once again there is a reason why the Marine Corps has 4 Air Wings, it is not for the rides on the C-130's. There is a reason why Marine Generals run the Air Wings, not Army Officers. In today's world 1 laser guided 1000 pounder is more affect than a A-6 filled with 8 500 pounders.

Your post is confusing. What about chastising the Air Force "fighter-jock" Generals leads you to believe I have overly a high opinion of them? And of course no general from another service is going to command a USMC air wing. I do have a pretty high opinion of A-10 pilots. They take pride in the CAS mission, where most AF pilots would rather concentrate on air to air. The point of the A-6, or A-10 is that they can loiter on the battlefield for longer periods and drop multiple accurate munitions, not just one laser guided one. The current enemy tends to move in small groups. You have to first find them (not easy). Then fix them (again not easy). Then you can bring the CAS in on them. Then the whole process starts over again. Of course they know it's coming and tend to blend in, burrow in, hide in populated areas when possible. Seldom do you call a strike in on a target, destroy it, then call it a day. The current threat in more fluid. And with artillery generally not available, aircraft loiter time, time to develop and prosecute the tactical situation - is very important.

quote:

Originally posted by birddog:

quote:

As for(sic) as a Frat incident in '91, that's one incident a long time ago.

Get a clue.

NEWS RELEASE
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND
7115 South Boundary Boulevard
MacDill AFB, Fla. 33621-5101
Phone: (813) 827-5894; FAX: (813) 827-2211; DSN 651-5894

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 29, 2004
Release Number: 04-03-51


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


A-10 Friendly Fire Investigation Completed


MacDill AFB - The investigation into a March 23, 2003 friendly fire incident between U.S. forces is complete. The investigation was thorough and deliberate, and has the concurrence of the CENTCOM leadership.

A full copy of the report is available at www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/newsfeatures.asp

The investigation, ordered by U.S. Central Command and conducted by U.S. Air Forces, Central Command, thoroughly examined the circumstances surrounding an incident involving a U.S. A-10 aircraft firing on a company of U.S. Marines in An Nasiriyah, Iraq.

The investigation revealed that several factors contributed to this tragic event, including problematic communications links between U.S. forces and a battle plan that, due to unforeseen circumstances, changed as the situation unfolded.

The investigation determined that the pilots involved acted appropriately based on the information they possessed at the time of the incident.

The decision on possible administrative or disciplinary action, if any, with respect to any Marines involved, was deferred to Commander, Marine Corps Central Command.

A total of 18 Marines were killed and 17 were wounded. Eight of the deaths were verified as the result of enemy fire; of the remaining 10 Marines killed, investigators were unable to determine the cause of death as the Marines were also engaged in heavy fighting with the enemy at the time of the incident.

Of the 17 wounded, only one was conclusively determined to have been hit by friendly fire.
Three Marines were wounded while inside vehicles that received both friendly and hostile fire, and the exact sequence and source of their injuries could not be determined.

U.S. Central Command mourns the loss of life and regrets the injury of our servicemembers resulting from this tragic event.

Birddog

Once again your thinking of the Army point of view. You are not trained or have not been train like a Marine Officer, quit tring to pretend you have. Once again there is a reason why the Marine Corps has 4 Air Wings. Our Pilots and Ground Officers are trained the way Marine Corps beleive's to be the best way. Not the Air Force/Army way. Apples and Oranges sir.

Once again let me know if I can help you fix your profile as it is mis-leading to your rank and back ground....

OK SATCtech - so I went and got a clue. Your own post says the pilot was cleared and administrative action was being considered on some Marines. It didn't take long to uncover what both services say happened in the 2003 incident:

A 900-page report prepared by the Air Force and Marine Corps lays out in detail how USAF A-10 attack aircraft came to strike a US Marine company on the fourth day of Gulf War II. Investigators determined that a ground-based Marine air controller, located south of USMC Charlie Company, called in the air strikes against his own forces. He mistakenly believed that his unit was farther north than any others.


I was obviously referring to the instance in 91 where the A-10s were totally at fault and fragged some Marine vehicles. But if you want to discuss the actions of an A-10 in 2003 when a Marine called in air on one of his own positions, there could be value in that discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by TomHansen:
Birddog

Once again your thinking of the Army point of view. You are not trained or have not been train like a Marine Officer, quit tring to pretend you have. Once again there is a reason why the Marine Corps has 4 Air Wings. Our Pilots and Ground Officers are trained the way Marine Corps beleive's to be the best way. Not the Air Force/Army way. Apples and Oranges sir.

Once again let me know if I can help you fix your profile as it is mis-leading to your rank and back ground....

I agree with you totally. I am just saying, I am not a huge fan of any one service over the others. As an American I love and support them all. My father was in the AF in Viet Nam. One grandfather was in the Navy in the Pacific, and the other served under Patton and Bradley in WWII. All saw significant combat.

The point about Marine Generals being the ones to command Marine Air Wings just didn't make sense to me. That fact just goes without saying. That is the way it should be. And your point is exactly why the Marines should get an aircraft with longer range - so they can support themselves no matter how far inland the fight is.

If you can help me with the profile, I'd appreciate it. I sign in as BirdDog with my own password, but then post as birgdog. I can go in and change the Col's profile, but can't seem to get to mine. It should be blank since I just signed up this week and never put any personal info in there.

Today's military all sounds so complicated to this old Marine. What ever happen to the days when the Navy had LPHs, LSDs and LSTs, with our air cover of A-4s & F-8s aboard a CVA or a CVS nearby. Somehow we seemed to get the job done.

S/F
Tipath