Ok guys.
Can't lie to ya. I'm beginning to wonder about this F-35...I'm gonna label myself still in the camp but waving around like a flag in the breeze.
My worry? Budgets. My worry? Loss of experience in the Marine Corps due to equipment being chosen over people that have put it on the line time after time after time. My worry? Marines riding into combat in a vehicle almost a half century old.
My concern? I get news like this. Call it a Bill Sweetman special shot across my bow courtesy of Aviation Week and NavAir....
This was not the only hint about classified programs in the April 17 hearing. RAdm Bill Moran, director of the Navy’s air warfare division, noted that as well as funding APG-78 active electronically scanned array radar retrofits to all early Block 2 Super Hornets, “there are several other programs that I’d be happy to come back and talk about in a classified setting. They are very signficant, fully funded in 2014 and will keep the Super Hornet credible through the late 2020s and early 2030s.”I've got to get the transcripts from this meeting to read it all for myself. The Dark Lord himself is playing Sith mind tricks on me with stuff like this!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLook at it in the proper perspective. 'Credible' is hardly what is needed. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single technology development for the F-18 that wouldn't be more effective on an F-35, and you can't say the same of the reverse.
ReplyDeleteIf all else fails, read one of Sweetman's 'stealth' books from the 80's. That will remove all doubts as to how much 'credibility' you need to give him.
You bring up an interesting point. The Navy will be the last to field he variant that is the least 'fighterly' of the JSFs. Will they be able to adapt and embrace their new LO paradigm overlord?
Didnt Sweetman work with Bill Gunston ?
DeleteBill Gunston seems to be one of the most legit authors out there...dont know much about Sweetman exept that he writes for aviation weekly and he belives in the AURORA project...
And i dont understand the matter of the Super Hornet vs the JSF...None of then can perform the mission of the other.Consider this:
ReplyDelete-The F/A-18 can buddy refuel other aircraft
-It can launch all the weapons of the US Navy that the JSF cant(i.e Harpoon,Maverick)
-It has a 2 seat version
-It has an EW version(Growler)
The JSF on the other hand:
-Is full VLO
-Can strike target with cheaper weapons(SDB vs Cruise missile for the SuperHornet)
It seems diferent aircraft for diferent missions
it matters on what the mission is. is Marine Air's main mission to support Marine Ground forces? if so then another question needs to be asked. does Marine Air require stealth in the near future to perform that mission because the proliferation of anti-air missiles/units will make such missiles impossible for other assets?
Deleteif the answer is yes, Marine Air supports to support Marine Ground then if the answer to the second question is no, then it would be reasonable (in my opinion) to ask if it wouldn't make sense in light of the budget drama, in light of the Marine Corps about to issue several thousand more pink slips than expected and in light of Marine Armor needing serious upgrading to consider buying a cheaper airplane. scrap the neckdown strategy because reality renders it null and void.
if the answer is no, Marine Air exists to serve as part of the general air campaign and is no longer the servant of Marine Ground then the very existence of Marine Air should be questioned, the F-35 bought to fit into national strategy and Marine Air separated and sent to the Air Force and SOCOM.
i still don't know the answer but the budget has me rattled, the USMC wouldn't be the first Marine Corps to operate WITHOUT fixed wing aircraft (some Marines exist without any aircraft at all) and if the Marine Air budget isn't brought into some type of control then it must either suffer along with the rest of the Marine Corps or it must be removed like a cancer patient would remove a tumor.
Obama fucked up when he placed an aviation man in charge of the Marine Corps. things were setup a certain way for a reason and AMOS is overseeing the destruction of a once fine organization by emphasizing the airwing over the other parts of the Marines.
the Corps is fucked, but most Marines are too busy being Marines to notice.
On your question if stealth is required for the USMC mission,the answer is no...
DeleteThe USMC needs a multi-role fighter to perform multiple missions and the Super Hornet is ideal for the Marine Corps.Stealth is nice to have ,but not a real requirement to perform CAS or provide top cover for an amphibious assault.
Modern SAMs can be defeated by EW or ARM.Just look how Israel performed over Syria.AND people forget that while providing CAS the most common treaths are IR guided missile,short range radar guided missiles like the Panstir S1 and triple AAA.Bigger and more scary systems like the S-300 and the S-400 are not likely found near the FLOT.They can also be defeated by low flying aircraf and ARMs.Stealth is a feature essential for a strategic bomber,but it is not essential for a fighter and it is not a good feature for a CAS aircraft(it doesnt work against triple AAA(visual) or IR guided missiles and a stealth aircraft cannot generate enought sorties for that mission if the war lasts long.
I do love the fact that the F-35B does not depend on conventional airfields and it will be a very good interdition aircraft,but lets not pretend that it will be good at CAS or as a fast FAC.
Also ,the F-35B CANNOT operate from dirt airfields like the Harrier.
But there is that giant elephant on the room.IF the USMC goes with the SuperHornet,what fighter will operate from ships like the America class?You could put a Sky-jump ramp on them,but i dont think it will happen.
How i would fix the USMC?It may be a cliche but i would:
-Cut the F-35C and reduce the F-35B order(marines dont want the C anyway)
-Buy the F/A-18 F
-Buy a turboprop light attack/CAS (Super Tucano or OV-10X)
-join the Army in upgrading/buying new Abrams(the M-1A3 latter in the decade)
-Buy the Patria/Havoc for the MPC
-Cut the JTLV(upgraded HMMWV)
-Cut the ACV and buy new build upgraded AAV-7s
-Take the budget away from the V-22 as soon as the CH-53K is ready to enter service...
i just don't know. i read an article in the Marine Gazette where a Marine Aviator was saying that stealth is going to be necessary not only for interdiction but also for air support missions. i need to find that and post it. i like everything you said except upgrading the M-1, and buying the F-18. if we're going to do anything then keep the Harrier in service longer and work with Lockheed and BAE on a super harrier to augment the F-35B's...i also don't know if i want to toss all my chips on the Havoc either...the SuperAV looks capable as hell too and i'd use which ever platform we choose to mount a large cannon on them and call them infantry support vehicles and toss all tanks to the Army. TOTALLY AGREE WITH CUTTING ALL NEW V-22 purchases and moving on to the CH-53K!!!!
DeleteSorry Solomon,dont take this the wrong way,but i think that Marine Aviator was just protecting the USMC pet project.Stealth is a disease for CAS or fast FAC.Those missions require a lot of sorties(an some times operating in bad conditions).The F-35B will not generate enought sorties because it is very dependent on maintenace.
DeleteAs for stealth against SAMs wath happened to flying fast and low?
If steatlh is the end of it all,why does everybody shit their pants when someone mentions the SU-35?And why is Russia spending so mutch money in the deep interdition aircraft SU-34 that is not stealth?And upgrading and buying new SU-25s?Why is China building and buying new 4th gen fighter?
The problem is that the USAF and the USMC put all their money on the F-35 and now they cant buy anything else.There will be 2 gaps in the USAF that nobody talks about:the F-15E and the A-10.Nothing will replace then and their jobs will not be performed by any new assets.
The USAF should:
-Upgrade its F-22s(not going in to wonderland and ask for the reopening of the line)-its just sad that the best fighter in the world doesnt have an HMS like an upgraded MIG-21 or F-5.
-Buy advanced F-15s(300)
- Buy F-16V as stopgap until fate of the JSF is known
-View the next generation bomber as the top need for stealth AND press for its fielding(those B-2s are awesome but their getting very expensive to maintain ,20 is not enought and the only way you could strike China with aircrafts is a big bomber or with cruise missiles)
-New build A-10s-just breaks my heart seeing F-15Es and F-16s dropping bombs on Talibans when an A-10 would be much cheaper
-No new AWACS replacement,the new tankers lack funding,NGB could be killed by budget,no Strike Eagle replacement,no A-10 replacement,new rescue helo delayed...if it takes the killing of the F-35 to save all of these assets,then so be it.
As for your idea of killing the M-1 on the USMC...you might be on to something.I never tought about it until you mention it but you might be right:the SuperAV is based on a family of IVECO vehicle that mounts big ass guns.It might just be wath the Corps needs and it would save a lot of money...those Abrams are very expensive and have high fuel comsuption...
As for the SuperHarrier you would have to talk with Boeing not LM...it was proposed an supersonic ASOTL in the 1980s...but it was killed with the end of the could war...it would probably cost more than the Super Hornet,but it could be ready for service in 5 years.
As for the issue of stealth,it will be useless in CAS because most AA weapons on the field do not use radar ...and even if they use radar the aircraft is still to close of the antennas and will not be invisible...VLO doesnt work well in close range.And there is the issue of operating an F-35 from a dirt airfield or even an unprepared runway...it VLO coathing would be degraded,its engine could be damaged by FOD .
how about a couple of dedicated squadrons that don't have stealth? F-35's without stealth would be a good frontlines mud mover and wouldn't have to worry about stealth coatings being damaged by an ape of a LCPL with a monkey wrench (that was almost poetic)...but would that save money????
DeleteDont know that...maybe...all the work on aerodynamics is allready in place so it should be doable...
ReplyDeleteBut the cost issues with the JSF dont come from stealth only.A lot of money is being put on software and engine issues...and avionics(remenber the Darth Vader helmet)...
I like the Super Hornet/turboprop combo better,but you have a point:the USMC doutrine requires also an V/STOL plane.Use the work on the JSF for an airframe without stealth coatings and a cockpit with HUD and a conventional HMD...call it the Super Harrier so congress will bite it :)
We are just talking about this and playing with ideas,but if the plug on the JSF is pulled and the USAF goes for the F-15Se ,F-16V and the Navy goes to the Super Hornet/UCLASS combo this might just be the only way the USMC gets an STOVL jet...
Having some V/STOL provides a certain amount of utility. The fantasy of an all V/STOL force, however, was entirely political in that the Corps wanted the USN to stop stealing it's squadrons for duty aboard the carrier while having their own aircraft on the Gator's. It's ridiculous and the Corps will be operating the C so the Navy can continue to use the Corps aboard it's carriers.
ReplyDeleteThe vast majority of Marine tactical aviation does not deploy ashore from ships but flies in from CONUS. Demanding an all V/STOL force was and is irrational. The Corps should be operating the A-10, or another cheap to operate but effective aircraft for ground support. Operating an entire force of expensive to purchase and operate (even the USAF has come around to NAVAIR's F-35 cost estimates) F-35's is simply not affordable, and yet it's going to happen anyway.
typical. anti--Marine Corps statements always flow into reasonable conversations which turn everything into pissing matches.
Deletethe decision to go to an all STOVL force had nothing to do with politics it had to do with battlefield utility, operating concepts and a theory of operation.
you can piss on the theory but at least a theory and concept was developed.
dang. it was good while it lasted....a reasonable conversation that is.
Firstly, it's entirely your privilege to assume I'm making an anti USMC statement. That said Sol I don't make personal attacks nor assume the other person isn't expressing a genuine point of view. When someone disagrees with you it doesn't normally mean they're being unreasonable.
DeleteThere are no CONOPS for operating an all STOVL force and if you believe otherwise great lets see a citation supporting your view. The vast majority of F-35B's will be operating from conventional airfields. The first sentence in my post above stated VSTOL provides some utility, and it does; however, extrapolating that into an all STOVL force isn't cost effective.
As for your opinion that politics had nothing to do with the Corps wish to have an all B force that's not what I was reading ten years ago. The Corps has never liked having to give up some number of it's tactical aviation squadrons to the Navy for service aboard it's carriers and there's a long history to support that. Your assumption that this history played no part in this decision is not a view I share.
An all F-35 force is going to be expensive to operate. That's not my opinion but that of NAVAIR which the USAF has finally come around to accepting as reality.
Step 1: Fund, sustain and foster the Marine ethos.
ReplyDeleteStep 2: Fund, sustain and foster the Marine ethos.
Step 3: Any support goes toward funding and sustaining the Marine ethos.
And, those Navy amphibs without the well deck will be fine without the F-35 as it is more space and support for the 53K and other proper VTOL assets.
wow! we SEE EYE TO EYE on this! let me add...RE-INVIGORATE THE MARINE ETHOS!!!!
DeleteUnlike many people ,i like the idea of V/STOL that the USMC put in place in the 1970s...having a fast jet independent of runways is a very good idea ,in particular for an expeditionary and offensive force like the USMC.If it is cut and the Marine go with cheaper conventional aviation ,it is fine...but if they can keep an V/STOL fast jet it will be better ...the USMC and the RAF got it right by using the Harrier.The problem here is money...
ReplyDelete