Many thanks to USMC 0802 for the article!
Pay attention gents. You might consider me an outlier, but when conversations happen inside my gun club among buddies that's one thing. When they get away from the club and onto the pages of the Marine Gazette, its time to sit up and pay attention. Check this out....
It is therefore ironic that in the A–10 the Air Force possesses a better close-support aircraft than any in the Marine Corps Fixed-wing Marine air faces a fight for its existence, although that may not yet be apparent. Commonality of aircraft (the F–35), technology, and “jointness” are leading Marine air ever further into JFACC (read: Air Force) orbit. Unless arrested, this trend will continue until ultimately the only difference between Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force aircraft and pilots will be the word “Marines” stenciled on the bird. At that point, budget pressures are likely to lead to the end of Marine fixed-wing aviation.And this....
For the price of 8 F–35s, we could field over 100 modern A–29 Super Tucano light air support aircraft. Each up-armored and already combat-proven A–29 is capable of providing longer-endurance armed overwatch in greater numbers from more austere airfields than current or future fixed-wing Marine aircraft.There is a pushback brewing in the Marine Corps over the F-35.
Many talk about it in terms of its performance while doing a deep strike, fleet defense or combat air patrol mission.
Marines are interested in it to perform only one real job. Close Air Support. And in that role the airplane is lacking.
IF we get a GRUNT Commandant. IF he has the balls to take on the establishment and do whats in the best interest of OUR Marine Corps then the F-35B will be canceled. We'll make do with the AV-8B till we can get better and we'll get our house in order.
Anything else will lead to failure. Read the entire Marine Gazette article here.
UPDATE: For those that insist that the US has invested too much money into the F-35, and that there is no off ramp to the program I say bullshit. The off ramp is Simpson-Bowles and as things sit right now, the Republicans and the DoD will jump at the chance to get its savings in place. It would be less than what we're seeing with unfettered sequester. The only things that would have to be placed on the altar? The F-35 and the V-22. I could live with that.
Your welcome. Always happy to contribute to the debate especially when I can refence Marines that know far more about aviation than I do.
ReplyDeletewhen is your article getting published???
DeleteNot anytime soon, I still have to work on my writing capabilities. I am not happy with my ability to organize my thoughts. Additionally I seem to struggle with spelling reference.
DeleteSide question: Do you know the hard numbers of AV-8B and F/A-18C,D that are supposed to be replaced by F-35B?
give me a few to round up those numbers. as far as the article is concerned, i'm definitely no one to talk but have you read some of the articles? yeah a few are written by Rhodes Scholar candidates but the majority are just guys getting ideas out there. don't hesitate, dare to express yourself.
DeleteGalrahn at Info Dissem has made a similar point for the Navy:
ReplyDelete"In public statements, it has become very common to hear Admirals say the Navy 'needs the F-35C,' but it has become uncommon to hear any Admiral praise the aircraft. . . .What makes all of this really frustrating though is that a poor investment for the Navy and a good investment for the country is the best case outcome of the Joint Strike Fighter as things are today."
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/03/navy-stuck-between-rock-and-hard-place.html
He's referring to the Navy's "assigned mission" of holding its nose and taking the F-35C in order to keep 'A' costs down (a relative term) for the Air Force. Similar for the Marines.
the entire scheme behind the F-35 is no longer valid. deep strike by formations of fighters just isn't economical or practical. we need a small fleet of high tech bombers and thousands of stealth cruise missiles. that's practical. the Marines need a STOVL fighter that can loiter over the battlefield, soak up damage, is cheap enough to replace and not worry about losing and is tailored to provide Close Air Support first, fighter missions a distant second.
Deleteanything else is a Navy job.
What about stealth STOVL unmanned or autonomous aircraft. If the F-35 does get cancelled, and we have to make do with aircraft that are "less than optimal, at providing close air support". Wouldn't the unmanned drones become a much better, cheaper prospect?
DeleteSol,
ReplyDeleteI've been giving the whole F-35 debacle a lot of thought. The whole selling point was commonality of structure reducing overall costs. We now know that the different versions only look similar externally and there isn't really any cost saving to be had or at least not much.
The truth is that the jobs tasked to AF, Navair and the Marines during most conflicts just aren't that similar. Perhaps modern thinking has been tainted by our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan where Airman,Marines and Sailors were working a lot on the same missions.
But, more to the point, at least as I see it, the F-35 doesn't really bring much to the CAS party especially to the Marines core missions of Amphibious Assault and Forced Entry.
Consider stealth. Why do you need stealth for CAS?? The Enemy knows you are there (hence the need for CAS) The Enemy knows that we will use CAS. The Enemy will, or should, be prepared to counter, with what is at hand or what has been brought up, to specifically address the use of CAS.
In these situations, I'm not sure how stealth is an asset. The Germans, who pioneered the use of CAS, put noisemakers on Stukas specifically to scare the enemy into keeping their heads down thereby increasing the effectiveness of the Stuka out of proportion to its actual destructive power. Everyone I've had a chance to talk to has indicated that nobody is upset when there are A-10s around, so perhaps the Marines need a version of the F-35B that is optimized for CAS as the A-10 is, and leave the regular F-35B to the Brits. If we removed the need for stealth and put the $ and weight savings into armor and ordinance(find a way to hang a GAU-8 Avenger cannon on the thing)Then perhaps this would be a platform that would make sense for the Marines.
If you took a poll of Grunts which they would rather have overhead, an F-35, 2 F-18s, 4 A-10s or a brace of Super Tucanos, I wonder what the answer would be?
This is my take anyway.
TR
i can answer that one. you want the airplane that can hang around the longest, doesn't run away when people start shooting at it, can carry enough stuff to cause damage to the bad guys and at worst at least make them put their heads down and you want enough of them so that they're hanging around looking for trouble even when you haven't called them.
Deletethat sounds like hundreds of A-4 type fighters armored up and carrying dozens of SDBs and laser guided rockets and plenty of rounds for their cannons. since that plane is out of production then how about a modern day equivalent.
make it cheap so we have alot of them. make it tough so we don't worry about banging the paint and make it biased toward ground support so we don't lose it to the air campaign.
Well said...but nobody will go for it unlless a big real war breaks out...
Deletedon't be so sure. the Marine Corps is about ready to explode with a spirit of rebirth. we've seen standards lowered, a bit of laxity creep into the ranks and Marines are pissed. people have been biting their tongues waiting for the current regime to run its course and retire. once that happens you're going to see an explosion of long held thoughts that have been supressed. part of that has to go with the attention paid to the wing at the detriment of everything else.
Deletethe problem IS SIMPLE BUT TRAGIC. THE WING DIDN'T DESIRE ALL THIS ATTENTION AND DOESN'T LIKE BEING PUT IN THE POSITION OF BANKRUPTING THE CORPS. leadership did that.
you take that issue. the idea that favortism counts more than competence. the divisions brought about because the Marine Corps is being forced into being color aware instead of color blind and you have an organization that is under pressure.
long story short, you're going to see a bunch of bullshit flushed away real soon. just wait. its gonna be a sight to behold.
I remember getting a 8x13 glossy, color booklet about Marine Aviation back in 1983 when I was a kid that I drooled all over.
DeleteFrom memory, here's what I remember the Marines having:
A-4 Skyhawk
F-4 Phantom
A-6 Intruder
EA-6 Prowler
AV-8B Harrier
OV-10 Bronco
C-130 Hercules
Ch-53 Sea Stallion
Ch-46 Sea Knight
AH-1 Cobra
UH-1
F-18s were just starting to being procured. I won't even count Sea Kings in HMX-1. Now, looking at that list and seeing the diversity of aircraft, does USMC have the same capability with fewer platforms?
Logistically it is simpler and cheaper to maintain, but capability-wise? 3 of those foxed-wing aircraft, the A-6, A-4 and AV-8B couldn't fly faster than 590 knots. Slower, designed with ground-attack as the primary mission.
USMC Aviation went from four fixed-wing jet aircraft down to two and with the F-35 will downselect to one.
in my opinion much less capability. think about it like this. the OV-10 could provide FAC, insertion of recon teams and aerial recon as well as light attack. the A-6 could carry a warehouse full of bombs and had the endurance to loiter over the battlearea for a looong time...additionally it was a tough bird...the F-4 took care of carrier duties but could haul a bunch too for the CAS mission. the 53 hauled the trash but the 46 is what i think is really being missed. it was nimble, could get into tight spots and could haul a decent load...plus all of these were cheap. i didn't cover the A3 and the rest because they're well known.
Deletethe point is that for Marine missions we're being badly served by this neckdown aviation campaign. we're losing combat power and if anyone gains its the joint air battle. deep strike is covered nicely. Marines in battle? not so much.
that's before we even talk about cost. the reason why fixed wing aviation even exists in the Marine Corps is because its always been cheap. once it gets boutique and expensive we're gonna get Army'ed and lose it. Marine Generals that dream of fighting the Air Force battles will lose it all and they'll only have themselves to blame. same applies to the MV-22. its great for SOCOM. its great if we bought one or two squadrons and put a couple on the east and west coast but to replace the 46 Corps wide with v-22s??? pure insanity both financially, from a doctrine point of view and from recent experience in combat. besides its cheaper to keep the old 46 or the new 60 running than it is the V22.
with apologies to Cornelius Ryan, the F-35 is a platform too far. It is a jack-of-all-trades, master of none. It doesn't need stealth for CAS, it is too heavy and slow for air-to-air, it carries too little ordnance for strike/interdiction. And the f***ing thing is too expensive.
DeleteThe MV-22 is too expensive. In the 90's when it was being planned for over-the-horizon From the Sea, the budgets were larger. But in the Dark Age of the Sequester, it is too expensive for the job it performs.
One thing about the A6, A4 and EA-6's, they all used the same engines. I spent a lot of time crawling around the Skyhawk. It was a great bird to work on and in, R&R and engine in one night shift.
DeleteOr the Marines can just order new built modernized and upgraded A-10s. There is actually massive room for improvement in the basic A-10 platform. The ancient (almost 50 year old) TF34 engines can be replaced with a militarized version of the new GE Passport engine (which is the new successor to the commercial CF34 engine twin of the TF34) which will both increase thrust and significantly reduce fuel consumption allowing much greater time on station. It should also allow much better short field performance.
DeleteUpgraded avionics and modern integrated sensor suite and she should be good to go. Might also be worth while to see what would be required to make it carrier capable.
no just get us A-10s that are in air force storage and get them modernized. they don't have to fly off the carrier....as a matter of fact, the Marine Corps operated without many of its aircraft going off the carrier. the A4 went aboard carriers only occassionally. it was mostly an F-4 and A-6 job and not very many....carrier navy was just being courteous. if you see carrier numbers fall then their might not be room for Marine air...or as much as their is today.
Deletethe Marines need to get affordable aircraft. then tough aircraft. then aircraft that can loiter and finally aircraft that we don' mind banging up.
once we have those qualities then we'll have Marine Air again instead of the abomination that its become now. a helicopter that costs as much as a fighter? seriously? the MV-22 costs more than a super hornet? who the fuck thought that was a good idea?
The CAS discussion is an interesting one but the point is moot: the USAF, the USN, and several allies have thrown billions of dollars and years of development time down a rat hole to satisfy the USMC's rabid insistence on VTOL. Every F-35 made is more expensive, later, and aerodynamically inferior because of the USMC.
ReplyDeleteDo you think after all that, the Marines can just say "my bad" and walk away from a full F-35B buy? The Pentagon has already told the Navy, which has never been that hot on the F-35C, that the USN will buy its full commitment of F-35Cs whether it wants them or not, and the C's impact on the program is trivial compared to the B's.
The USMC will buy its full allotment of F-35Bs whether it wants them or not and regardless of the impact of other programs and force structure. Too many people have to admit too big a mistake for it to shake out any other way. "Too big to fail" cuts both ways or, to put it another way, spend 15 years saying you'll die in a ditch for a bloated, poorly conceived, poorly run program and you'll eventually get your wish.
let me squash that fallacy that the War is Boring and Sweetman have put out.
DeleteNO. STOVL IS NOT THE REASON FOR THE CRAZINESS THAT IS THE F-35.
its easy to point at and easy to blame because its a physically unique capability in the airplane. additionally it gets the blame for lousy performance. not buying it and heres why.
the STOVL portion of the F-35's development was solved early on. everything else that has cropped up has been outside of the development of that airplane.
the real issue is what WAR IS BORING and SWEETMAN don't want to admit.
STEALTH IS A BITCH@!@@@!!!!!
look at every stealth airplane the US has ever built. the F-117, the B-2 and the F-22.
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM CRAZY EXPENSIVE. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM NOT PRODUCED IN LARGE NUMBERS. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM CAUGHT UP IN THE DEATH SPIRAL.
you want to blame a single factor for the craziness that is the F-35? BLAME THE USAF AND ITS LUST FOR STEALTH.
Hell the 117 couldn't even fly without the aid of it's computer, just sayin
DeleteIf I made it sound like I was blaming all of the F-35's problems on the B, my mistake. Your points about stealth are well taken and, when you look at the decisions made about stealth, software, the helmet etc. it is clear that even if the F-35B, and the F-35C for that matter, did not exist the program would still be years late and way over budget. My point is not that the B created these problems, it's that the B made them worse.
DeleteFirst ref aerodynamics: it's not just the lift fan, it's the combination of designing for a lift fan and stealth (i.e. weapons bays) that ruined the F-35's aerodynamics. This is why the X-35 didn't have the same issues: LockMart was inexplicably allowed a 'prototype' without weapons bays. You can have stealth with good aerodynamics (F-22, PAK-FA etc.), you can have a lift fan with good aerodynamics (Convair 200 study) but you can't have both. This is an area where every F-35A off the line will pay a big penalty for VTOL, regardless of how many F-35Bs are eventually procured.
Second, ref timeline: There's always the issue that LockMart only has so many engineers. The more of them are diverted to the very complicated F-35B, the fewer are working on the comparatively simple A model. That alone pushes huge delays into the program, since the F-35B is, for all intents and purposes, a different airframe than the F-35A.
For example, when the B came off its fake probation, Burbage thanked the ". . . thousands of men and women of the combined government and contractor team who worked tirelessly to make substantial progress in flight testing the STOVL and by solving critical engineering challenges to get us to this . . ." for over a year. That's thousands of man years of effort diverted from getting a stable plane into production into just trying to fix the broken F-35B, and they weren't even done. Panetta followed up his fake probation with a fake 'off probation' even though major fixes hadn't even been tested.
The second timeline issue is the big weight reduction halt in 2004. The entire program was almost stopped and redone because weight growth was critical for the VTOL role. This cost the program somewhere between 18 months and two years, which is all traceable directly to the F-35B.
Add all that up and probably 3 - 4 years of development delay is directly attributable to the F-35B.
Speaking of the weight reduction effort, that brings up costs:
-- Weight reduction meant that LockMart eliminated the quick-mate joints (appliances used to make production faster) which made production easier and faster and increased commonality between variants. This means every F-35 takes longer to build and costs more because of the F-35B.
-- Weight reduction caused a host of other issues, including the now infamous decision to eliminate a few pounds of cut off valves that resulted in a 25% increase in vulnerability to battle damage, which is either a huge burden for all F-35 variants to bear or an expensive and time consuming redesign.
-- the weight reduction program caused extensive redesign, which then disrupted the entire global supply chain. This is what LockMart blamed the earlier $1B+ cost over run on. So again, money down the drain that effects all variants, disrupts LockMart's production learning curve benefits (few as they are) and so on.
This is already way too long a reply but:
-- would the F-35 program have been years late and way over budget even if there was no F-35B? Yes.
-- Did the addition of the F-35B add years more delay and even greater cost increases to every F-35 off the line, regardless of type? Yes.
another thing to consider is all of the programs that were cut to free up money for the F-35 or made because of the expectation that the F35 would be procured in numbers and at the then expected capabilities.
ReplyDeleteSLEPs, avionics updates, premature retirement of F117s/A10s/F16s/F14s, freezing of F22 at just over 180 aircraft, re-engining, etc.
the cascade effect of F35 decisions is staggering. No wonder its supporters are fighting like hell to keep it alive, they know what they've given up to lay hands on the elusive Holy Grail.
Do you suppose the F35 program has anything to do with the M16/M4 still being black?
ReplyDeletepossibly. once Amos made the approval to accept the modern day BAR otherwise known as the M27 into service, the only thing that got funded was further changes to 782 gear. its funny that the sets that were used during Vietnam lasted until the end of the 1st Gulf war and since then its been a steady drumbeat of never ending changes....but that has more to do with wasted money than operational need.
Deletebut back to the question. yeah i think so. by the time everyone got into their heads that the gravy train was over, all the initiatives like painting rifles or even better cerakoting them along with getting everyone silencers for their weapons went away. they'll pay for it on the back end with VA claims but who cares right? stupidity and favoritism are the hallmarks of Amos' time in leadership. i hate the guy but historians won't be much nicer. i don't know whos the bigger disappointment. Amos or Pace. at least Pace has the common sense to crawl into a hole and not come out. i wonder if Amos is as smart when he finally leaves?
speaking of the M27, do you think that is another program that will/might get rolled back? I'm not totally up to speed on the spec's, for the 27. Didn't it fill a need that was already filled? That being the SAW
ReplyDeleteit filled specs but the requirements were faulty. Gunners complained that Saw gunners couldn't keep up. if they're too small then you make them stronger. i'm not talking gym strong, i'm talking operationally strong. you PT with your weapon, you lift that weapon, you tote that weapon everywhere until the weight becomes irrelevant. now if your assault is going at break neck speed that makes no operational sense then you need to fix your leaders but suppressive fire. grazing fire. plunging fire....that ain't happening out the barrel of a fully automatic M16. once they get in the jungle and the first time they get in a fire fight everyone is going to be crying for SAWs like crazy.
Deletebut the biggest , you're full of shit flag to the Marine Corps comes from SOCOM. no one bit on the concept. our M32? yeah with a quickness our cammies? what do you think AOR1 and 2 are? but this fucking piece of shit? nope, nada, they think we're crazy.
M27 is not long for this world, but that will have more to do with LSAT replacing all LMGs within the decade. Neither the SAW nor the M27 will be able to compete with the LSAT based LMG going forward. It is roughly half the weight of the SAW(the LSAT LMG is just 1 lb heavier than the M16 and an LSAT with 100 rounds weighs just 1.5 lbs more than a M16 with a 30 round clip), the ammunition is roughly 40% lighter, it has less recoil, better accuracy, is more reliable and offers select fire so it can be used both in the open field in full auto and in interior room clear scenarios.
DeleteCTA LSAT is currently at TRL 7 and is suppose to transition to TRL 8 sometime next year in current caliber. At that point its just an issue of if they keep the current caliber (5.56) or move to an intermediate size caliber (~6.5 or so) which would have impact not only on the LMG but on associated rifle designs that would replace the M15/AR15 pattern rifles in service.
The US Army has pretty much committed to transitioning with CTA but the Marine corps want to wait until the Caseless version is ready. The CTA LMG can be converted to the caseless version with a chamber swap, so maybe the Army will convince the Marines to go that route. Anyways, TRL9 should be within the next 3-4 years. At that point, we can outfit the whole of the army and marines with LSAT based weapons for the cost of 1-2 F-35s.
The overall capability differences are fairly stark. A CTA LSAT with 1000 rounds weighs less than a SAW with 400 rounds! The main advantage of the caseless design is another 20% ammo weight reduction and roughly a 50% ammo volume reduction which makes standardizing on 200 round belts a reality.
I think it is fair to say that the death spiral of the F-22 was caused by the F-35.
ReplyDeleteThey killed the F-22, when they should have killed the F-35.
the F-22 died of its own weight in my opinion. i remember the battle well. the air force went through the different stages of loss publicly. debating, bargaining, refusal to accept the cost overruns and finally acceptance.
Deletethey cling to the F-35 because the dream of an all stealth force can be realized if the F-35 succeeds. the problem is simple. the F-35 has failed ... and badly. anyother airplane, would have been killed long ago. they built in the safeguards well. it still won't save it but no other program will be allowed to be structured the way this one was.
To what extent are the Tucanos "combat proven"?
ReplyDeleteThe only "real war" I can think of that saw the use of anything similar is the falklands war.
I've spent quite some time looking for a solid write up of the Pucara in the war, but havent found much, but that was quite a special case, the UKs ground forces didnt have a decent MANPAD, the airforces had very limited air to air resources, and the fleet assets were avoidable.
To what extent would a platoon "stingerman" render them useless?
About to the same extent as AH-1. You put on countermeasures hope they work and target the enemy MANPADS with 155mm artillery or 120mm mortars as soon as you can.
DeleteThat is like asking to what extent would multi-phased radar and IRST render low observability useless?
Here is a comparison of the Typhoon to the Super Tucano that mentions a similar purchase ratio (8:1), but reaches a slightly different conclusion.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/01/is-the-super-tucano-a-practical-option-for-the-raf/
Obviously the Typhoon is very different to the F-35, and the UK has no A-10 option - but an interesting read anyway.
The F-35 was designed primarily to bomb high-priority targets in heavily defended areas, using advanced stealth design to minimize -- though not eliminate -- enemy radar returns.
ReplyDeleteThe F-35's stealth characteristics outpace current weapons performance, meaning longer range bombs and air-to-air missiles must be designed to take full advantage of the F-35's ability to fire weapons before the enemy is aware an F-35 is initiating combat.
The F-35 needs 24 million lines of software to operate. That includes 10 million on the plane itself – three times more than the F-22, the Air Force’s hottest warplane, and six times more than the latest version of the F-18, the Navy’s best fighter. GAO: Late releases of software have delayed testing and training, and added costs. Software defects, low productivity, and concurrent development of successive blocks have created inefficiencies, taking longer to fix defects and delaying the demonstration of critical capabilities. The program has modified the software development and integration schedule several times, in each instance lengthening the time needed to complete work.
The F-35 is only about 40% through its scripted, contract-specification verification (developmental) flight testing. According to the GAO, that will explore only 17% of the F-35’s capabilities. The more-rigorous battlefield testing (the very first and partial phases of operational test and evaluation) will not start until 2016.
USMC buy: F-35B - 340, F-35C - 80 = 420
Navy buy: F-35C - 260
AF buy: F-35A - 1,753
It's all about the guts of the F-35 - the sensors and C2 capabilities. See first, shoot first, but not at 394 billion for 2,443 air frames and a 50 year (yah, right) maintenance cost of close to one trillion. The fact it is still being considered just shows how out of control and retarded the acquistion process has become.
ReplyDeleteThe M27 is a good concept and great rifle. Sure, the M249 puts out a boat load of bullets, but it's about effective suppressive fire and the M27 is just as capable if used properly. But, a lot of bullets going down range makes the squad feel a lot better. I say issue the M27 to every Marine. I don't think lack of mobility and the M249 is about unfit or weak Marines. It's a bulky, heavy weapon compared to the AR. Now, the LSAT - that's a cool weapon.
ReplyDeleteAccording to this Wired article, it the F22 had a flyaway cost of 20 million less per plane than the F-35. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/f-22-real-cost F22, 137 million per unit, F35, 157 million per unit.
ReplyDeleteAnd at that point the R&D was paid for, something that we still haven't seen with the F-35. Either way, if the F22 was crushed under its own weight, the F35 is heavier by far.
After reading all the comments regarding what is needed for the Marine CAS mission, tough as nails, good time on station, able to carry a good load of ordinance, I think I have identified the perfect candidate.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider
BTW Its interesting that the ROK selected the F-15S over the F-35 since they would seem to have to take their defense buys very seriously. Does anyone have any inside scoop on that call?