F-35B/C Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)

[pourts]

(a) I was wrong: Navy's not getting Super Tucano's, as the Kansas congressional delegation shot that down;

(b) Marine Air hardly needs stealthy a/c to fight the Taliban & Al-Queada air forces (IOW, When was last time Marine Air flew a deep-strike mission in contested airspace?).

In that case, when was the last time anyone flew a deep strike mission in contested airspace? The Israeli's as Osirak in the 1980's? The percentage threat going forward is smaller, more capable SAMs and MANPADS, not necessarily other aircraft.

 

[Flash]

Flash I wouldnt even argue Range and speed but thats really the only clear advantage......Rockets.... For 1 you arent gonna have the variety of weapons to use nor the effectiveness. Putting a Rocket inside of a 60'x60' space is hard enough when your doing 75 knots from 5km out and have a while to line up, say your 4T's, fire... adjust... fire... adjust.... etc. Try doing it from a dive that starts at 2-300 knots and see how much your shooting goes from a single well placed rocket to dumping the whole pod and hoping one of those 19 hit something or at least scares the badguys. Same with aerial gunfire. About the only thing that can deliver as accurately to a R/W with a turret is the Spectre.....Second there are rockets we in the R/W community can use that would just not work for these aircraft......that 500lbs bomb could be great on some situations but Id very quickly argue that a K2A with its blast Frag sleeve delivered accurately will solve many of the same problems for a ground commander,and I can bring it in a lot closer to friendly troops without needing a set of initials.

Stick a few laser guided 2.75in/70mm rockets on a plane and you won't have to worry as much about lining up as much. And you don't seem to realize that there are plenty of weapons that a fixed-wing aircraft can use that helos don't, SDBs are one big example. There is a whole world of air-to-ground ordnance outside what the Army uses. The two 50cals would be a last resort for the A-29.

As for whether you can hear us or not ask all the dead people the 82nd stacked up when they were the first unit to go into Iraq with MTADS. The altitudes we're at you wont hear us either, not if we're doing out job and staying at our typical standoff range while observing with narrow and zoom FOV FLIR/DTV.

I am glad to hear that but still find it a bit hard to believe, I can hear an Apache from miles away.

Im a supporter for the program they are buying into. I think this is a great aircraft to operate from austere airfields in order to support those guys like LRST or Delta or Green Berets. It would be a great long station time observation platform but you could arguably do that job just as well with Reapers which carry the same payload, and have the added advantage of Crew fatigue not effecting mission performance. But people on here are talking about bringing this aircraft on to the deck of an LHA to let it be the new A1 Skyraider. In the day of MANPADs like the SA16 Id argue the age of the A1 is pretty much done.

A Reaper can't do FAC(A) and can't do nearly as good a job at CAS, if you want to call what they do that anyways. The Navy A-29 was going to experienced aircrew who knew their jobs well and could bring not only themselves but guide others to the fight. While I agree that putting a A-29 on an LHA is a not going to happen nor should it, it can fulfill the niche role that is envisioned for SOCOM better than pretty much any other platform available right now. Unfortunately politics got in the way and it is sitting on the shelf right now, but still a good idea.

You need to quit thinking about CAS having to be done at low level. One of the great things about the Super Tucano was that it could do almost all of it's mission above the ceiling of SA-16/18s. Not only that their single engine and lower exhaust makes them a harder IR target in the first place along with their speed. With today's technology you don't always have to get down and dirty to do CAS, though it has the guns to do so if necessary.

The point though (to reiterate the last half of Lawman's post), is that F/W vs R/W CAS is a narrow comparison of tactical abilities. In the big picture they're still just different varieties of delivering air-to ground ordnance, and a Tucano can't take on all the essential roles of a strike fighter in the Wing, not without surrendering our ability to operate independently in our battlespace. I, too, am a fan of turboprop CAS platforms.....as an augment to R/W, not as a replacement for fast-movers.

I find it interesting that you both of you fail to address the second part of my points, cost and logistics. The Super Tucano or like aircraft can actually do much of the same mission as attack helos for much less of the cost and care.

I don't advocate that a Super Tucano or AT-6 replace tacair but it would be a nice supplement for a fraction of the cost of either rotary wing or tacair.

Short term affordability, maybe, but long-term, not so much. Move pilots into some type of interim turboprop platform, and you're moving them out of somewhere else, be that AV-8Bs, F/A-18s, or skids. That's in addition to the training, basing, logistics, etc. I think that's why this sort of thing is finding traction in the special warfare side, more so than in the regular forces. They have the budget to allocate for short-term, one-off solutions that the rest of the military doesn't. It would be great if we had the flexibility in the process overall to do this. Unfortunately the spec war types will want to lick their own ice cream cone with their assets. The regular component commanders will not want to lose X number of jets in the long-term for a Y CAS turboprops only relevant in the short-term fight.

It would be cool to lease say, two squadrons, of Super Ts for example. One training unit in CONUS and one permanently based in theater. Pilots would rotate in for an 18 or 24 month B-billet tour, time spent almost entirely overseas, before going back to their fleet platform. I think that funding that would be a nightmare, though.

Which is why I don't think the Marines would ever seriously consider getting them, nor should they probably. But for SOCOM, instead of having to rely on the services it might be worth the bang for the buck for them, especially when they are relatively cheap.

6 hour endurance with ordinance? I am skeptical.

It can carry external tanks. And we are talking about things that go boom, not laws.

 

[mmx1]

I find it interesting that you both of you fail to address the second part of my points, cost and logistics. The Super Tucano or like aircraft can actually do much of the same mission as attack helos for much less of the cost and care.

I don't advocate that a Super Tucano or AT-6 replace tacair but it would be a nice supplement for a fraction of the cost of either rotary wing or tacair.

We were both responding originally to the idea of putting them on small decks with EM catapults and arresting gear. Cost benefit isn't quite as clear once you tack on those costs. It'd be nice to have a land-based augment but the Corps' purchasing decision is going to be based on what's coming off the small (and big) decks.

 

[eddie]

Are Marine STOVL strike fighters meant to operate without airborne early warning, command and control, and all the other support a big carrier provides?

Differentiation seems to be very important, but could it also be prohibitively expensive for a "seldom-used" capability, (especially if contested amphibious landings "become" a thing of the past)?

Is that part of this issue?

 

[phrogdriver]

It's used more than you might think. With a limited (and possibly shrinking) number of carriers, the small-scale coverage provided by LHD/LHAs may be even more critical than in the past. LHD/LHD-borne Harriers have done strikes through all phases of OIF, OEF, and Desert Storm, as well as intel-gathering and surveillance.

Will Marine Air still be viable without LHD/LHD-based tacair? Yes. It was for many years prior to the Harrier. However the fact that the "big amphibious invasion" is supposedly a thing of the past argues FOR a small-scale, integrated capability, not against it. If we did a big MEB or larger assault, the Navy will bring carrier air to the party, negating the need for Marines to self-support until operations phase ashore. For supporting a battalion-sized landing (e.g. a MEU) and keeping them covered, that's where a MAGTF needs the integrated capability.

 

[Lawman]

Will Marine Air still be viable without LHD/LHD-based tacair? Yes. It was for many years prior to the Harrier. However the fact that the "big amphibious invasion" is supposedly a thing of the past argues FOR a small-scale, integrated capability, not against it. If we did a big MEB or larger assault, the Navy will bring carrier air to the party, negating the need for Marines to self-support until operations phase ashore. For supporting a battalion-sized landing (e.g. a MEU) and keeping them covered, that's where a MAGTF needs the integrated capability.

I cannot in this era where we act like less than 5000 casualties over nearly a decade of continuous combat operations is our battle of the Somm, ever see us ordering a no kidding Contested Beach Assault. Short of retaking the Aleutian Islands from China or something I just dont see us ever justifying it. But your right that does argue that when a MEU gets a phone call to roll into Lebanon, or Somalia, or any other of a dozen shitholes with a beach It would be nice for them to not have to wait on or pray for AF/Navy support. It also argues for advancement in Navel Gun Fire Support too though since they would be able to provide a much quicker reaction and much more time on station than the small contingent of Fixed Wing on board an Amphib.


Flash, if he's gonna use rockets that range and altitude advantage is gone. You have to get close to use them, thats one of the problems even if they are laser guided. And that still doesnt solve the issue that the rockets he will be forced to use because he's fixed wing arent as effective either against soft or hardened targets. They'll be great with an RC fuze to take out say a bunker, but against troops in the open 10lbs PDs suck compaired to Nails. Against vehicles or massed concentrations of equipment PDs suck vs MPSM. And if he is gonna come down into where we fly I wouldnt feel too warm and fuzzy about having 1 engine, dick for expendables, and no CMWS or similar system to protect me from some of the new MANPADs out there. Strella's and RPGs arent that big a worry but against somebody that knows more than 3rd hand training on how to use a missile that came into a country carried by a yak (Think Iran, or Bosnia as it was only 10 years ago) flying that way without the option of hiding the way a helicopter can gets dangerous. Yes there are other weapons to use outside what we fly with, but will a ground commander let him drop it is the big question or will he have what they require to PID the target. There is also no way to do the kind of observation and PID we can do in a helicopter from altitude. So while yes in a real war battlefield you can do CAS at altitude, but even the Spectre cant PID stuff as well as we can and once they put the new FLIR on the 58D our PID wont even look that good.

 

[Flash]

Flash, if he's gonna use rockets that range and altitude advantage is gone. You have to get close to use them, thats one of the problems even if they are laser guided. And that still doesnt solve the issue that the rockets he will be forced to use because he's fixed wing arent as effective either against soft or hardened targets. They'll be great with an RC fuze to take out say a bunker, but against troops in the open 10lbs PDs suck compaired to Nails. Against vehicles or massed concentrations of equipment PDs suck vs MPSM. And if he is gonna come down into where we fly I wouldnt feel too warm and fuzzy about having 1 engine, dick for expendables, and no CMWS or similar system to protect me from some of the new MANPADs out there. Strella's and RPGs arent that big a worry but against somebody that knows more than 3rd hand training on how to use a missile that came into a country carried by a yak (Think Iran, or Bosnia as it was only 10 years ago) flying that way without the option of hiding the way a helicopter can gets dangerous. Yes there are other weapons to use outside what we fly with, but will a ground commander let him drop it is the big question or will he have what they require to PID the target. There is also no way to do the kind of observation and PID we can do in a helicopter from altitude. So while yes in a real war battlefield you can do CAS at altitude, but even the Spectre cant PID stuff as well as we can and once they put the new FLIR on the 58D our PID wont even look that good.

Look, it's great that you are an Apache guy now but that does not mean you are an expert at CAS yet. The Navy and SOCOM worked closely together to come up with a quick and easy solution to their need for CAS and FAC(A) and they aren't amateurs about it. We can sit and debate weapons, and there are a myriad of them that the A-29 could use to kill people just as well, if not better, than those few employed by the Army's helos, and employment all day but getting down to it the Super Tucano and aircraft like it provided an excellent platform crewed by experienced aircrew who could employ a variety of munitions to do a damn fine job of CAS. If you think they didn't test this concept before pushing it, employing weapons and trying to counter it with threat systems to see if it worked, you have a lot to learn. You may not want to fly it but there were combat-tested aircrew that were, and it wasn't just because of the thrill of it. It is pretty hard to shoot down what you can't see, hear or acquire.

And just because the Army doesn't fly it doesn't mean it can't or won't work, as a matter of fact I would argue the opposite....... I have repeatedly been unimpressed with how the Army often does business, lowest common denominator comes to mind very often, and that includes aviation. They often treat their aircraft often like trucks and often only see it as an auxiliary at best. That is not to take away from Army aviators who are just as professional as the rest of the services but when your lobby at the top is real thin I don't expect things to change too much.

Point is, the experts from Naval Aviation and SOCOM got together and came up with a solution to a problem. You, mighty newbie, should not be so dismissive of their wisdom. Though not infallible they certainly know more than you or I, especially when it comes to the business of killing bad guys.

 

[Pugs]

But your right that does argue that when a MEU gets a phone call to roll into Lebanon, or Somalia, or any other of a dozen shitholes with a beach It would be nice for them to not have to wait on or pray for AF/Navy support. .

I cannot picture a situation where we we would ever try and assault a beach without CVN support. The USAF may be stuck without a base support agreement to assist but even that is a bit of a reach if it means a lot of Marines moving ashore.

 

[Lawman]

And just because the Army doesn't fly it doesn't mean it can't or won't work, as a matter of fact I would argue the opposite....... I have repeatedly been unimpressed with how the Army often does business, lowest common denominator comes to mind very often, and that includes aviation. They often treat their aircraft often like trucks and often only see it as an auxiliary at best. That is not to take away from Army aviators who are just as professional as the rest of the services but when your lobby at the top is real thin I don't expect things to change too much.

Right... the most requested air asset by ground commanders in theatre right now is an Army Helicopter but we dont know what we're doing. And we dont do CAS, we do CCA. No its not as laid out and strict as a 9 line, and we've done a pretty damn good job of proving it doesnt need to be.

We lost Broncos in Desert Storm to SAFIRE flying what is essentially the exact same mission you intend to do with this aircraft. Will it do a good job within the limited and very specific function of SOCOM, sure. Im saying buying these up by the thousands the way we did with MRAPs to fill some niche we designed strictly out of this fight is foolish. Outside of operating in areas where you simply cant get a R/W too either due to range or altitude there is nothing this aircraft will do better than we can.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Outside of operating in areas where you simply cant get a R/W too either due to range or altitude there is nothing this aircraft will do better than we can.

No need to get offended and start saying stuff that just isn't true.

 

[pilot_man]

Right... the most requested air asset by ground commanders in theatre right now is an Army Helicopter but we dont know what we're doing. And we dont do CAS, we do CCA. No its not as laid out and strict as a 9 line, and we've done a pretty damn good job of proving it doesnt need to be.

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH

.

First, this isn't a Navy/Marine Corp vs. Army thing, nor is it a Helo vs. FW thing. What it is though is a discussion on how we get the Marines on the ground the support they need in a timely manner. It's obvious that the Corp thought they needed the FW assets in the first place since they have them now, and need to replace them. It's obvious that the RW guys can't provide all of the support that the MEU requires or it would just be Helos on the small decks in the first place. If you think that you can see the same thing from 200' as I can see from 15k', then you a bit of learning to do. I know for sure that I can't see what a helo on the deck can see. I know what I can provide to a fight, and I also know what the RW guys bring as well. You have no idea of any of the programs that you are speaking to. That fact is, there needs to be a solution to the F-35 problem. The MEU needs FW but if that can't be done with the current plan, then something else needs to be done.

 

[Beans]

Does anyone else think this discussion ought to be made into a thread of its own? I feel we are digressing in to a very worthwhile but separate topic.

 

[usmarinemike]

A lot of people getting wrapped around the axle on the "contested beach landing" thingy. If that's what you think the Marine Corps is purely preparing for, you're off base, and, frankly, not very smart. One can question the need for the Marine Corps to procure and maintain a fixed wing capability based on a small, legitimate set of arguments, but the big picture would have to be ignored. Arguing for the need to have a stealth capability is one thing. Arguing for the need to have fixed wing attack/fighter is another absurd thing altogether.

Somebody mentioned earlier about hearing a FAC asking for Marine air. Try being on the radio when he not only asks for Marine air, but to make it fixed wing. What this thread has turned into is a pointless pissing match. Helos can't take care of everything. Whether it be target size/composition, threat level, airspace geometry, etc. there needs to be a fast mover in the tool box. And it would be quite nice if that aircraft were owned by the same guy that owns the ground troops and owns the helos and owns the arty and owns the C2. It's a major reason that the Marine Corps is good at combined arms and we don't have to succumb to the whole "lowest common denominator" mentality. And I'm not being a mysorotorist either. I've been on the radio when the FAC specifically wanted RW, too, even when they were the main effort and they had sections and sections of FW available to them.

 

[BigRed389]

Does anyone else think this discussion ought to be made into a thread of its own? I feel we are digressing in to a very worthwhile but separate topic.

Totally OT, but I love that sig line.

 

[mmx1]

A lot of people getting wrapped around the axle on the "contested beach landing" thingy. If that's what you think the Marine Corps is purely preparing for, you're off base, and, frankly, not very smart.

Purely, no, but we are planning on buying a shitton of EFV's at a ridiculous price for that capability.