Leave it to the USMC to fly an airplane designed to fly on and off of a boat, with all of the performance comprises associated, but never actually fly it off the boat.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Hornet vs F35
- Thread starter blackngold
- Start date
Leave it to the USMC to fly an airplane designed to fly on and off of a boat, with all of the performance comprises associated, but never actually fly it off the boat.
That's all cool, but we're talking about F-35B specifically. I'm not sure "moving different capabilities from point A to point B" requires a novelty-sized 5th Gen fighter squadron. Do the SPMAGTFs contain F-35B? Unclear if that's a thing or not... also unclear what SPMAGTF missions require 5th Gen fighters. Do tell.
Do you expect Marines to operate in only uncontested irregular warfare domains for the next 70 years? Do you really think all we do are NEO and HADR missions?
You still haven’t addressed absolutely wasteful programs the Navy invested in over the last two decades. Yet here you are throwing stones at an actually useful program.
You mean just like the rest of the clapped out Marine Hornet squadrons of the last 30 years?
For strike warfare? Yes.
So you’re asserting that you can absolutely prove our competitors won’t be procuring air defense or denial systems that will challenge battle space owned by Marines?
I'm not asserting that. If such an IADS does present itself, they'll call call in a CSG to do the heavy lifting. This has the added benefit of freeing up the ESG to do HA/DR in another AOR.
The Marines wouldn’t be able to command and control battle space without the capability to seize and/or defend it. Hence the entire reason why we have or had TPS-59/63/80s and MACG. Not to mention aircraft and air defense assets to control it. Unless you change joint doctrine, you’re going to be stuck with Marines have a better capability than the peers they’re going to encounter in a conflict. This is a constant point of contention with the USAF and USMC when it comes to airspace.
It has other unique design advantages over the other variants besides landing on boats (in addition to the compromises).
Last edited:
Yes, that does all sound fascinating. I think a case study would be helpful. Perhaps you could enlighten us with a recent historical example where the Marines have conducted a major (or minor) air campaign without the presence of the other services.
Said design compromises make it arguably the best of the three variants, especially from a range perspective.
Last edited:
Brett, that’s a not intellectually honest question. Not one single service goes at a major campaign alone. The absence of a CVN doesn’t negate the requirement of a capable aircraft against a peer competitor. We’ve owned battle space (both air and ground) in every single major conflict since WWII. Lastly, we ran campaigns with our own air wing out of Anbar and Helmand for years. We supported campaigns (Just like the Navy) in Libya, Somalia, Grenada, East Timor, Syria, Bosnia, Yemen and countless other areas from our big decks. The Navy hasn’t even run its own air campaigns completely by itself. Why would you expect the Marines to do so?
Let me sum this up for you:
USAF: If we allow you to own airspace per joint doctrine - You have to be able to command and control it. Including sensing and defending it with aircraft, radars, and missiles.
USN: You can’t have big carriers because you’ll encroach on our missions and funding.
USMC: Well fuck. As we watched Ukraine and Azerbaijan go down in the last 5 years and getting side eyed from the PLA across the pond.
You still haven’t address the poor funding decisions the Navy has executed in the last decade, but yet are throwing mud at the Marines for a valid joint requirement with significant historical precedent.
Not trying to state that the Corps doesn’t have other issues, either. The chunk of money the program takes up compared to the rest of the Marines is extremely high, but I understand why that decision was made. I would be willing to bet any other program we invested in would’ve likely cost just as much given the RDT&E involved by going at it alone. This is no different than what we did with the A-4, F-4, A-6, and F/A-18 (plus others).
I also think your perception of how, when, and where Marines will be involved in a conflict is not congruent with our concepts of employment in various theaters around the world.
What I've gleaned from this conversation is that your perception about my perceptions is in need of calibration.
Not really. I’ve seen and been a part of planning that goes into the little yellow pieces of paper that say otherwise. I have a weird feeling you’re far removed from those places, both in your present and former lives.
Perhaps you should admit you have no idea what Marines actually need and are unqualified to speak on their requirements. I’m not going to pontificate on how to fight or the requirements of a CSG, maybe a little professional courtesy wouldn’t be a stretch of the imagination on your end.