Best of the new platforms

[Highlander51]

As we all know, the F-18 is, unfortunately, going away at least in the Marine Corps along with the old CH-53 and the AH-1 Cobra. In light of all these new changes, along with a completely new platform in the F-35, what do you all think is the best platform as far as the new aircraft are concerned (CH-53K, F-35, AH-1Z)? Or do you think the tried and true C-130 takes the cake or the MV-22? I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts because it seems like the air wing is rapidly changing and will continue to do so going forward. All opinions are welcomed and appreciated.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Advanced Super Hornet.

 

[Highlander51]

Advanced Super Hornet.

I didn't think the Marine Corps had planned on obtaining any of the new super hornets, but if they are that's awesome!

 

[Hair Warrior]

VH-92

 

[sevenhelmet]

I didn't think the Marine Corps had planned on obtaining any of the new super hornets, but if they are that's awesome!

They aren't, I was joking. In fact, USMC leadership has a history of taking fairly rabid anti-Super Hornet stance in order to push acquisition of the F-35B.

That said, if you get the chance to fly Rhinos, I'd say go for it. It's a great airplane.

 

[Highlander51]

They aren't, I was joking. In fact, USMC leadership has a history of taking fairly rabid anti-Super Hornet stance in order to push acquisition of the F-35B.

That said, if you get the chance to fly Rhinos, I'd say go for it. It's a great airplane.

Any idea on why the leadership has taken such a hard stance against the super hornet in favor of the F-35?

 

[Python]

Any idea on why the leadership has taken such a hard stance against the super hornet in favor of the F-35?

Politics.
And buying the Super Hornet would have been a very very smart move.

 

[Highlander51]

Politics.
And buying the Super Hornet would have been a very very smart move.

Is the F-35 just more politically palatable? Because from what I’ve heard from a few F-35 pilots the super hornets are better air to air combat platforms than the F-35s.

 

[Brett327]

I’ve heard from a few F-35 pilots the super hornets are better air to air combat platforms than the F-35s.

I understand that you don't know any better (yet), but blanket statements like these are silly.

 

[Highlander51]

I understand that you don't know any better (yet), but blanket statements like these are silly.

That’s not my personal opinion, just the stuff I’ve heard from two Navy pilots. I personally don’t know anything about it only what I’ve heard. That’s part of the reason for me being on this platform in the first place is to get more knowledge.

 

[Brett327]

That’s not my personal opinion, just the stuff I’ve heard from two Navy pilots. I personally don’t know anything about it only what I’ve heard. That’s part of the reason for me being on this platform in the first place is to get more knowledges.

...and now, you have received them.

 

[Jim123]

Any idea on why the leadership has taken such a hard stance against the super hornet in favor of the F-35?

Politics, as @Python1287 said.

The F-35B is the only version that can hover, the Marines are the only ones who have that version, and that's the only version the Marines have.

The Marine Corps always seems to be subconsciously worried that their funding will get cut and they'll be absorbed into the other services. The Army has successfully done amphibious ops (more like used to but don't anymore- it's been decades), the Navy flies aircraft and helicopters off ships, the Air Force flies off land, the Army has plenty of doctrine—and real capability when there's a crisis in the world—for quick reaction force/light/agile/elite and they've flown their helicopter off of Navy warships from time to time. Those things are kind of a political threat because politicians might look at them and ask what the Marine Corps brings to the table that's so unique.

It's not an entirely fair question but there you go. The phrase "second land army" has come up a lot in the last twenty years of campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan- food for thought about politics.

(Your question about why the hard stance agains the Super is a fair question. The political question is mixed.)

 

[Swanee]

Politics.
And buying the Super Hornet would have been a very very smart move.

Even further than that, the USMC should have bought F-15E's instead of the D model legendary Hornet.

Edit: Yes yes, they'd never figure out the training or supply or maintenance processes, but as far as what the USMC wanted to do with the D, the Mudhen makes a lot more sense.

 

[STOVLer]

The B is not the only model the Marines have. They have a C squadron and plans for a second in the next couple of years.

Politics, as @Python1287 said.

The F-35B is the only version that can hover, the Marines are the only ones who have that version, and that's the only version the Marines have.

The Marine Corps always seems to be subconsciously worried that their funding will get cut and they'll be absorbed into the other services. The Army has successfully done amphibious ops (more like used to but don't anymore- it's been decades), the Navy flies aircraft and helicopters off ships, the Air Force flies off land, the Army has plenty of doctrine—and real capability when there's a crisis in the world—for quick reaction force/light/agile/elite and they've flown their helicopter off of Navy warships from time to time. Those things are kind of a political threat because politicians might look at them and ask what the Marine Corps brings to the table that's so unique.

It's not an entirely fair question but there you go. The phrase "second land army" has come up a lot in the last twenty years of campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan- food for thought about politics.

(Your question about why the hard stance agains the Super is a fair question. The political question is mixed.)

 

[Jim123]

The B is not the only model the Marines have. They have a C squadron and plans for a second in the next couple of years.

Ah, thanks for the correction!