Marine F-22s

[pilot_man]

Rhino's are an amazing aircraft but in a decade or so when China has a completely developed J-20 and Sukhoi has finished their PAK FA would you rather fight it with a 4.5 gen Rhino or a 5th gen F-35? Rhino's are GREAT for right now but if you cut the F-35, you're not going to be able to change your mind in 10 or 20 years.....not to mention the F-22 production line is all but dead and we simply won't have enough of them to be effective against fleets of PAK FAs or J-20s. On top of all that you're telling me I still get to keep my VSTOL capability? I'll take F35s any day over wasting that money on Government Healthcare/bailouts/etc. If we could do it all over again, I'd say the argument for not having a JSF is strong...but we've simply put too much into it already to not follow through (already made THAT mistake with the Raptor).

Yes, that's what we're going to do against China. Send in the Marines. We'll send in the MEU with no external support and that's it. Great plan. I guess they NEED JSF then. Wait, what? We aren't going to send the Marines against China and all they need is a platform that can do CAS, ummm maybe the Rhino will work then. We don't need a 5th GEN CAS platform. Hornets=Rhinos. Prowlers=Growlers. Harriers=Something else but not a JSF. Yes the F-22 and JSF are game changers. Are they that far off from a AESA Rhino, No.

 

[armada1651]

I don't buy it. Does a multi-mode AESA work against a stealth aircraft? If not then we are carrying a passenger to handle comms and give an extra set of eyes. I'll take the all aspect awareness system, and I'll bet my life that it and the stealth of my airplane works.

Sure, we all think it's cool to see that one hud tape of the Hornet that put the guns to the Raptor- but 99 times out of 100 it goes the other way, and the Hornet guys never even knew that the Raptor was in the ballpark.
The F-35 and the F-22 are changing the game the same way the F-14/F-15/F-16/F-18 did almost 40 years ago. Would you honestly tell me that you would rather take an F-4 with a WSO up against an F-15?

As a guy who may have to fly against those PAK FAs and J-20s I want EVERYTHING that I can get wrt technology. Even if that means I'm sitting in a room somewhere playing a video game. Last time I checked we don't have to send someone in Dress Blues to a house in Anytown, USA to inform a family that their loved one was killed when a Reaper gets shot down.

I'm not any great expert on it myself by any means, but I think you're greatly underestimating the capabilities of the Super Hornet, which I think most people do. Unfortunately this conversation can't really go much further than that. Suffice it to say, there are a considerable number of inaccuracies and incorrect assumptions in your post.

 

[RadicalDude]

I'm not any great expert on it myself by any means, but I think you're greatly underestimating the capabilities of the Super Hornet, which I think most people do. Unfortunately this conversation can't really go much further than that. Suffice it to say, there are a considerable number of inaccuracies and incorrect assumptions in your post.

I'll second that.

 

[Harrier Dude]

Suffice it to say, there are a considerable number of inaccuracies and incorrect assumptions in your post.

As in yours and the vast majority of other posters with regard to the F-35.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I think it's funny that hornet dudes scramble to defend the rhino claiming there is just all kinds of secret shit that we just don't know about, but it doesn't occur to them that there is likely even more they don't know about the F-35 (we've probably all received the same or similar briefs on the F-35). I will go ahead and trust those who's job it is to know, and who for some reason think we should get F-35's.

 

[Harrier Dude]

I think it's funny that hornet dudes scramble to defend the rhino claiming there is just all kinds of secret shit that we just don't know about, but it doesn't occur to them that there is likely even more they don't know about the F-35 (we've probably all received the same or similar briefs on the F-35). I will go ahead and trust those who's job it is to know, and who for some reason think we should get F-35's.

It's not all Hornet dudes. Talk to some who are read in and you'll hear a different opinion.

FWIW there are plenty of Harrier guys who are anti-F-35 as well. They aren't read in either.

This isn't so much about community as it is who knows the real capabilities and who doesn't.

 

[phrogdriver]

I think it's funny that hornet dudes scramble to defend the rhino claiming there is just all kinds of secret shit that we just don't know about, but it doesn't occur to them that there is likely even more they don't know about the F-35 (we've probably all received the same or similar briefs on the F-35). I will go ahead and trust those who's job it is to know, and who for some reason think we should get F-35's.

Seriously? I've never really thought of myself as "anti-establishment," but your answer to an actual policy question is to trust those in charge because they must know what they're doing? That's led to at least a few poorly chosen wars and several poorly chosen weapons systems (SHH! Before you even start, KBD and PP73).

It's a pretty simple concept when you get down to it, and it doesn't even rely on knowledge of the secret squirrel and performance characteristics of the aircraft involved.

The next generation of strike aircraft are all going to be UASs. Whether that's 10 years away or 20 is up for debate. So, the Navy, and to an even greater extent, the USMC, have to decide what is going to bridge that gap. Should it be a capable, yet relatively affordable, system that risks obsolescence by the end of that time? Or, should it be a state-of-the-art, extremely expensive system that will likely meet or exceed any competitor?

Me, I'm a fiscal conservative who thinks that it's extremely unlikely that we'll actually be in a shooting war with any peer competitor within any reasonable timeframe. I think that an expensive fighter will crowd out money for warfighting resources that we are far more likely to actually utilize in the next 20 years. I also believe that our main national security threats are economic and political, not military. With those things in mind, I think the JSF isn't worth it.

It's a fairly straightforward risk v. benefit problem. Spin the risks a little differently and you'll get a different result. Ask yourself though...if we get in a wide-scale shooting fight with the red threat peer competitors, i.e. Russia or China, is carrier and LHD-based air going to be the game-changer? If I had a few hundred billion laying around for that (which we don't), ballistic missile defense or Prompt Global Strike would be a lot nicer than the JSF, for example. How likely is that hypothetical peer competitor versus the likelihood of flying circles with LPODS and dropping JDAMs on mud huts?

 

[Treetop Flyer]

The next generation of assault support will be UAS's. Whether that's 10 years away or 20 is up for debate, so the Navy and to an even greater extent, the USMC, have to decide what is going to bridge that gap. Should it be a capable, yet relatively affordable, system that risks obsolescence by the end of that time? Or, should it be a state-of-the-art, extremely expensive system that will likely meet or exceed any competitor?

See how easy that is? As long you are willing to accept that first part as fact, then the rest falls into place. Feel free to let me know that assault support is totally different and needs a pilot way more than tac air.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Swing and a miss.

The future of rotary wing unmanned aerial vehicles has no bearing on the future of Marine jet aviation...

 

[phrogdriver]

The next generation of assault support will be UAS's. Whether that's 10 years away or 20 is up for debate, so the Navy and to an even greater extent, the USMC, have to decide what is going to bridge that gap. Should it be a capable, yet relatively affordable, system that risks obsolescence by the end of that time? Or, should it be a state-of-the-art, extremely expensive system that will likely meet or exceed any competitor?

See how easy that is? As long you are willing to accept that first part as fact, then the rest falls into place. Feel free to let me know that assault support is totally different and needs a pilot way more than tac air.

I'm just stating facts, not acting as a spokesman for the pilot's union. Don't be a whiny bitch.

Almost all pilots will, someday, be replaced. The nature of TACAIR means that that it will happen first there.

Destroying person/equipment at grid 123456 does not require a huge leap in UAS technology. Loading and unloading troops, judging a landing site with bad imagery, recognizing obstacles/slope, etc does. That's not a slap at strike pilots, it's just reality. Unmanned ground vehicles are taking a lot longer to mature than unmanned aerial vehicles, for example. That doesn't mean that flying is easier than driving in general, just that certain problems are easier to solve technologically.

The other thing, maybe the main thing, protecting assault support aircraft is psychology. People, in general, will not be comfortable with a computer in the pilot seat with passengers aboard for many years. That day will come, but it will take longer. Luckily, that day won't come in my working lifetime.

Too bad for you, though. Sorry.

That said, cargo delivery by UAS has already started on a trial basis, and will become much more widespread in the near future.

Meat servos will eventually go the way of checkout clerks. We'll still need a couple, but mostly just to supervise, and mainly just to deal with alcohol purchases.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Swing and a miss.

The future of rotary wing unmanned aerial vehicles has no bearing on the future of Marine jet aviation...

I didn't say that one had any bearing on the other. I'm pointing out that it's easy to make an assumption and then base all the rest of your argument on it. A bunch of people who aren't in the know arguing about the best procurement plan is entertaining but pretty silly.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I'm just stating facts, not acting as a spokesman for the pilot's union. Don't be a whiny bitch.

Almost all pilots will, someday, be replaced. The nature of TACAIR means that that it will happen first there.

Destroying person/equipment at grid 123456 does not require a huge leap in UAS technology. Loading and unloading troops, judging a landing site with bad imagery, recognizing obstacles/slope, etc does. That's not a slap at strike pilots, it's just reality. Unmanned ground vehicles are taking a lot longer to mature than unmanned aerial vehicles, for example. That doesn't mean that flying is easier than driving in general, just that certain problems are easier to solve technologically.

The other thing, maybe the main thing, protecting assault support aircraft is psychology. People, in general, will not be comfortable with a computer in the pilot seat with passengers aboard for many years. That day will come, but it will take longer. Luckily, that day won't come in my working lifetime.

Too bad for you, though. Sorry.

That said, cargo delivery by UAS has already started on a trial basis, and will become much more widespread in the near future.

Meat servos will eventually go the way of checkout clerks. We'll still need a couple, but mostly just to supervise, and mainly just to deal with alcohol purchases.

Looks like I struck a nerve there, and you replied pretty much like I thought you would, with a thesis on why pilots are needed for assault support and with a gross oversimplification of what tac air does. Preach on though, there's always a chance that you really DO know more than those with more information who are running things.

 

[phrogdriver]

Dude, don't even. You're being protective of your new found turf.

This ain't my first goat rodeo. I've been flying for 16 years, Mr "Graduated VT-22 in Mar 10."

I was just discussing this very issue with a jet guy this very morning, and uh, he wasn't on your side.

Look at this objectively. A UAS has probably done ISR and dropped ordnance somewhere in the world TODAY. I guarantee no American soldiers or Marines have been delivered by UAS in that same period. That alone means that strike is closer to being done by automated systems. It doesn't mean that someday I'm not being replaced too, just that your career is going to dead-end a long time before mine.

 

[draad]

Boy, that escalated quickly... I mean, that really got out of hand fast. Brick, where did you get a hand grenade?

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Still you are continuing to argue against an argument that no one here made. I was pointing out that you arbitrarily claimed that tacair would be all UAS's within 10-20 years even though those making the long term decisions obviously don't feel that way.

If you want to point out that I'm a new guy, well go ahead because I am. I am not claiming to have some wonderful inside knowledge or the ability to predict the future like some here seem to be. I am just pointing out that most of the most opinionated people here are judging decisions being made by people who actually do know what they are talking about.