Marine F-22s

[draad]

When it comes down to it, assuming supers can bridge the gap is just too much like putting all of your eggs in one basket to me, it's a gamble. Afterall, one could reasonabley expect China/Russia to have relatively the same UAS capabilities IN ADDITION to 5th gen fighters while we're betting on only the UAS. Suppose they figure a way to disrupt our control of UAS (unless you're implying they will be autonomous in 10-20 years), then we're up shits creek without a paddle. I agree that the largest threat to our national security is economic but cutting the F35 (or even just the F35B) just because it's a big target isn't going to solve the problem. That's like treating the symptom instead of the disease. Our economy isn't in an economic shithole because of the F35, its there because of Bullshit mentalities like "It's against my rights for Florida to drug test me before giving me my welfare check" and the like. I really don't feel like typing up on ongoing list, but the F35 is at the end of a VERY long list of reasons of why we're hurting economically. Afterall, the current generation thinks the keys to success are:
1) Accumulate massive college debt
2) Graduate with a degree in underwater basketweaving
3) ????
4) Profit!

 

[phrogdriver]

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 your argument is that those in charge must know better than everyone else, because they're the ones in charge, that's fine. That is the party line, and that's great as far as it goes. Again, I'd refer you to OIF, Vietnam, the F-111, the America-class LHA, the Littoral Combat Ship, the San Antonio class, etc.

If you really think the senior leaders of the military have spent time looking at the E-M diagrams of the Rhino and JSF vs. the PAK-FA or threat du jour, they haven't. They don't have magic data beyond the reach of mere mortals.

Let's be honest, though. Military and political leaders deal with factors much more important than the national security of the United States. They deal with the security of their services' budgets versus those of their enemies, those enemies being the other services and competing budget priorities. If the leadership of Navy and Marines ever admitted that naval air (CVN, LHD, expeditionary, whatever) wasn't necessarily the best solution to our security problems, they'd be out tens of billions of dollars, as well as their jobs.

I won't say I have some magic solution, or even that I have an inside track on knowledge. However, the military and political leadership don't have that much more insight available to them than must experienced fleet operators. They just have a greater number of stakeholders, and a different set of incentives.

 

[MasterBates]

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.

You have a point, but these are the same procurement "geniuses" that fuck us over and over historically.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

 

[KBayDog]

You hav

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

 

[phrogpilot73]

...several poorly chosen weapons systems (SHH! Before you even start, KBD and PP73)....

Guilty conscience, my friend?

 

[Flash]

......Despite what the Boeing sales reps will try and tell you, the Rhino is nowhere near "90% of an F-35". Not even close.....

That is dead on, I have said it on this board before that while the Super Hornet is a good system now it will reach obsolescence much earlier than the F-35. If we stuck with what was good now we would still be flying Corsairs and Skyraiders, a lot of fun but you would end up dead a lot quicker.

Our enemies are developing some pretty impressive weapon systems that can or will be able to kill aircraft a lot better than they could just a few years ago, that includes a whole host of SAMs and aircraft. A Super Hornet would have a much tougher time against those systems than the F-35.

......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?

I think that gap is a lot bigger than you might think right now. While there will likely be some armed UAVs on carrier decks by that time, this looks promising, I don't see manned aircraft leaving the deck anytime soon. UAVs have several big vulnerabilities that would be very difficult to mitigate and almost impossible to completely solve. Control of the aircraft is the biggest one, either it has to be pre-programmed or controlled at the end of a long 'tether' that hasn't been challenged in a denied environment yet. People seem to forget that we have worked in a pretty permissive environment for aircraft operations the last ten years at war, especially ones that fly above reach of small arms fire. But it is not only the weapons that can shoot that haven't had to worry as much about the past few years though, it is also ones that can damage or disable electronic systems as well. While a pre-programmable UAV is good for some strike missions it obviously is nto going to be able to cover all of them and if a knowledgable and capable enemy can sever that link needed to control a UAV they wouldn't even need to waste ammo on the aircraft.

So while UAVs will provide some valuable supplementary strike assets the age of the manned combat aircraft isn't setting quite yet. There is a pretty secure place for them at least for the next generation if not for two.

 

[armada1651]

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.

This isn't so much an issue of, "The Rhino is awesome and it's got all this secret stuff that I can't tell you about" as much that it's got capabilities and equipment that we can't discuss on an open internet forum. So does the F-35, no doubt. But it's not like Lockheed is trying to hide the F-35's capabilities from those of us who might have a need to know in the next few years, they're trying to sell the damn thing. So I don't think it's fair to assume anybody who defends the Super Hornet does so only because they don't know about the JSF's secret stuff, or that if the thing ever shows up, new shit will come to light.

 

[phrogpilot73]

...it's got capabilities and equipment that we can't discuss on an open internet forum.

I'm pretty sure that I can say in an open, public, internet forum - that it can't hover.

The day you can tell me that you can land (and launch) a Rhino from an LHD/LHA, is the day that I'll agree that we can replace all USMC TACAIR assets with the Rhino. Whether you believe it or not, having an organic TACAIR platform in the MEU is important to the Marine Corps.

It's funny, the guys who are telling Marines that we need the Rhino, are the guys who never have, and never will deploy with a MEU. Odd, isn't it?

 

[phrogdriver]

The MEU hasn't been asked to do forcible entries in well...ever. Having some long range CAS and ISR is huge, but in the places the MEU needs it, there is no significant threat to f/w air. We need a bomb and LPOD truck. The Harrier can still do that for awhile yet. Do we want to mortgage our relevance to another aviation platform?

In a world with unlimited resources, I'd say we should build F-35Bs for all my friends. In today's environment, I wonder whether we really want to invest in a new TACAIR platform that will be superseded by UASs a few years after we complete the buy.

If we really wanted CAS relevant to the MEU, we'd tank the Y/W and buy DAP-equipped Speedhawk variants. Actually, since that mod is retrofittable to existing -60s we could just buy regular -60s and upgrade them later. That program has been underfunded (I should say barely funded) from the start.

 

[Uncle Fester]

For once, I think the kool-aid was correct, and Libya fairly well demonstrated the utility of having V/STOL-capable strike. The Big One against China may go off someday, but short little interventions like Libya are more likely to be the norm in the next 20 years. Having strike assets off the big-deck 'phibs means more flexible response options. We'll be lucky to keep the number of CVNs we have, and we sure as shit aren't getting more, so we may as well buy assets that give us the greatest number of response options. The alternative is to keep doing what we've been doing, and designing our strategy and tactics around our platforms, instead of the other way 'round.

 

[EODDave]

No offense here, but the Harrier with its 1 or 2 bombs and 45 mins overhead time is a huge asset. Let the flame throwing begin.

 

[Harrier Dude]

No offense here, but the Harrier with its 1 or 2 bombs and 45 mins overhead time is a huge asset. Let the flame throwing begin.

This is just patently incorrect, but I suspect that you knew this when you posted it. I will stipulate that the Rhino has more of both, though. That still doesn't help us at the boat.

This is not about the Harrier. It's about the F-35.

 

[Flying Toaster]

...and the STOVL mafia moves in.

Despite being taken so personally, most people aren't arguing the capability or MEU's are totally useless. It's awesome to have, but it's simply not worth compromising our air superiority for the next half century to retain what is essentially a niche capability.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

...and the STOVL mafia moves in.

Despite being taken so personally, most people aren't arguing the capability or MEU's are totally useless. It's awesome to have, but it's simply not worth compromising our air superiority for the next half century to retain what is essentially a niche capability.

Feel free to explain how we are "compromising our air superiority for the next half century" by buying F-35B's.

 

[Flash]

The MEU hasn't been asked to do forcible entries in well...ever. Having some long range CAS and ISR is huge, but in the places the MEU needs it, there is no significant threat to f/w air........If we really wanted CAS relevant to the MEU, we'd tank the Y/W and buy DAP-equipped Speedhawk variants. Actually, since that mod is retrofittable to existing -60s we could just buy regular -60s and upgrade them later. That program has been underfunded (I should say barely funded) from the start.

Given that folks like Hezbollah have ASCMs nowadays it isn't a stretch to say that the number of places that will have a significant threat to US aircraft will probably increase the next few years. Having a much more survivable platform that can take on those threats would give a MEU a lot more flexibility than going without. As Uncle Fester astutely points out the number of carriers is not likely to increase and there is a good chance that there might be less of them, some F-35Bs sitting riding along with a MEU can give you quite a bit of bang for the buck if you need to take on some significant threats, just not the Chinese horde invading Quemoy or Matsu. Say somewhere like Sudan or Burma, a country that can't afford a first-rate air force but maybe a battalion of SA-10s or HQ-9s. Having to wait a few days for a carrier or the USAF might cost you dearly when a few F-35s could do the job for you, and do it now.