V-22 escort??

[Treetop Flyer]

Straw man argument much?

You said the capability has to justify the cost and that we have "wasted" our hornets and harriers over the past 15 years on things less expensive platforms could have done.

That applies to pretty much every platform in the DoD inventory that can drop a bomb except maybe B-2's.

No one thought it wanted to admit we would be doing this for 15 years. Getting rid of our Gucci toys because we aren't using them as designed isn't a good plan if you may need them in the future.

Do you not use something just because it's overkill? Did it make sense to fly a B-1 from Qatar to Afghanistan every day with 20+ bombs and the tankers necessary for them to drill expensive holes in the sky? No. But everyone wants to be relevant, and getting rid of them doesn't make a lots of sense either.

 

[Hotdogs]

As a side note, I've always wondered if the MEU would be better served by a 105 howitzer or 120 mortar instead of the big 155. The smaller pieces are much more mobile due to being internally transportable by helo - thoughts on the latter point?

We've been sold down the 777s at the battalion level with the Army (rightfully so). Doubt a 105 is in the future or needed. Probably need to get with an Arty guy to talk advantages vs disadvantages with regards to technical specifications. The 120s are solid and transportable and I believe a MEU a few years ago deployed with straight 120s and no 777s (fully transportable in the MV-22). Did not work out as planned for reasons I honestly can't remember and probably better if not discussed here anyway.

That being said, doing live call for fire as a skid dude is probably some of the most fun shit I've done in the helicopter so far. Also puts attack aviation in perspective for a bit too. Accurate Artillery can seriously fuck up some people's world and I'm a huge fan of using it. Think Band of Brothers in the Bastogne episode but ten times worse.

Get out of the manned FW game altogether? It was whether or not the manned FW capabilities needed to be VTOL and operated from amphibs.

Marine Corps going all in on the VTOL design requirement has sparked cost overruns and delays for the entire F35 program and put it jeopardy several times, with the third order effect of having a bunch of Marines get killed in proficiency and maintence related mishaps involving aircraft the Corps has neglected, that would have otherwise been replaced years ago had the VTOL requirement stood in the way.

Has the juice been worth the squeeze? I'm not convinced it has.

I think you don't understand why the Marines FA-18 fleet is in its current state. The Corps neglecting then isn't really the word I would use, but serious unexpected higher level budget issues that had serious third order ramifications plus flying the shit out of the fleet in OIF/OEF, where burning more than expected hours over head to schwack shitheads in sandals was the juice that was worth the squeeze to keep some Marines alive.

I think the VTOL version has a lot of international FMS play into these politics as well - regardless of current Marine Aviation needs/wants.

 

[Swanee]

You said the capability has to justify the cost and that we have "wasted" our hornets and harriers over the past 15 years on things less expensive platforms could have done.

That applies to pretty much every platform in the DoD inventory that can drop a bomb except maybe B-2's.

No one thought it wanted to admit we would be doing this for 15 years. Getting rid of our Gucci toys because we aren't using them as designed isn't a good plan if you may need them in the future.

Do you not use something just because it's overkill? Did it make sense to fly a B-1 from Qatar to Afghanistan every day with 20+ bombs and the tankers necessary for them to drill expensive holes in the sky? No. But everyone wants to be relevant, and getting rid of them doesn't make a lots of sense either.

Yet they can afford it with their budgets, and they are large enough to maintain that capability. Hence why the AF has multiple 4 star level commands. I still haven't heard a good reason as to why the Marine Corps specifically needs a 5th fighter when we aren't going to employ them in any really meaningful numbers, and when we're going to have the Air Force and the Navy supporting the fight (and the AF is going to be leading the air war- as they should be). We have 2 tank battalions. 2. Why? Because we're small and don't need that many more- and we have smaller stuff that gets the job done. Why do we think any differently with the F-35? If we want a few for those times that we may need them- sure, I can see that argument. But why are we neglecting EVERYTHING else to get them? The current DCA has publicly said that he is willing to cut anything, to include personnel, for this airplane.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Yet they can afford it with their budgets, and they are large enough to maintain that capability. Hence why the AF has multiple 4 star level commands. I still haven't heard a good reason as to why the Marine Corps specifically needs a 5th fighter when we aren't going to employ them in any really meaningful numbers, and when we're going to have the Air Force and the Navy supporting the fight (and the AF is going to be leading the air war- as they should be). We have 2 tank battalions. 2. Why? Because we're small and don't need that many more- and we have smaller stuff that gets the job done. Why do we think any differently with the F-35? If we want a few for those times that we may need them- sure, I can see that argument. But why are we neglecting EVERYTHING else to get them? The current DCA has publicly said that he is willing to cut anything, to include personnel, for this airplane.

My recollection is that the reason the Marines can be so light in armor is that it is compensated for with air.

The Corps certainly needs fixed wing but a) could the Super Hornet have done it at a lower cost (and recognizing giving up VTOL) and b) does the detachment of JSF's for a MEU justify the cost?

 

[whitesoxnation]

My recollection is that the reason the Marines can be so light in armor is that it is compensated for with air.

The Corps certainly needs fixed wing but a) could the Super Hornet have done it at a lower cost (and recognizing giving up VTOL) and b) does the detachment of JSF's for a MEU justify the cost?

I seriously hope that we start giving aircrew training the time and money it deserves if we want to operate a fifth generation fighter. It may just be me but I feel like we pay it lip service right now. When you buy a premium platform with premium capabilities and then don't spend the time or money to become proficient at it you are wasting money and people's time. Never mind incurring risk if you are ever called upon to execute those capabilities. It's like buying a Formula 1 car and then not understanding how to operate it at the edge of its performance envelope, then on race day getting your ass kicked or crashing and dying. If all we really need is a platform to drop a JDAM or a LGW in a CAS scenario then I would think we could do better for less.