F-35B's on USN Carriers???

Read the forum code of contact

Should the USMC be allowed to operate F-35B's from USN CVW's???

Original post

Member for

13 years 7 months

Posts: 487

They do require their own landing and takeoff configurations so in addition to the reduced range and payload, they disrupt the flow of flight operations, but they are not going to send an air wing out with only three squadrons.

That being said, with the recent problems and 2-3 year delay for the B version, I don't think its going to ever see service. To cut costs, the B will be cancelled in favor of the C and there will be an additional super hornet buy to cover delays

They do require their own landing and takeoff configurations so in addition to the reduced range and payload, they disrupt the flow of flight operations, but they are not going to send an air wing out with only three squadrons.

That being said, with the recent problems and 2-3 year delay for the B version, I don't think its going to ever see service. To cut costs, the B will be cancelled in favor of the C and there will be an additional super hornet buy to cover delays

While, I have my doubts the F-35B will operate from USN Carriers routinely. I don't see it being cancelled under any conditions.

Member for

15 years 8 months

Posts: 1,320

They do require their own landing and takeoff configurations so in addition to the reduced range and payload, they disrupt the flow of flight operations, but they are not going to send an air wing out with only three squadrons.

That being said, with the recent problems and 2-3 year delay for the B version, I don't think its going to ever see service. To cut costs, the B will be cancelled in favor of the C and there will be an additional super hornet buy to cover delays

How does buying Superhornets cover the B version? As for cancelling the B version, I hardly think the USMC is going to be willing to cancel its order, presumably with the difference in numbers being added to the USN order. The B version is quite pointless for the USMC though, their needs would be better fulfilled by using their flat tops exclusively for helicopter assault, and some attack helicopters for air support. But this would require the USN to provide proper air support, almost as if the USN, USMC, US Army and USAF were fighting with each other for the good of the country rather than against each other for the good of themselves.

Member for

13 years 7 months

Posts: 507

While, I have my doubts the F-35B will operate from USN Carriers routinely. I don't see it being cancelled under any conditions.

I'm not so sure, USMC is likely to have some interesting debates about its use and choice of hardware, the over ambitious and expensive hardware its chosen to replace its existing kit must now be being questioned - CV-22, EFV, F-35B all supposed to be repalcements for cheap practical hardware and all have proved to have long delays, astronomical price tags and yet fail to deliver the expected performance for the price being paid.

I do wonder if part of the reason for the UK switch to the C variant was a lack of gaurantee from the US administration that the F-35B would meet expectations and would not be cancelled.

As for the initial question of will F-35B's operate off US Carriers well that has to be seen on how exactly it performs. If the jetwash in VTOL mode is so hot then it may require a speciall prepared flight deck area for landing capable of withstanding the heat. Plus with all the push button computer controlled flight would the CVN need to have an ILS system for the F-35B to enable the computer to land the aircraft in the correct postion on the moving and pitching flight deck ?

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,875

Should the USMC be allowed to operate F-35B's from USN CVW's???

What is the real question here Scot?. Are you asking whether F-35Bs could operate from a CVN or whether they will ever form part of a USN carrier air wing?.

The whole reason for the USMC putting in a request for a STOVL F/A-18C....that led to F-35B....was to be independent of USN carrier decks and the operational priorities of the navy where they, naturally, differ to the priorities of the Marine Corps.

F-35B in operational terms could easily deploy from a big deck carrier. Using a STOL takeoff and short rolling landing technique the flying programme needn't be disturbed at all and the baseless hysteria regarding jet downblast should be mitigated.

That said the aircraft has shorter legs than the USN C variant and the Super Hornet so its embarkation will force the carrier closer inshore than it would otherwise need be. Something that will not please the carrier boss. So, in effect, you would have a situation where the USMC are unhappy being tied to a carrier deck they dont control and the USN being unhappy about the additional limits of manoevre that -35B would bring. With no-one being happy with the concept I cant see a motive force, from anywhere, driving forward routine deployment of 35B in the CAW.

Member for

16 years 3 months

Posts: 430

I know it is crazy, but why not continue Harrier production? It seems the RN is out of the STOVL business, and in reality, why can't the US Marines use a "new" Harrier? Cut off the whole F-35B production and upgrade the airframe/avionics on the harrier, let alone build new ones. I'm sure there isn't all that much room for growth, but hell, what more do you need anyways. Let's face it, the Marines are for Expeditionary Warfare and will not go toe to toe with China, Russian, or Hell, even the EU in any future conflict by themselves. Let's just give them what they need, in a timely and cost effective manner, and I think they should be fine.

Then again it is late at night and I have been know to be a bumbling idiot. But do the Marines need the F-35? In all reality....no....how is the Harrier used? My main problem, and it is just an idea, is the payload and performance of the F-35B compared the the Harrier, which I am sure it is better, but at that cost?

Then again, I know there are a few export orders depending on the F-35B so I am sure it will not go out without a fight. But hey, what can I say? Newer is always better right?

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 338

Stealth and CAS have always seemed at odds to me. If operating in daylight a CAS Platform is not invisible from the ground and is vulnerable to AAA amongst other things unless future SAC involves staying above 15.000' and dropping JDAM and LGB which can be done by a UAV/UCAV now. So why the need for a all singing all dancing stealth platform? Yes it can be used for other missions but that is expanding the roles of Marine aviation to cover those currently carried out by units based on CVNs and ashore. But when are the USMC going to conduct a medium or large operation without the support of a CVN Battlegroup?

Retaining the Harrier and improving it does have some merit. It does fall victim to the Speed Mafia but on load carrying it is near the top of the class and its range is acceptable given how near to the front it can be deployed.

The F-35B in my mind is overkill for the CAS role and in other roles is duplicating capabilites that already exists within the USN. With budgetary stress on going there must surely be other programmes more relevant for which the funds could be used on.

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 3,614

I know it is crazy, but why not continue Harrier production? It seems the RN is out of the STOVL business, and in reality, why can't the US Marines use a "new" Harrier? Cut off the whole F-35B production and upgrade the airframe/avionics on the harrier, let alone build new ones.

"Continue"?

It has been stopped for a lot of years now! 13 years for new-builds and 7 years for the "remanufactured" "B+" upgrade.

Manufacture of new Harriers concluded in 1997.

The last remanufactured aircraft (Harrier II Plus configuration) was delivered in December 2003.

This ended the Harrier production line.

Member for

13 years 7 months

Posts: 487

Personally, I'd work on a tilt rotor COIN platform to escort the Osprey. The only way I'd consider restarting Harrier production would be in the naval aviation tradition for an obsolete warplane to become an advanced flight trainer and only if the Navy decided to go all STOVL (which isn't going to happen).

Member for

13 years 8 months

Posts: 311

I tend to agree that the F35B is expensive overkill for the job the USMC want. Is a $100 million stealth fighter the thing you want to use as a CAS aircraft? I too think the Harrier should have been kept in production and developed, but that didn't happen then, and it's not going to happen now.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,875

Possibility the fact that 35B would be replacing both Harrier and Hornet in USMC squadrons is being overlooked here?. Plus the fact that not all FEBA's will be as benign to operate in as that over Afghanistan?.
Perhaps someone can correct me if i'm under a misapprehension here but I understood the marines asked for an f18 that could be deployed independent of the USN's carriers. Looks to me that F35B hits that dead centre.

Member for

13 years 8 months

Posts: 311

Yes, but close air support is a key USMC mission, and are they really going to be happy using a $100 million F35B as a bomb truck?

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,875

Yes, but close air support is a key USMC mission, and are they really going to be happy using a $100 million F35B as a bomb truck?

If the things they are dropping bombs on have, hitherto undetected, double-digit battlefield shorads covering them I'd expect so yes.

Member for

13 years 7 months

Posts: 487

Yes, but close air support is a key USMC mission, and are they really going to be happy using a $100 million F35B as a bomb truck?

Quite. Especially with bays of dual-role missiles and small diameter bombs.

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 338

This is the thing that bothers me when it comes to the F-35 and stealth. Whenever somebody says that the F-35 is overkill for a mission type someone else always rolls out the what if senario of an opponenet being equipped with large numbers of double digit FSU SAMs.

How many nations actually operate these and of these how many can be reasonably be identified as possible adversaries and how many systems do they have.

Double Digit SAMs have become the bogeyman for the stealth lobby. Yes they a believed to be effective but most are over a decade old and I wouldn't be surprised if many nations have intel on their capabilities and developed active countermeasures.

Militaries around the world seem to be in ignorance of the financial problems now and the fact that their budgets are going to be squeezed more and more. the USMC in particular has fixated on this over the horizon assault capabilty for years and has poured billions into very high tech programmes like the V-22, EFV and the F-35.

But how many opposed amphibious assault against well equipped opposition have the USMC conducted since Korea? I cannot think of one. Chances are that if the Cold War had hotted up these sort of operations would have been few with the USMC being moved to theatres like Norway and fighting as convention formations. Operations against high level opposition will not be conducted without USN CVNs in support and lower level operations like Somalia etc can be more than adequately supported by rotary assets. The USMC needs to look beyond historical practices and adjust to present and future operation. With only so much money in the pot they need to used it where it will make a real difference.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,875

Jim,

Whenever somebody says that the F-35 is overkill for a mission type someone else always rolls out the what if senario of an opponenet being equipped with large numbers of double digit FSU SAMs...How many nations actually operate these and of these how many can be reasonably be identified as possible adversaries and how many systems do they have.

Question: Which is easier airspace control or airspace denial?. For airspace control you need the positive control elements of wide-area surveillance, ground and airborne, plus the C2 elements in the backend, plus the air combat elements and support infrastructure. For denial you need a few batteries of advanced SHORADS and a halfway contempory GSM network. Which will be the more likely to be faced.

Double Digit SAMs have become the bogeyman for the stealth lobby. Yes they a believed to be effective but most are over a decade old and I wouldn't be surprised if many nations have intel on their capabilities and developed active countermeasures.

Double digit SAMs are the BASELINE of the threat going forwards....the absolute minimum threat level that must be reduced by any comprehensive CAS/BAI designs that are intended to be in service into the 2030's. Its not just the Russian kit either....look at the likes of VL Mica...a system that can be eaily dispersed, passively cued and volley off half a dozen, high performance, fire and forget SAMs in seconds. This isnt the 80's anymore and you cannot rely on knowing where the SAMs are if they are mobile and well deployed/redeployed.

A single battery of a contempory system like VL Mica, well sited, could render ineffective the modest-sized expeditionary tacair forces that countries deploy now. You minimise that risk by building 'disposable' tacair...which means unmanned in any western service...or by building as much capability in to the manned platform as possible. If you have the luxury of being able to build a, seperate, low-rent capability for that environment where your principle CAS/BAI striker is overkill then all power to you, but, you build that IN ADDITION to a comprehensive strike capability and not INSTEAD of it.

But how many opposed amphibious assault against well equipped opposition have the USMC conducted since Korea?. I cannot think of one. Chances are that if the Cold War had hotted up these sort of operations would have been few with the USMC being moved to theatres like Norway and fighting as convention formations.

That last sentence, swapping RM for USMC, is almost a direct quote from John Nott in 1981. Its even more absurd in context of the US armed forces than it was regarding ours. The USMC's forced landing capability was of significant value in Op Desert Storm. Even if no landing was eventually made the presence of the capability was a significant force multiplier for the coalition forces as it drew significant opposing forces out of the real operational theatres. For a country who's whole military credo is the, very sensible, one of fighting on the other poor beggars territory, so you dont risk damage to your own, removing the all-areas rapid deployment potential offered by the USMC over-the-beach capability would be beyond stupidity.

Operations against high level opposition will not be conducted without USN CVNs in support and lower level operations like Somalia etc can be more than adequately supported by rotary assets.

This is the point through and through Jim. You dont need for the situation to be high-level to face advanced SAMs going forwards. A battery's of Tors 'lent' unannounced by Ahmedinejad to Hezbollah would have a major impact on the 'adequate' rotary assets you would see the USMC left with in that low-intensity theatre.

As stated before the USMC has historically used a high-end and low-end tacair capability with Hornet and Harrier. They are replacing that with a single type to streamline ops....you cant replace the high-end with a simple CAS type and the USMC, understandably, want independence from the CVN's that have to look after their own issues before the USMC's. The answer is very simply the F-35B.

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 887

The issue would be limiting the USMC to low end warfare if you didn't acquire a higher end piece of kit. Yes granted for most of the time a "low intensity" bomb truck is all you want (isn't that the case with most air forces?!) But if you only buy an aircraft that can only do that then you have limited your options entirely. It is not always certain that the USMC could bank on a handy CVN being nearby to cover the harder missions- if there were multiple crisis, a general war or a conflict where a CVN might seem overly provocative then the USMC would certainly want a platform able to cover the higher end of possible missions so as not to put them at a disadvantage.

F35 costs a $100 million, thats what good aircraft go for these days and it would be cheaper than losing dozens of obsolete harriers that were attempting missions that a F35 has a higher chance of coming back from. The Harrier is getting pretty long in the tooth now.

Member for

14 years 6 months

Posts: 517

The USMC should not duplicate the capabilities of the Army, Navy or Air Force. Specifically - whatever may have happened at Guadalcanal during WWII - the Marines must be able to assume that in the highly unlikely event that they are conducting a high-intensity opposed amphibious landing, that there will be a carrier battle group in support, providing CAP and air strike capabilities. Therefore Marine aviation should focus on CAS, using attack helicopters and, ideally, aircraft such as the A-10.

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 887

The USMC should not duplicate the capabilities of the Army, Navy or Air Force. Specifically - whatever may have happened at Guadalcanal during WWII - the Marines must be able to assume that in the highly unlikely event that they are conducting a high-intensity opposed amphibious landing, that there will be a carrier battle group in support, providing CAP and air strike capabilities. Therefore Marine aviation should focus on CAS, using attack helicopters and, ideally, aircraft such as the A-10.

But with reduced spending and fewer carriers with fewer aircraft thats possibly a dangerous assumption and in any case how are the A10s going to "get there"?

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432

The USMC should not duplicate the capabilities of the Army, Navy or Air Force.

That's an argument for cutting its strength by at least 75%. At the moment, most of what it does is duplicating other capabilities.