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

Could also try an Osprey upgrade(think super hind):diablo:

The UCLASS RFP to be released in February 2011 is expected to be such a UAS — long endurance, sensor suite similar to that of F-35 (capable of finding and tracking TELs, IADS components and armor), small internal weapons load, and stealthy enough to survive in a high threat environment. The first UAVs are mandated to be on the flight deck in 2018. Unfortunately, UCLASS was jammed down NAVAIR’s throat by SECDEF Gates and does not have champions within NAVAIR or the Naval Aviation/Marine warfighter community (that fear of career-ending technology thing). UCLASS might evaporate when Gates leaves in the summer of 2011. We will have to wait and see.

there no doubt of cabability, no doubt probably best, but a politicians favourite word is CHEAPLY!

Name an aircraft that is as flexible and can do the job better????

Unfortunately, most Naval (and Marine) flag officers are fearful of having their careers ended if they champion innovative technology.

CAS has always been shooter centric — putting ordnance on targets found by troops in contact. The question for warfighters at the Division, Battalion or Company level is whether makes sense to have that capability reside outside the immediate chain of command where distance and other organizations’/sister services’ priorities can cause delays in ordnance delivery.

Finding potential threats/targets at distance is a recce function that typically involves theater commander’s assets (Air Force), but could involve UAV assets at the MAGTF commander or Division level. I wouldn’t count upon bands of F-35s randomly roving behind the FEBA looking for potential threats to the battalion unless their ATO specifically directed that action as part of the greater battle plan. Fast jets do not have the persistence to provide awareness of enemy intent that can only be obtained by observing enemy movement over a period of time.

For irregular warfare in permissive environment, Reapers/Predators w/WAAS and Rover provide local situational awareness, but are not survivable in a high threat environment. Desert Hawk has proven valuable to small units in Afghanistan who want to know how many Taliban are lurking in the alley 3 blocks away. Desert Hawk’s success in a high threat environment depends upon the enemy’s willingness to trade $40K MANPADS for $20K Desert Hawks.

An argument about the need of the Marine Corp as it is presently constituted is not something they (the USMC) would really want to have as If it is looked at logicaly, they would not like the outcome.

Read a post from a US infantryman just back from Afghanistan, where he said that 75% of their CAS came from these:

There’s just too much risk and cost associated with something like the F-35B, and in any case, the USMC won’t be re-fighting Guadalcanal ever again.

Problem with the ‘smart indirect fire can replace CAS’ idea is that it cant. Guided mortars are effective over a few thousand yards at most, guided 6″ tube and rocket fire at a few tens of miles. There is no engagement depth and, therefore, you are open to counterfires from the kickoff.

The severe limitations of conventional choppers in any environment, other than the Fulda Gap, have been shown over Somalia and Iraq. Their usefulness is too limited for practical future consideration as a general CAS platform. New developments on the helicopter may change this, but, they are all still pipe-dreams.

If you want to support troops on the ground you need the ability to call down fire before they are exposed to threat systems. You need selectivity, precision and appropriate target effects. The way to do that is still with tactical air power. That air power, irrelevent of any other consideration, needs to be on-task with the minimum delay feasible. STOVL is the way to enhance the deployability of combat air power. F-35B ticks more boxes than any other CAS platform.

No doubt of the capability, just the economy of it for me- if i could have 2-3 attack choppers for the price of one jet, or another MLRS battery, which is better? I would have thought the lack of proper naval guns to support a landing would be just as important

Well, the Av-8B Harrier proved useful in Close Air Support and the F-35 Lightning II is vastly more capable. So, what’s the argument???:confused:

Well, what would be a better solution then???

The problem is providing Close Support to Marines ashore. But let’s first define what we mean by “Close Support”. Close support has 3 elements:
1) It must be devastating when applied against the enemy
2) It must be able to be employed close to Marines in contact with the enemy
3) It must be timely

From WWII until recently, close support was best provided by manned delivery under direction of Marine riflemen in contact with the enemy. It could have been F4Us with napalm directed by smoke markers against Japanese on Iwo Jima, or AH-1Ws directed by radio against Iraqi tanks north of Al Kafji. But the same 3 elements listed above can now be provided as organic capability at the battalion level using guided mortars, guided 155mm howitzer projectiles and guided MLRS munitions — and the close support they provide is available in seconds, not minutes while awaiting CAS aircraft to fly from the LHD operating offshore. In other words, an organic precision fire support capability at the battalion level is better because it is more timely that legacy CAS.

Marines need to reassess their methods to provide riflemen with the best close support technologies. If fixed wing aviation doesn’t measure up due to lack of timeliness, then it should become obsolete.

If F-35 is not ready in 3 years,I could see Australia definately needing another 24-32; 75 and a restarted 78 at tindal re-equiping, all legacy hornets to williamstown, with the worst one placed into store, maybe 78 sqn equipped with the Growler

Well, clearly many nations have been holding off purchasing new aircraft until the F-35 comes online. So, they better hurry as its starting to get critical for some!:eek:

If F-35 is not ready in 3 years,I could see Australia definately needing another 24-32; 75 and a restarted 78 at tindal re-equiping, all legacy hornets to williamstown, with the worst one placed into store, maybe 78 sqn equipped with the Growler

would there be value in purchasing more super hornets and retiring legacy hornets quicker?

Personally, I think its a waste of resources. Really, the additional order for more Super Hornets. Has more to do with Politics and keeping Boeing Production Line open than anything else.

In short Lockheed Martin needs to get the F-35 production up and running ASAP. So, it will drive down costs and sell orders.

would there be value in purchasing more super hornets and retiring legacy hornets quicker?

do you think they will come quickly enough? personally i think an extra 10 super hornets needed on current projects. I also see us needing another 12 minimum, probably 24

The USN agree to purchase more Super Hornets. Some months back to make up for current shortfalls. Which, will include 66 F/A-18E/F’s and 58 E/A-18G Growlers for a grand total of 124 additional aircraft.

Really, I think these current fighter shortfalls are not that serious. As only half of USN Carrier Airwings (CVW’s) are deployed at any given time.

do you think they will come quickly enough? personally i think an extra 100 super hornets needed on current projects. I also see us needing another 12 minimum, probably 24 for australia

with operating from CVN’s, if there is problems with exhaust temperature, does it limit the space that can be used- ie not on arresting gear, catapults, elevators….. is it practical? could you see a mixed B/C buy so the USMC can continue in both roles it currently does

I believe we will see some type of compromise between the USN and USMC in regards to the F-35. With only F-35C’s operating from CVN’s and F-35B’s doing the same from LHA’s/LHD’s.

with operating from CVN’s, if there is problems with exhaust temperature, does it limit the space that can be used- ie not on arresting gear, catapults, elevators….. is it practical? could you see a mixed B/C buy so the USMC can continue in both roles it currently does