maus92Are you saying that an AT-6 can carry a Sniper pod, worthwhile ordnance load AND still put in 6hrs in the air?. I would be quite suprised by that if true!.
The AT-6B would carry an alternate sensor, similar to what you might find on a UAV – the Wescam MX-15Di. Features: Color daylight camera with zoom lens; Laser designator with LRF; Mono daylight camera with spotter lens; Laser illuminator; IR with high magnification 4-step zoom; Eyesafe laser rangefinder. More about the plane:
A word about the AV-8B and forward ops. The Marines had a difficult time supporting AV-8B’s in forward basing during Desert Storm – the lines were moving too fast to adequately supply a FARP, so they operated from conventional airfields for the most part. Source: “Hornets Over Kuwait” (book.) In OIF, the AV-8B could only average 15-20 minutes of on-station time because of the distances involved between the FOB (Forward Operating Base) and the FLOT (Forward Line of Troops.) Source: The Iraq War: strategy, tactics, and military lessons” by Cordesman. FF to Afghanistan. AV-8B’s operate out of conventional airfields and FOB’s w/ purpose built 3000′ runways – in fact, the runways are currently being extended to 4300′ to trap Hornets (with arresting gear.) The FOB, unlike a FARP, is not a small operation, and is not mobile. It seems that when the AV-8B’s are “forward deployed,” they rarely operate in the austere conditions (i.e. FARP) that proponents of STOVL like to foist; rather they tend to be flown out of rather large FOB’s that can accommodate fixed wing aircraft like the F/A-18A-D’s.
maus92Knesset Finance C’ttee approves F-35 deal: Israel will buy 20 F-35’s for $96m each, and may eventually buy up to 75 aircraft.
http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000589810
maus92A little trouble brewing in Canada over “sole source” contract for F-35’s.
From DEW Line blog / Trimble
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/09/report-canada-dropped-competit.html
maus92Ash Carter talks about cost growth in the JSF program ($50m in 2002, $92m currently,) and the strategy the Pentagon is using to reduce the cost.
maus92FOB Camp Dwyer in Afghanistan has arresting gear installed to land F/A-18’s. The runway at the FOB is 4,300′.
http://www.i-mef.usmc.mil/external/imef-fwd/news/news_2010_07_06_02.jsp
maus92F-35 LRIP-6 engine order
From: The DEW Line/Trimble
LRIP-6 and F-35
Buying 53 F-35s in LRIP-6 means the Department of Defense is cutting the order by 29 jets compared to the 2009 plan. We knew that the program restructuring announced on 1 February moved 122 total aircraft out of the six-year order plan, but the individual numbers were not disclosed.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/09/lrip-6-and-f-35.html
and
maus92From DoD Buzz/Colin Clark:
GE/RR Strike Back After F136 Loss
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/09/16/gerr-strike-back-after-f136-loss/
SAC Hammers Gates on JSF
maus92The bottom line is that the marines love there organic air, and you’ll have to pry it from there cold dead hands to take it away. YOU may not like it but that’s the way things are. so lets accept the F-35B for what it is and move on.
back on topic plz.
That’s right, I’m expressing an idea that I am putting up for professional and respectful debate – that relates to the topic of the F-35B, but possibly only tangentially related to the UK situation.
maus92How is WW2 not a good example when Guadalcanal was the catalyst!?
I didn’t say you would launch a F-35B from a barn, I said it allows greater flexibility in basing Have you Humped in the stan? Do you know how it was to wait on strategic bombers for cas? You want the marines to be a second army, but what happens when they are land locked? wouldn’t it be nice to have a forward staging area so that carrier air craft dont need 1 million refueling to get to you on time? Yes the marines operate in a joint environment. but like to know that if that Af F-16 is 30 minutes away and that carrier is on the edge of the theater that there is a marine somewhere over head
WWII is not a good example because the USN had a peer fleet to destroy at the same time as supporting an ongoing land battle – thus stretched very thin. The navy counted the Marines to provided their own tacair – the Marines have operated their own aircraft WWI. Fast forward to now. There are no longer any peer adversaries with fleets to fight – not even China. Amphibious assaults can commence once air superiority is established, and Navy tacair will be available to support the operation.
I have not humped in “the stan,” and I don’t want Marines to wait for air support. In Afganistan, Navy F/A-18’s provide precise CAS, and guess what – they use land bases when necessary.
The point is that the Marines should not be tasked to act as a land army – and should not be in A-Stan (although by most accounts are doing good work.) Missions should only be thirty days max to assault and hold until the army is able get its heavy equipment in place by air or sea. Air support for ops until then can be conducted from the CV’s, from the amphibs (AH-1W/Z’s,) or from constructed airstrips or captured/repaired airfields ashore (AH-1W/Z’s, AT-6B/ST’s/AT’s.) F-35B’s will require more support than a “forward staging area” can provide. I do value the idea of having a Marine overhead – as a FAC-A in AT-6B/ST or possibly as an exchange WSO in a F/A-18F.
maus92not the best place for that discussion though. this thread has been painful enough at times without hurting my head with talk of Marines!:)
Sorry – off on a tangent.
maus92So if you where a marine commander and you where where put ashore would you put your full trust that you could do away with all your own fixed wing air assets? Do you believe the navy would stay in Littoral waters, and not move there ships farther out? Look at history! whats more important to the admiral?
Marine F-18’s and Harriers were based at friendly airfields, sometimes side by side w/ Air Force (and Navy jets) in Desert Storm – they used much the same land based facilities – and not so much at the front.
AT-6B’s, Super Tucanos, and Air Tractors have fixed wings, endurance, and austere basing capability, but not the speed or load capacity of the jets – it is definitely a tradeoff. There is a new AGM in the works to replace both the Hellfire and Maverick that should work well with these planes. Strap on a 25mm gun pod and you are gtg.
You should be more worried about the USAF going off on their own agenda than the Navy. WWII is not a good historical example because the USN had to defend against a formidable enemy fleet during the Guadalcanal Campaign. Later in the war, navy aircraft were more available to assist with ground operations – although the kamikaze threat soaked up a lot of sorties. After WWII, land campaigns were regularly supported by carrier based air – although not as responsive as the Marine may have wanted. In Korea, the Marines used F4U-4/5’s because unlike the jets, they could operate from primitive (and often contested) forward airfields with short runways. Later, the Marines experimented with land catapults driven by J79’s (!) to launch jets from short fields – which is why they ultimately settled on STOVL jets – which are no longer necessary given the Marines actual basing practice, and impractical from a logistics point of view.
The Marines have become a second land army (light infantry, but lately with some heavy armor) – a role the need to shed if the want to remain unique. The Marine’s role should be to seize strategic maritime objectives – like ports, coastal cities and airfields, and other facilities – in concert with the navy. Once the objective is secured, let the army move in with their heavy stuff and the Air Force their tacair. The point is let the Marines be amphibious and mobile – like they have been since their inception.
maus921. The Marines want STOVL
2. This is because of Guadalcanal inn WW2 when the navy made a decision to move fleet support hundreds of miles out rather than stick it out with the marines. The Marines vowed after that never to ever deploy with out there own organic air support.
3. F-35B would mean the Marines can also retire there F-18c and become less dependent on Large deck carriers.
4. With new anti-access and ballistic missile threats Looming large deck carriers are even more at risk. even though F-35Bs wont roll in the mud, it helps having the flexibility of basing.
5. The Lift fan takes up the space of a fuel tank. the F-35B still has the range of a early model F-16 or mig 29 or F-18C
The Marines need persistant CAS. They want expensive STOVL jets. It could be done economically with AH-1W/Z’s or AT-6B’s / Super Tucanos / Air Tractors that can be located even closer to front lines and austere conditions, and produce higher sortie rates. (1 & 2)
The Marines should be off of CV’s entirely – the Marines don’t need an air superiority fighter or medium strike aircraft. The Navy and Air Force can provide those services. Fund the Navy to stand up the proper number of squadrons to fill the CAW’s. (3)
Land bases are much more at risk from ballistic missiles than CV’s – they don’t move. The technology to provide terminal guidance to attack mobile CV’s with a ballistically delivered warhead is unproven. (4)
The lift fan takes up valuable space that could otherwise be used for weapons or fuel, and adds complexity to an already complex aircraft. (5)
Let the fireworks begin.
maus92Personally, I think the MiG pilot deserved to be awarded the kill, & the VPAF record of it as a kill can’t be said to be fraudulent, but technically, it was not a shoot down.
Certainly it counts as a mission kill…
maus92Around 3 times more F-105s were lost due to bad weather or pilot error than to NVAF MiGs.:cool:
the Iraqi MiG-25PD that shot down the F/A-18 in Desert Storm – I presume that was a BVR kill.
I’d like to see your source that confirms the kill – I can’t find anything definitive or credible in open sources. There are many contradictory opinions expressed about this engagement, but the physical examination of the wreckage and evidence surrounding the shootdown are inconclusive. Apparently the CIA and the F-18 squadron CO believes the aircraft was shotdown by a MiG-25. One source reports a front aspect hit – which suggests a radar missile; another describes catastrophic damage to an engine – suggesting an IR missile – yet the investigation of the wreckage showed no evidence of a missile hit – like fragmentation damage from an exploding warhead. One thing for sure is that the F-18 went down and the pilot ended up dead.
maus9210 nm is usually given to differentiate BWR WVR
http://www.siaa.asn.au/get/2395364867.pdf
Fair enough, but the point was detection and identification of the hostile aircraft was made BVR (assisted by the F-14A’s TCS.) The killing missile shots were WVR, however before the merge. The missed AIM-7 shots were both made from the same aircraft, and apparently the missiles never tracked (aircrew error or malfunctioning equipment?) I’ll post another BVR kill example
later today.
Sign In
