|
I think there’s a rather reasonable argument for saying the Marines should’ve been forced to hop on board the F-35C train. I don’t think it’s reasonable for marines to exist without fixed wing air assets.
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 10:48 |
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:literally every deployment I've done has been apart of the Marine expeditionary unit and these are the EXACT mission scenarios that we train for. heres the wonderful things you can do (and remember, amphibious invasion doesn't necessarily predicate across a beach-- a handful of CH-53E and MV-22s can move an assload of people and stuff in a short period of time) How are any of those missions performed better by a F-35 than a helicopter or tiltrotor? If anything the F-35 seems less useful than a tiltrotor. One question - how do marine squadrons on Navy carriers work? Are they available to USMC commanders in this “navy retasking, Henderson field” scenario
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Are you honestly trying to argue that a US military branch is the authority for whether or not its policies make objective sense and aren't just fund-grabs based on bad assumptions and self-interest? Not really seeing the problem here, the regularly refuel with smaller than that. The whole point of the V-22 was to be multi-mission capable, and it had to be capable of the same things the CH-53 that it replaced could do while also covering roles previously handled by other cargo aircraft. Unless you are seriously suggesting that the Navy should always have their carriers at the Marine's whim. Good luck with that. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Jan 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
Marine aviation on carriers exists to support the MAGTF. In the absence of a MAGTF mission, they are “excess sorties” and this are allocated to the Air Component Commander or fleet missions. To expand: The marines constantly face the issue of being available for a set of missions we conduct in limited scope and/or rarely, but often being used for stuff lately (Iraq/Afghanistan) where it's very easy to say some combo of army and airpower could've done it just as well or better. There is a pretty decent argument, IMO, that the MAGTF is less novel than it once was. In, say, the Korean War, the Marines had far better air-ground integration and CAS than the Army and Air Force did. As the force has become increasingly joint, that divide has closed quite a bit, as far as Army-Air integration vs the MAGTF's level of integration. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Jan 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
So yes they are available. Why wouldn’t they want more F-35Cs off real carriers with bigger payloads? Refuel with the ospreys from an amphibious assault ship if you must keep it marine only. (Then get shot down because you have no EW or AEW&C)
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 00:03
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:How are any of those missions performed better by a F-35 than a helicopter or tiltrotor? If anything the F-35 seems less useful than a tiltrotor. The F-35 has range, altitude, and sensor advantages over usmc RW (Cobra, Huey). Its literally falling right into the footprint that the harrier fills now, but way more capable. Obviously, changing one platform for another is going to have teething issues but the f-35 will be taking over the av8 mission set. no clue how squadrons on carriers work. the USMC f-18 and ea-6 squadrons are a complete mystery to me. they pretty much never integrate with the rest of the MAGTF except at USMC exercises like WTI or ITX. The entire rest of the aviation community-- from air defense, ATC, comms, av-8, UAS, rotary wing squadrons, tilt rotor, etc all mix regularly. in fact, the composite squadron for a expeditionary unit contains a detachment from every aviation community pretty much (minus C-130s (it used to have c-130s), ea-6, and f-18s)
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:So yes they are available. CV-22's come equipped with LAIRCM for limited countermeasures. If it was against a combat force capable of something you'd need EW/AEW&C there, the Navy would provide it anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:CV-22's come equipped with LAIRCM for limited countermeasures. If it was against a combat force capable of something you'd need EW/AEW&C there, the Navy would provide it anyways. If the navy counted in these scenarios then the F-35b wouldn’t exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
I dispelled the "Navy's Army's Air Force har har" catchphrase argument for myself when I realized that "medium of locomotion" is not a sensible criteria to use as a strict delineator of combat unit organization.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:If the navy counted in these scenarios then the F-35b wouldn’t exist. Navy still provides overwatch for Marine forces, unless its in a place where the Air Force is already hanging out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
There are also all kinds of hypothetical scenarios where an F-35B operating off a smaller deck carrier would be very useful for supporting evacuation, humanitarian assistance, early arrival peacekeeping/stability, etc. It's not that they'd be bad or useless to have. That's not true. It's a matter of whether the costs associated with the development of the F-35B instead of forcing them to use F-35Cs was worth it. And the MAGTF lacks AEW&C, but it sure as hell doesn't lack air control assets and radars. The TAOC and MACS/MACCS is a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:1. foreign humanitarian assistance into some place where there are non state actors that don't like us Literally none of these things require USMC fixed-wing support. Literally none of these things are done in the face of a serious opponent with meaningful capability to contest these actions. mlmp08 posted:I don't think it's reasonable for marines to exist without fixed wing air assets. Even if the Marines need their own fixed wing air assets for reasons that come down to "We can't trust the USAF or Navy to task their air assets to support our missions," there's no reason whatsoever that the Marines can't operate their own fixed wing air assets off of real carriers. CommieGIR posted:Not really seeing the problem here, the regularly refuel with smaller than that. The whole point of the V-22 was to be multi-mission capable, and it had to be capable of the same things the CH-53 that it replaced could do while also covering roles previously handled by other cargo aircraft. F-18 buddy stores are also dumb, that doesn't somehow mean that using an Osprey for aerial refueling makes sense. quote:Unless you are seriously suggesting that the Navy should always have their carriers at the Marine's whim. Good luck with that. This posits some situation where the Marines are calling the shots on what gets done where and when. That's...kind of putting the cart before the horse, don't you think? The Marines need fixed-wing so they can just go gallivanting around launching invasions without needing to get the Navy on board? An MEU can embark a whopping 6 F-35s. That's six. Count 'em. Again: It has no AEW&C. It has no meaningful antisubmarine capability. It has no meaningful anti-missile defense. It has no meaningful long-range reconnaissance assets. For anyone who both *wants* to shoot at us and has the capabilities of pretty much any current state actor, it is a gigantic soft target packed with thousands of troops whose demise will be both easy to accomplish and likely to bring about the demise of whichever political party got them blown up. Six F-35s make no difference in that equation. So what you are arguing is that there will be a political objective so *important* that we will send thousands of Marines into harm's way with no significant ability to control or even seriously contest the battlespace in the face of minimally credible opposition, but so *unimportant* that a CSG is not going to be tasked with support. The intersection of those two sets is empty. There is no such animal. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Jan 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:There are also all kinds of hypothetical scenarios where an F-35B operating off a smaller deck carrier would be very useful for supporting evacuation, humanitarian assistance, early arrival peacekeeping/stability, etc. It's not that they'd be bad or useless to have. That's not true. It's a matter of whether the costs associated with the development of the F-35B instead of forcing them to use F-35Cs was worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
Like I’m not saying get rid of the baby carriers, but aren’t those 6 spots for f-35s better taken up with ospreys? Kick some JDAMs out the back if you need to, USMC figured out how to fit them to a C-140 after all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Literally none of these things require USMC fixed-wing support. Literally none of these things are done in the face of a serious opponent with meaningful capability to contest these actions. if you're operating more than a certain range then helicopters can't play. with the range of the MV-22 you need an escort that can travel at commiserate speeds and commiserate ranges. not to mention that I don't think you understand the capability of a FW sensor in the stack and what it does for situational awareness. it is almost always a requirement. every single one of those missions I listed use FW cas/escort. especially if they happen at long ranges. Phanatic posted:Even if the Marines need their own fixed wing air assets for reasons that come down to "We can't trust the USAF or Navy to task their air assets to support our missions," there's no reason whatsoever that the Marines can't operate their own fixed wing air assets off of real carriers. marine air exists to support the marine on the ground. sounds like I've sipped the Kool aid a little but I promise I haven't. the entirety of marine corps doctrine is written around it. that means that the cas/escort asset is going to be operating in the same ARG (amphibious ready group) as the rest of the MEU. carriers are pretty important, and I think you'd agree-- can't divert what the entire carrier is doing for one navy's armies squadrons desires. Phanatic posted:An MEU can embark a whopping 6 F-35s. That's six. Count 'em. Again: It has no AEW&C. It has no meaningful antisubmarine capability. It has no meaningful anti-missile defense. It has no meaningful long-range reconnaissance assets. none of those missions are in the MEU's METs. I'm not saying what the Marine corps wants as far as doctrine isn't silly. I have my own problems with it. the f-35 is a perfect fit for that silly doctrine. and again, a CSG doesn't have the assets or ability to offload an embassy, provide humanitarian aid, or conduct an amphib raid (either surface or vertical)
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:Not to toot the Air Force horn here too much, but every time I’ve seen Marine air support raids off a small deck they have been utterly reliant on KC-135/KC-10 refueling. I don’t know if the F-35B has reasonable legs in STOVL strike or CAS config (probably not) but the Harrier sure as hell does not. It's not excellent, but it's way better than the Harrier. hobbesmaster posted:Like I’m not saying get rid of the baby carriers, but aren’t those 6 spots for f-35s better taken up with ospreys? "It depends." That's a rough answer, but with a force like the Marines, with a very wide and far-reaching set of missions, sometimes dictated by politicians who don't really know what they can/can't do, it really does depend. If you're trying to get several hundred people off an island ASAP and the main threat is some dudes with AK's or a natural disaster, sure. If you're trying to get a couple hundred people out of a country and the threat is a coup with even crummy vehicles, uh, gimme those F-35s, please.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 00:33
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:.....because Air superiority is a force multiplier that makes tanks and armored vehicles look like a joke? And generally they need quick response air power and transport, since an actual carrier is usually too far distant or unavailable. And those 12 F-35s per boat sure are going to be able to provide persistent air superiority while the USAF and USN are twiddling their thumbs and not at all participating in this national crisis. Bob A Feet posted:literally every deployment I've done has been apart of the Marine expeditionary unit and these are the EXACT mission scenarios that we train for. heres the wonderful things you can do (and remember, amphibious invasion doesn't necessarily predicate across a beach-- a handful of CH-53E and MV-22s can move an assload of people and stuff in a short period of time) And how many of those examples require a fifth generation stealth fighter instead of a tailor-made fixed or rotary wing CAS platform? Also, every service trains for poo poo that's hilariously unrealistic. I've had to pick my jaw off the floor many a time since I've been working with the Navy. Edit: For me the issue isn't really that the USMC doesn't need an aviation side, although I make the joke. It's that they're playing with the wrong toys to get the job done and they're loving over the rest of the DOD in the process. They're going to have tools to get the job done, maybe (F-35 will need roughly 100% MR rates to support this loving fever dream), but they're not the right tools for the job. They're using a gold-plated hammer to smash screws into a plank. Godholio fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Jan 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:if you're operating more than a certain range then helicopters can't play. with the range of the MV-22 you need an escort that can travel at commiserate speeds and commiserate ranges. Yes, but so what? We're not doing those missions in places we need an escort. If we were doing those missions in places we actually needed an escort, an MV-22s ability to avoid being shot down by things like plain old optically-tracked 37mm guns is nil so if we actually needed to do those missions in the fact of an enemy capable of actually taking steps to prevent those missions from being executed successfully, then we would perform them with more potent assets. quote:marine air exists to support the marine on the ground. sounds like I've sipped the Kool aid a little but I promise I haven't. the entirety of marine corps doctrine is written around it. I'm not arguing that point. quote:none of those missions are in the MEU's METs. That is exactly my point. An MEU can't get the job done without a CSG anyway, so saying the MEU needs its own fixed-wing carriers so that it doesn't tie down a CSG isn't a coherent argument for Marine fixed-wing. quote:I'm not saying what the Marine corps wants as far as doctrine isn't silly. I have my own problems with it. the f-35 is a perfect fit for that silly doctrine. Whereas I am not arguing that the F-35 doesn't fit USMC doctrine, I'm arguing that USMC doctrine is silly. So I think we're in violent agreement with each other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
JFC just because someone says they need something (like...writing it in their own doctrine) doesn't make it true. Strategic bombing isn't going to win war in a vacuum, but that was sure as hell written down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
Godholio posted:And those 12 F-35s per boat sure are going to be able to provide persistent air superiority while the USAF and USN are twiddling their thumbs and not at all participating in this national crisis. yeah man I agree, I definitely wouldn't have picked it for the role its in. the logical decision would have been to replace every thing that flies in the USMC inventory with an MH-60 and call it a day. readiness would be great! trust me I know that practicing a raid through an SA-5 wez is bs but you can't deny that FHA and NEO and vbss are legit missions that happen almost on a yearly basis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 00:59
|
|
|
Attack helicopters make a lot of sense for the Marines. STOVL stealth fighters that can barely launch themselves don't make any sense for the Marines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 01:02
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:Attack helicopters make a lot of sense for the Marines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
Attack helicopters are unfortunately death traps if anyone has sold any SAMs into the region.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
So are V-22s. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 01:12
|
|
|
And 777s
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
And every aircraft known to man. What, you think Wild Weasels are immune to SAMs? "You Got to be Shittin' Me" http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2010/July%202010/0710weasel.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And every aircraft known to man. There are plenty of aircraft that aren't easy meat for a lot of SAMs. Like, kinematically. All a helicopter or V-22 can do is pray that its flares or DIRCM work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
I’ve met rotor pilots who swear that DIRCM and flares are infallible. They’ve only flown against RPGs and SA-7s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 01:33
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:There are plenty of aircraft that aren't easy meat for a lot of SAMs. Like, kinematically. All a helicopter or V-22 can do is pray that its flares or DIRCM work. So what do you think the F-35s are there for? Do the Marine Helicopters wait for the Navy to catch up and take out SAMs for them, or do they have something on hand that can now do that for them. F-35s, with their speed, are perfectly capable of filling a Wild Weasel role. mlmp08 posted:I’ve met rotor pilots who swear that DIRCM and flares are infallible. They’ve only flown against RPGs and SA-7s. Yeah, C-130 pilots think LAIRCM is the poo poo too, but it won't do crap against actual radar guided SAMs for the obvious reasons.... CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Jan 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:F-35s, with their speed, are perfectly capable of filling a Wild Weasel role. 1. Wild Weasel missions don't do poo poo about MANPADs. 2. Wild Weasel missions aren't flown by the USMC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:1. Wild Weasel missions don't do poo poo about MANPADs. 1. No poo poo 2. Because the Harrier was incapable of speeds for that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 01:39
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Wild Weasel missions aren't flown by the USMC. Wild Weasel isn't a mission set given to a single service or set of air-frames anymore. Also SEAD is explicitly in the USMC mission set even with legacy Hornets and EA-6s, and their capabilities will only expand with F-35 capabilities. There's plenty of room to say "F-35B bad" or "screw the A in MAGTF," without going off the rails.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:1. No poo poo The Harrier's about as fast as the A-4, which was a successful Weasel platform. Marines flew Skyhawks, but didn't fly Weasel missions in Skyhawks. The Phantom was a successful Weasel, platform, and the USMC flew Phantoms, but USMC Phantoms didn't fly Weasel missions. mlmp08 posted:Wild Weasel isn't a mission set given to a single service or set of air-frames anymore. This is a good point. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Jan 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 01:49
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The Harrier's about as fast as the A-4, which was a successful Weasel platform. Marines flew Skyhawks, but didn't fly Weasel missions in Skyhawks. The Phantom was a successful Weasel, platform, and the USMC flew Phantoms, but USMC Phantoms didn't fly Weasel missions. Even if the F-35 makes a good Weasel platform, what makes you think the USMC will be using it for Weasel missions? Just because a squadron or aircraft lacks the explicit Wild Weasel name doesn't mean it doesn't take part in the SEAD/DEAD fight. Marines have done that fight. http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/MCWP%203-22.2%20Suppression%20of%20Enemy%20Air%20Defenses.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 01:54
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Just because a squadron or aircraft lacks the explicit Wild Weasel name doesn't mean it doesn't take part in the SEAD/DEAD fight. Marines have done that fight. I'd say that taking part in the SEAD fight isn't the same thing as being a Wild Weasel mission, and it's not the Harrier's lack of speed that made it not a Wild Weasel. By that document, any weapon system that happens to see an enemy air defense asset and blows it up is SEAD, even if it does so while in the course of some entirely different mission. But if some CAS asset happens to see an SA-6 launcher and puts a SDB on it, that doesn't make that plane a Wild Weasel. My point in this subdigression was that the existence of SEAD assets (or dedicated platforms you might or might not call Wild Weasels, whatever), doesn't do a whole lot for survivability of MV-22s in a MANPAD environment, so "The Marines will have much better SEAD once their Harriers get replaced by F-35Bs" I don't think has a whole lot of relevance to this stuff: 1. foreign humanitarian assistance 2. noncombatant evacuation operations 3. visit board search seizure 4. raids if the bad guys have even as much as SA-7Bs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 02:06
|
|
|
I was going to say that the F-35 is way better at literally all of that than a Harrier, but that's an embarrassingly low bar for me to set.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 02:12
|
|
|
So just to be clear, should I rabidly defend OR rabidly hate the F35 now? This is important.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 03:21
|
|
|
slidebite posted:So just to be clear, should I rabidly defend OR rabidly hate the F35 now? Por que no los dos? But like... unironically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 03:24
|
|
|
slidebite posted:So just to be clear, should I rabidly defend OR rabidly hate the F35 now? Just complain that the YF-23 didn't win to stay on everyone's good side.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 10:48 |
|
|
Isn't there a subforum somewhere for all this military chat about marine air superiority and suckage/not suckage of the F35 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 03:39
|
|
