The mention of Somalia...

One must also remember that MEU's rarely venture into situations that need more than thier organic composition. One comes to mind, the NEO evac from Mogadishu in 1990. While the forces were from a MEB, the size of the force closely resembled a MEU in capability and function.


Politics rather than mission needs would drive the decision to involve a CVN and thus determine the capabilities or limitations of said force. The Navy also might not be as understanding of one of it's larger moveable airports being tasked to support the Marines. One must remember the Navy has a hard time remembering what the A in F/A-18 stands for.

Squirrel,

Including Somalia I can think of support in a couple of other NEOs and one other use that the Harrier was the only player.

There are multiple reasons against CVN use. When TacAir integration was started Marines would show up (for boat squadron duty) and have CAS training relegated to low priority. Currently there is more "CAS" training for all I'd caveat that to be dropping ordnance in close proximity to friendly forces under current circumstances.

The training priority for the CVN/CAG is OCA/DCA for obvious reasons. How much are going to get for training (initial, currency, and proficiency) to include additional personnel to turn wrenches?

The "C" in of itself is a more capable airplane in all areas once airborne. It has it's own additional costs though; the larger CVN and battle group, further back from shore so ready five alerts are further away in time when the grunt needs help, tanking from land may not help and brings it's own set of political problems. When you have 4-12 men in a third world country which is your preferred option for support 1) B in 5-10 minutes or 2) C in 20-30?

The other practical point of a CVN versus a gator is that everyone watches the CVN and where they are parked while not paying attention to the gators. The lack of media attention and thus political pressure has allowed fixed wing usage.

I'd be the last to argue that the USMC should get B before the C. I am going to wade into assuming knowledge of the British situation but my quick take is that a CV(N) a little larger than the French with F-35C seems to make more sense.

In the end I think it will be political advantage over cost/capability, similar to the tanker replacement for the USAF; Democrat = Boeing (unions + overseas support of China), and Republican = Airbus (non-union + France has been helping on GWOT outside of Iraq and lots of help other places).

S/F, FOG

FOG,

Many thanks for the reply - interesting. The UK position is in the eyes of many who know about such things, absurd. The new UK carriers (CV(Future)- hence CV(F), a conventional design) are at 65k tons more than big enough to take the Dave-C, and indeed are designed to be convertible between STOVL and CTOL operations (ie, requiring a major refit, but in principle able to do it). So the UK could - and in my view should - take the -C, and in the process acquire E-2D to provide meaningful AWACS and strike coordination.

I completely accept the point of -Cs being 10 mins further away and not principally tasked with your CAS mission is always going to be less attractive than fellow grunts flying -Bs. However, the question is one of cost: is the US prepared in these difficult economic times, to continue to pay for the flex of the -B in order to continue to provide the USMC with organic CAS? I'd have thought that this is a really difficult call to make given some of the things that are being cut, especially as there appear to be a tiny number of combat - rather than NEO - interventions that require an MEU to operate alone.

Time - and politicking in DC - will doubtless tell!

Cheers,

S41

The Sukhoi option?
 

It's late a night and I am feeling creative - this idea must have been done to death a million times but...

Having seen how the Sukhoi Su-33 launches from the Russian carriers without a catapult, just brute force and a ski ramp - I wonder whether the LHAs & LHDs could be adapted (together with arrester gear) so that the USMC could take the Dave-C?

In design, they have a family resemblance to the RNs 'Through Deck Cruisers' (remember the dodge to not call them aircraft carriers) - no angled flight deck though so I guess they would be launching OR recovering but not both.

Having looked at some of the thrust to weight ratios put forward about the F-35, they are not a million miles away from the Sukhoi.

My read on what emerges here is that a lower-profile, closer-inshore capability than the CV has its uses, particularly for CAS and related operations (like ISR in support of ground forces).

However, Dave-B represents a very large investment in stealth and supersonic speed, neither of which is very useful for CAS, when you'd rather have payload, persistence and connectivity.

S41
 

That was a very interesting post, -C and "embedded" AWACS surely makes a LOT of sense!

LO hit on an important point. Where on the CVN do they keep the Marines, the landing craft, LCAC's, AAV's, supporting facilities, expanded medical facilities, etc?

Answer: On the amphibious assault ship trailing the CVN.

No trading a CVN for its smaller brethren without a loss of capability.

Air Force yields in F-22 fighter dispute
 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force on Monday endorsed the Pentagon in its plan to end production of Lockheed Martin Corp's top-of-the-line F-22 fighter jets after having pushed to buy more for years.

"This is the time to make the transition from F-22 to F-35 production," Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and General Norton Schwartz, the service's top uniformed officer, wrote in an opinion piece in the Washington Post.

Like the F-22 Raptor, Lockheed's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is designed to avoid detection by radar, although it would not fly as fast or as high. The multi-role F-35 is being co-developed with eight countries in three models with an eye to achieving economies of scale.

Donley and Schwartz reversed previous positions by the Air Force, saying the time had come to stop buying the F-22.

"That is why we do not recommend that F-22s be included in the fiscal 2010 defense budget," they wrote, endorsing plans announced April 6 by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to cap the F-22 fleet at 187.

Lockheed Martin stopped short of saying whether it would give up its lobbying effort to keep the F-22 production line going. Key F-22 subcontractors include Boeing Co, Northrop Grumman Corp and United Technologies Corp's Pratt & Whitney unit, which supplies the engines.

Squirrel,

At 65K tons the "C" is probably a better fit and looks to be a CV vice a gator (amphibious assault ships) in the 40K ton class that the Harriers (and "B") will fly off of.

I think if does make economic and operational sense. The Amphibious Ready Group can stay closer in (remain on location) while the CVBG stays further out or goes away for other missions. It is rare for a CVBG to conduct a NEO; it is usually an ARG as that is where the resident training and expertise lies.

A very added benefit that is hard for bean counters to understand are the positive effects of the CAS, rotary wing, and ground combat element working/messing/PTing together.
It shows up in combat. When the USMC was in Somalia we conducted raids with little drama. When we took over Anbar both the USA and USAF went on record stating that we would not be able to operate fixed wing aircraft out of either Al Assad or TQ for a couple of years.

On the politics/media front I believe that the media/politicians would pay attention to the location of either your CV or gator while they ignore our gators for the most part. Being ignored by the media and politicians can be very beneficial most of the time.

S/F, FOG

Future Stealth?
 

Dave 'B' would appear to be a further compromised version of a Design which is already compromised (Weight, Frontal-Area & Aerodynamics) in the pursuit of 'stealth'.

With these drawbacks, how valuable an A/C would it be if the march of technology removed the stealth advantage?

I have no access to such info, but I would not be surprised to discover that even now two (linked) AWACS would be able to detect stealthy aircraft at a useful range; using the 'shadow' or some similar method.

Where would that leave Dave 'B' in the Eagle, Typhoon, Rafael type ranking? Are we throwing all our eggs in one basket?

KB

Cats without the traps
 

Possibly a stupid idea, but; Would it be feasible/sensible/possible to fit catapults on the carriers but without the corresponding traps? You could heave a bit (lots?) more payload/fuel into the air, but still plan and train for the good old vertical landings, or if you must RVLs.

Of course, this all assumes the majority of the hazards present in Cat'n'trap operations occur at the recovery end of flight and that Vertical/RVL is a safer way to do that. Not too mention less onerous on deck and flightcrew training & currency reqs. Crazy or what?

It never ceases to amaze me how negative some people seem to be about the F-35B.

The debate over whether or not the -B should be scrapped 'to save money' is over. The money's been spent, the aircraft has been designed and built, thousands of hours have been spent in simulators getting the control laws sorted. The amount of money you'd save now by deciding not to flight test it is piddling compared to what's gone before. If you wanted to stop it you should have been jumping up and down 5 years ago. Now it's going to do huge amounts of risk reduction for the other 2 variants so if you scrap it you'll introduce delays to their test programmes of the order of several years - you'll be almost halving the number of instrumented test airplanes for pity's sake.

The variant debate for the UK is over too. I can't profess the ability or the inclination to explain the intimate detail of why the choice came out at the -B, but this wasn't the work of a lone barking mad loony. Lots of incredibly smart people will have done analysis of almost unimaginable depth into the UK's requirement. Dozens and dozens of Operational Analysts et al (boffins, geeks, historian-types, political whizz-kids, and aircrew) will have spent hours constructing worst case pictures of the possible threat scenarios that the UK could get involved in over the next 30 years. Even more procurement folks will have constructed huge databases of information about through-life costs etc. What I'm trying to say is that it's not a simple question of 'I like tail hooks, and if I'm playing Top Trumps variant x has a bigger range than variant y'.

As for LO and supersonic speed not being particularly important for CAS in a permissive environment - well I'd agree. But this airplane is to fulfill the UK's JCA requirement and there are a number of scenarios where stealth and speed can come in handy. When you don't need them, by all means bolt on the external pylons and twin-store racks and you have a very respectable loadout. If you need to go LO, then you can. And if someone comes up with an F-35 stealth countermeasure with a new system, that doesn't immediately render stealth obsolete. By that argument the fact that some IR missiles don't get decoyed by flares means there's no point having flares any more. An F-35 in the hands of smart operators gives far more options for developing counter-countermeasures than a 4th gen aircraft.

And finally - it's a whole lot more than just LO & a STOVL motor. The sensor suite alone is a reason to buy the airplane, as is the cockpit and the interoperability with um, just about all our major allies (can everybody be wrong - or is there a conspiracy theory to justify why it keeps getting selected?). And last but not least UK industry is doing very well out of the deal too.

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

Dave 'B' would appear to be a further compromised version of a Design which is already compromised (Weight, Frontal-Area & Aerodynamics) in the pursuit of 'stealth'.

In what way is this aircraft's design compromised? Please explain the lift fan F-35's flaws to us.

Don't afraid to go into detail regarding frontal area and aerodynamics. Describe your preferred alternative fighter aircraft design.

So, if the F-22 stops being produced in favour of Lockheed's F-35, will various senators now start squealing that Boeing must be given priority in the KC-X competition, due to the impact on Boeing jobs?

Another politically compromised competition in the offing? Their inferior KC-767 failed to win the first KC-X competition, they moaned and whined for a second. The timing of the F-22 / F-35 decision smells a bit.....:hmm:

BEagie,

Several other ways to give Boeing more work: more C-17's, more F-18's, more P-8's and EP-8 or whatever they call it development, other component systems, more for black projects you and I haven't heard about, or give Boeing some pieces of the F-35 to manufacture, similar to Boeing's share of the F-22:

F-22 Raptor

In The News:

Boeing F-22 Maintenance 'Schoolhouse' Opens at U.S. Air Force Base

Boeing Awarded Contract to Integrate F-22 into U.S. Air Force Distributed Mission Operations Training Network

Boeing Delivers Wing Set for 100th F-22 Raptor Ahead of Schedule

Boeing Starts Production of Wing Set for 100th F-22 Raptor

All News Releases >>Overview

Boeing is teamed with Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney and the U.S. Air Force to produce the F-22 Raptor air dominance fighter. The Raptor's unique combination of stealth, speed, agility, precision and situational awareness make it overwhelmingly effective in its combined air-to-air and air-to-ground mission capability. In its expanding role as an ISR asset, the F-22 is making the entire joint force more effective by collecting timely information about the forward reaches of the battlespace and relaying it to other aircraft and command/control nodes. Ongoing modernization efforts -- including integration of the Small Diameter Bomb, electronic attack capability, synthetic aperture radar and the Coordinate Seeking Weapon -- will ensure the Raptor's relevance throughout its 40-year service life.

Recent Achievements ...

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f22/index.html

Spiffing.

Now how does it land on a carrier, a ' Tractor beam ' ?

' Gator ' type ships, rather than the Royal Navy's idea of as far as I can see small CV's must make sense.

If the F-35B is as versatile as the Harrier, it would be a good combination.

Personally, as a Harrier person, can't help thinking that with all the money spent, the F-35 doesn't bring anything new & useful to CAS ?

Ifollowed by:

F-35B will be way more versatile than Harrier - and why just look at CAS? It will be a better air-to-air fighter than the SHAR could ever have hoped to be, and it brings many more capabilities to the party in terms of AI, ISTAR etc.

Double Zero,

As OA points out, the JSF Operational Requirements Document lays out a dozen mission types that the aircraft is to be able to perform from SEAD/DEAD and OCA/DCA to CAS.

In the CAS role it brings :

11 pylons compared to the Harrier's 9 (one of which is for the gun of course),
you could just stay with 8 Small Diameter Bombs in the bays and retain supersonic dash capability for TST,
you have a mind-numbingly good ground-mapping radar that gives you a true all-weather capability,
optics at least as good as the old Sniper pod,
a fully integrated helmet mounted sight,
full Link 16 integration for TST tasking and global SA around you,
intra-flight datalinks with your buddies,
ROVER-like capability,
more bring-back to the ship,
a lot more than 2 MPCDs so you can actually look at more than just the map and the Sniper at the same time,
access to the full range of US weapons - without the UOR, SD or OEC faff,
FLIR-like images all around the airplane projected into the helmet at the touch of a button,
Direct Voice Input and a lot more HOTAS than a Harrier ever had - without all the mode changes (if I have a Mav then then this button does this, unless I have a Mav and a TIALD when it does this, unless the TIALD is uncaged when it does this etc)

and many more...

Oh and you're LO so if the next war is somewhere a bit nastier than Afghanistan and there are mobile double digit SAMs everywhere you don't have to immediately call in sick.

But I don't recall seeing a plan to integrate CRV-7 onto F-35 - if that's what you're driving at?

Totally with you on the LHD/LHX vs CV point though. I'm curious to know why the RN want an enormous boat that does nothing but aircraft, instead of an enormous amphibious assault ship with troops etc. I assume there were good reasons. Anyone?

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

SSSTETOWTF,

Many thanks for your reply, it explains a lot to a plank like me who simply doesn't get that info'...I have a feeling, if you are who I think, that we have worked together in the past !

I agree the F-35 has a lot more future if things go really pear-shaped, but in the meantime ( everyone plans for the last war, not any potential, especially accountants ) couldn't we do with something like a STOVL A-10 ?!

As you say, it's a mystery why the proposed CVF's don't carry Marines & landing craft etc; I sadly surmise, living next door to a retired Admiral ( of course he only got there by binning his flying career in Sea Vixens ) that there's still a lot of " in the good old days we had the big Ark Royal & Phantoms " etc, just as RAF people still wax lyrical about the Lightning, which is probably the crappest weapon system ever fielded, ranging alongside that rocket propelled cartwheel job which was supposed to clear mines on D-Day !...

Regards,

DZ

F-35
 

SSSTETOWTF

"access to the full range of US weapons - without the UOR, SD or OEC faff"

Do you know if they are getting cleared to UK standards under the current contract? My recollection is that UK and US SD criteria are different and that MAR clearance will require a host of additional safety case paperwork.

regards

retard