To clarify my point (slightly)...

If you need the JSF VSTOL capability to use a particular 'forward base', how
would you get the airlift into the proposed airfield? It's not so much the
forward basing per se.... to a 'conventional' NATO standard (8000 ft)
airstrip I'll sign on... send the conventional JSF. But to an airfield
where you need VSTOL to operate; the support logistics I see as being a
potential show stopper to effective operations.

wrt 'been done'....

Afghanistan/Desert Storm... very small numbers; very limited overall impact
on capability to successfully prosecute air war (just a subjective opinion)
Was is this forward basing done because it could only be done by Harriers,
or was it a matter that it so-happened to be Harriers. Was it an
operational imperative or an opportunity seized by USMC to "show their
stuff"?? I see a difference.

Mark

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message
...
Mark wrote:

And the ordnance, force protection personnel and equipment, aircraft
support
equipment, food/water, etc etc etc....

Of course - but I wonder if you realize that a standard
squadron mobility package (18.U.E., 24 U.E) in the tactical
forces was set up to contain all of the people, equipment,
and supplies for at least 30 days of autonomous operations?
(With the very low munitions capacity of today's much smaller
fighters, it should be even easier to transport the required
munitions - almost always the largest tonnage component of
the package.)

Besides - an FOL would likely use a very small number of
aircraft (4? 6 to include spares?) for a very short time,
measured in days - before moving on to a different location;
perhaps swapped out with fresh aircraft/personnel/supplies
from the more-rearward located base.)

The forward basing "feature" of the VSTOL is way oversold (IMHO)

Perhaps. It would be a new ballgame for the USAF, anyway.