Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14?

In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in message
. com...

The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."

If there are no good airstrips how would the marines get their gas,
bombs, food, and all the other support?

See the other posts in this thread about the V-22 Osprey, or read up on
parachure sropping/resupply. You also have a lot of situations where
the Marines would have a forward location, a few hundred miles outside
of the range of carrier jets, but still accessible from the ground.

It's also nice to have fast-reaction fighter jets that don't have to
live on a big, obvious target like an airfeld.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

(puttster) wrote in
om:

If there are no good airstrips how would the marines get their gas,
bombs, food, and all the other support?

I think their H-53s and H-46s (helicopters) handle some of that tasking

--
-
"For once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes
turned skyward;
For there you have been, and there you long to return."
Leonardo da Vinci

"puttster" wrote in message
om...
Chad Irby wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot
get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of
them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway!

Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once?

The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."

If there are no good airstrips how would the marines get their gas,
bombs, food, and all the other support?


By ship , C-130 or other battlefield airlift asset.

Keith

In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

Can anyone conjure a F-35B Marine job that could not be none by the
navy?

Easy. Remember last(?) year the LHAs showing the flag off the west
african coast, and rescuing embassy personnel? No CVs anywhere near.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Chad Irby wrote in message . com...
In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot
get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of
them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway!

Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once?

The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."

Well that was my question, if the biggest mission that con be
realiatically conjures is a dozen, why order 400+?

How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?

To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go through
the other services as much. They've been flying off of the USS Bonhomme
Richard.

Overall, Iraq hasn't been a good test of what we'd need the Harrier for.

I heard that adfter the fighting was over the marines moved the
Harriers onshore, but of course that was politics. By then they had
their pick of runways and did not need VSTOL.

"puttster" wrote in message
om...
Chad Irby wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot
get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of
them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway!

Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once?

The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."

Well that was my question, if the biggest mission that con be
realiatically conjures is a dozen, why order 400+?

Because (a) ordering 12 would be extremely expensive on a unit cost basis
(obviously), (b) you'd run out of hours on those 12 airframes rather quickly
(remember that those 400 will actually be ordered over a spread of years),
and (c) when you need 18 and only have 12 you are in a world of hurt. They
are replacing both their AV-8B's and their F-18C/D's with these aircraft, so
400 is not unrealistic.


How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq?

To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go through
the other services as much. They've been flying off of the USS Bonhomme
Richard.

Overall, Iraq hasn't been a good test of what we'd need the Harrier for.

I heard that adfter the fighting was over the marines moved the
Harriers onshore, but of course that was politics.

"Politics"? Operational advantage had nothing to do with it, huh?

By then they had
their pick of runways and did not need VSTOL.

Hardly the case, IIRC. They did use the VSOL capability to hit FARP's, thus
reducing drastically the time between CAS sorties. Imagine a scenario where
we have to seize both a beachhead and a subsequent airhead from a hostile
force. As part of the preparation for the assault, we naturally closed down
their local airbase--maybe a few 2000 pound JDAM's punching up the runway.
It takes a while to do the repairs, and until they are done you can't
operate anything but maybe a C-130 on a MLS (minimum landing strip), along
with F-35B's doing their STOVL thing. You can now push maybe 36 F-35B's onto
the strip, to add to the dozen or so you have operating from offshore that
can now join them. Having 48 fixed wing platforms supporting your force
while you struggle to get the runway up and operational for later CTOL
assets could be very valuable. You set up a FARP on the highway a few klicks
to the rear of the FLOT, and now your F-35B's can provide continuous CAS,
rotating through the FARP to rearm and refuel.

The STOVL capability makes sense--that is why the USAF is apparently now
going to switch part of its planned A model buy to B models.

Brooks

In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot
get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of
them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway!

Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once?

The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."

Well that was my question, if the biggest mission that con be
realiatically conjures is a dozen, why order 400+?

Because it's 2004, and there's a good chance we'll have more than one of
those missions going on at a time sometime along the way, not to mention
training, depot maintenance, unit rotations, and the like.

There are a lot of places in the world that don't have good airstrips
and aren't close enough to coasts to deal with from carriers.

We also have the nasty contingency of "what to do if we lose some (or
all or) our carriers?"

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"puttster" wrote in message
om...
Chad Irby wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
(puttster) wrote:

Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot
get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of
them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway!

Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once?

The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war
in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small
landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we
need a little fighter cover from the LHDs."

Well that was my question, if the biggest mission that con be
realiatically conjures is a dozen, why order 400+?

Because you need only a dozen PER SHIP or base but you need cover
for a dozen locations or so. Then figure in the aircraft required for
training, the 20% or so that will be under maintenance at any time
and an attrition reserve for the 30 years it will be in service and
the 400 appears rather reasonable.

Having one squadron on a ship in the Pacific isnt a
lot of use if a problem pops up in Africa.

Keith

puttster wrote:

snip

With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy
still demand those giant carriers? Seems like something can be done
there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane
(the F-35C) to fit their ships?

Whether the navy goes all VSTOL or keeps the F-35C and its other catapult-launched, arrested
recovery a/c and their associated catapults/arresting gear, on a per a/c embarked basis a larger
carrier is always cheaper than a smaller one, as the overhead in radars and support a/c is the same
in either case. These requirements are set by the threat, and can't be reduced.

For most missions the CV/CVNs provide more capability than is needed, and in such cases a smaller
carrier is sufficient. The USN has the LHA/LHDs to provide the numbers for these missions. But
when it comes to the power projection mission, size _does_ matter, both for numbers of a/c you can
operate and how long you can sustain them. The Brits ran into this problem first with their small
carriers in the '50s, where, by the time they'd provided the CAP, AEW, and ASW a/c to protect the
task group, there was little room left for strike a/c or their escorts, and the carriers lacked the
size for fuel, ordnance etc. for sustainment. They attempted to get around this by first replacing
fixed-wing ASW a/c with helos, and then moving the ASW helos off the carriers entirely, to CAHs
(Tigers) or CVSs (the Invincible class).

The U.S. had gone the CVS route from the start, first with CVEs, then with unmodified Essexes, but
had to bring the ASW a/c back to the CVs when the Essexes were retired and not replaced. The
CV/CVNs are large enough that the ASW a/c make up a relatively small percentage of the air wing,
and take up relatively little space. In addition, the current lack of a serious blue water sub
threat has allowed us to phase out the fixed-wing carrier ASW a/c, and only use helos. That could
change, of course.

Guy

On 2/24/04 4:21 PM, in article
, "puttster"
wrote:

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
Now if you want to argue that the F-35B is an aircraft designed as a
Carrier
Aircraft, I know some Marines that would like to chat with you. The B
will
be replacing AV-8B's and land based F-18's. Sure, it can land on a
carrier
but it is not being built to trap aboard CV/N's using arresting gear or
Cat
launches.

True in a sense, but as a VSTOL and STOVL design, it's fully carrier
suitable w/o the need for catapult gear (I suspect it does have a tailhook).
I'd also be much surprised if its CNI suite didn't include ACLS and SPN-41
in their latest incarnations.

R / John


With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy
still demand those giant carriers? Seems like something can be done
there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane
(the F-35C) to fit their ships?

Don't you mean excellent *predicted* V/STOL capability, since the jet hasn't
actually IOC'ed yet the true capability remains to be seen.

The payloads you can launch off of those large carriers (CVN's) are heavier,
the CVN can carry more jets and project more power, and you don't run the
risk of the many consecutive miracles required to transition the F-35B from
forward flight to VSTOL--which can be painful if something fails.

VSTOL is a risky concept that has never matured (no not even in the
Harrier--I've seen way to many crash over the years killing or hurting good
Marines... not their current maintenance nightmares), but for some reason,
weapons buyers are enamored with the concept. The cost isn't worth the
benefits.

--Woody