Jump to content


Photo

Lightening The Marine Corps


  • Please log in to reply
158 replies to this topic

#141 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,917 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 0239 AM

The concept of Marines restructuring themselves to set up ineffectual fire bases in the Pacific is damn stupid, however. By all means, talk it out and prove me wrong.

 

 


Agreed!


  • 0

#142 Olof Larsson

Olof Larsson

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,302 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 0248 AM

Would it be completely unfair to think the DOD is making the USMC pay for the Navys procurement mistakes?

 

Like the V-22*, F-35B**, EFV and America class***?

 

 

(*) Overpriced, much delayed and far less hangar and deck space efficient than a conventional helo.

(**) A great piece of kit for the USMC in the few instances that they operate from LHA/LHD, but the demands of the B-version has degraded the performance, delayed the project and increased the cost or the far more important A and C-versions.

(***) No well deck and with the hangar and deck space inefficient V-22, they are effectively able to lift in one company at a time. Assuming that the enemys air defences makes that possible at all.


  • 0

#143 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,237 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 0335 AM

The concept of Marines restructuring themselves to set up ineffectual fire bases in the Pacific is damn stupid, however. By all means, talk it out and prove me wrong.

 

Agreed!
I don't know, ship to land, is a necessary skill to possess. At the very basic level, how many hours do US Army soldiers spend training at the beach in the muddy sand and waves compared to USMC? Or how many hours do US Army soldries train in mock up fuselage that's dunked into a pool in order to practice getting out of a crashed vehicle at sea? This stuff may sound primative but surely would make a big difference.

Also, I don't quite get the arguments that say "amphib assualts like during the Pacific War are no longer gonna happen so no more need for AAV7s or successors to them".

Edited by JasonJ, 04 June 2020 - 0348 AM.

  • 0

#144 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,429 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 0339 AM

1 Overpriced in large part because Clinton cancelled it as a cost saving, then they found over a decade later on there wasnt anything that could replace it, and started up the procurement again. Nothing is going to be cheap again after that. Though yes, they should have bought EH101. NIH.

2 The performance of the F35B is identical as best I can tell to the A model, the only exception being range and pulling 1.5G less.With the US military having tankers coming out of its ears (and I suspect it would be viable to carry a buddy pack), this doesnt seem to be the problem it once was.  As for G performance, if a F35B pilot its dogfighting like Maverick, clearly something has gone very badly wrong. That said, you can work with 7.5 G, after all that was the G limit of the F14.

Everyone seems to think the B model is a warmed over Harrier. It just isnt.

3 Cant comment on the America class, other than I read that only 2 of the class have this problem. The rest will have the restored well deck.


  • 0

#145 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,917 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 0350 AM

The concept of Marines restructuring themselves to set up ineffectual fire bases in the Pacific is damn stupid, however. By all means, talk it out and prove me wrong.

 

Agreed!
I don't know, ship to land, is a necessary skill to possess. At the very basic level, how many hours do US Army soldiers spend training at the beach in the muddy sand and waves compared to USMC? Or how many hours do US Army soldries train in mock up fuselage that's dunked into a pool in order to practice getting out of a crashed vehicle at sea? This stuff may sound primative but surely would make a big difference.

Also, I don't quite get the arguments that say "amphib assualts like during the Pacific War are no longer needed so no more need for AAV7s or successors to them".

Not sure that was the takeaway, did you read the earlier messages? I dont think anyone is advocating for less ship to shore capability, but it doesnt make sense to garrison marines on an island to babysit land based harpoon / tomahawk launchers. I mean other than posturing what does that accomplish that the ship or submarine based harpoon / tomahawk launchers (presumably on the ships that carried them there) cannot? At least they can move, in the opening stages of any conflict with China those islands are not going to be a good place to be for anyone involved.
  • 0

#146 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,237 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 0506 AM

The concept of Marines restructuring themselves to set up ineffectual fire bases in the Pacific is damn stupid, however. By all means, talk it out and prove me wrong.

 
Agreed!
I don't know, ship to land, is a necessary skill to possess. At the very basic level, how many hours do US Army soldiers spend training at the beach in the muddy sand and waves compared to USMC? Or how many hours do US Army soldries train in mock up fuselage that's dunked into a pool in order to practice getting out of a crashed vehicle at sea? This stuff may sound primative but surely would make a big difference.
Also, I don't quite get the arguments that say "amphib assualts like during the Pacific War are no longer needed so no more need for AAV7s or successors to them".

Not sure that was the takeaway, did you read the earlier messages? I dont think anyone is advocating for less ship to shore capability, but it doesnt make sense to garrison marines on an island to babysit land based harpoon / tomahawk launchers. I mean other than posturing what does that accomplish that the ship or submarine based harpoon / tomahawk launchers (presumably on the ships that carried them there) cannot? At least they can move, in the opening stages of any conflict with China those islands are not going to be a good place to be for anyone involved.

It's all rock scissors papers sort of thing I think. Everything has a counter and limited sphere of application. But the more different things one has, the harder it would be to have weaknesses exploited and the greater the degree of unpredictability there is. If everything is just surface ships, subs, and MPA, then ways of being used is predicatable. Being able to deploy land based anti-ship missiles that can be moved all over the place increases unpredictability.
  • 0

#147 Olof Larsson

Olof Larsson

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,302 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 0632 AM

1 Overpriced in large part because Clinton cancelled it as a cost saving, then they found over a decade later on there wasnt anything that could replace it, and started up the procurement again. Nothing is going to be cheap again after that. Though yes, they should have bought EH101. NIH.

2 The performance of the F35B is identical as best I can tell to the A model, the only exception being range and pulling 1.5G less.With the US military having tankers coming out of its ears (and I suspect it would be viable to carry a buddy pack), this doesnt seem to be the problem it once was.  As for G performance, if a F35B pilot its dogfighting like Maverick, clearly something has gone very badly wrong. That said, you can work with 7.5 G, after all that was the G limit of the F14.

Everyone seems to think the B model is a warmed over Harrier. It just isnt.

3 Cant comment on the America class, other than I read that only 2 of the class have this problem. The rest will have the restored well deck.

1 - Or developed the Boeing Model 360 into a finished product. Tandem rotors are great for compact storage in hangar or of deck and are great for hauling external cargo fairly short distances.

 

2 - I don't mean that the F-35B is not a big improvement over the Harrier. It's a huge improvment, with the F-35B being better or superior at almost everything. The inclusion ov a STOVL-version, has however degraded the performance of the A and C-versions, as the design of the family of aircrafts, has been dictated by the needs of the -B. Thus a short hull, a engine that is quite far forward, short and sharply turned airinlets, loadbearing structure that is weight inefficient and so on, resulting in a aircraft, that is heavier and has more drag, than what would have been the case, if they had ditched the B, and designed the aircraft around the CATOBAR-version, with the CTOL-version being a lighter and smaller winged version of the CATOBAR-version. A STOVL-bird could then be designed separately, using a related engine, identical avionics and largely identical software.

 

3 - Didn't know that Bougainville would get a well deck. Thats great news.


  • 0

#148 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,429 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 0650 AM

 

1 Overpriced in large part because Clinton cancelled it as a cost saving, then they found over a decade later on there wasnt anything that could replace it, and started up the procurement again. Nothing is going to be cheap again after that. Though yes, they should have bought EH101. NIH.

2 The performance of the F35B is identical as best I can tell to the A model, the only exception being range and pulling 1.5G less.With the US military having tankers coming out of its ears (and I suspect it would be viable to carry a buddy pack), this doesnt seem to be the problem it once was.  As for G performance, if a F35B pilot its dogfighting like Maverick, clearly something has gone very badly wrong. That said, you can work with 7.5 G, after all that was the G limit of the F14.

Everyone seems to think the B model is a warmed over Harrier. It just isnt.

3 Cant comment on the America class, other than I read that only 2 of the class have this problem. The rest will have the restored well deck.

1 - Or developed the Boeing Model 360 into a finished product. Tandem rotors are great for compact storage in hangar or of deck and are great for hauling external cargo fairly short distances.

 

2 - I don't mean that the F-35B is not a big improvement over the Harrier. It's a huge improvment, with the F-35B being better or superior at almost everything. The inclusion ov a STOVL-version, has however degraded the performance of the A and C-versions, as the design of the family of aircrafts, has been dictated by the needs of the -B. Thus a short hull, a engine that is quite far forward, short and sharply turned airinlets, loadbearing structure that is weight inefficient and so on, resulting in a aircraft, that is heavier and has more drag, than what would have been the case, if they had ditched the B, and designed the aircraft around the CATOBAR-version, with the CTOL-version being a lighter and smaller winged version of the CATOBAR-version. A STOVL-bird could then be designed separately, using a related engine, identical avionics and largely identical software.

 

3 - Didn't know that Bougainville would get a well deck. Thats great news.

 

2  Look at it like this. If they didnt have the B, not only would they not have a viable combat aircraft they could have on their amphibious carriers, but they would also lack the QE's which are going to be a viable forward platform for the USMC to operate from. It means they dont have to be dependent on the US Navy and their availability (increasing unavailablity) of flattops to operate. There is also the side argument made by the RN, that its actually more financially viable to train crews to land via a B, than it is to retain currency of landing via a C model. And the C model is increasingly unattractive, not least because you cannot operate them currently from the 3 Ford Class carriers that are coming online, whereas of course you can operate a B model on any American (sans ford) or British, or French or Spanish carrier in the inventory. I dont personally think the disadvantages are that great compared to the advantages, particularly as the USMC has an ambition to use its LPH's as their own carriers, in the same way they used them as Harrier carriers in the Iraq war. That is a serious force multiplier, and I dont think enough is made of it.

 

I dont disagree as it happens, that a STOVL aircraft could have been designed seperately. But for us we missed the boat to do just that in the 1980's when we canned advanced Harrier, and I dont think there was enough orders offing for the USMC to carry the can with just the Brits pending other nations interest. Ironically I think today the case is far stronger, particularly with the Japanese seemingly interested in a STOVL fighter for their carriers. F35 was probably the wrong choice, but I think ultimately its working out. Last I read it had better availablity than the A or the C, which takes some understanding.

3 I got this off Wikipedia, make of it what you will.https://web.archive....ack-to-amphibs/


  • 0

#149 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,803 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 1047 AM

1 Overpriced in large part because Clinton cancelled it as a cost saving, then they found over a decade later on there wasnt anything that could replace it, and started up the procurement again. Nothing is going to be cheap again after that. Though yes, they should have bought EH101. NIH.

2 The performance of the F35B is identical as best I can tell to the A model, the only exception being range and pulling 1.5G less.With the US military having tankers coming out of its ears (and I suspect it would be viable to carry a buddy pack), this doesnt seem to be the problem it once was.  As for G performance, if a F35B pilot its dogfighting like Maverick, clearly something has gone very badly wrong. That said, you can work with 7.5 G, after all that was the G limit of the F14.

Everyone seems to think the B model is a warmed over Harrier. It just isnt.

3 Cant comment on the America class, other than I read that only 2 of the class have this problem. The rest will have the restored well deck.

 

The F-35B drastically impacted the performance of the other variants and the costs of the total program. All so a dozen aircraft can take off from a landing platform when there is absolutely no shortage of space on any of the actual carriers. If I were in charge, the Marines would be told to pound sand and fly the 35C off CVs. Yes, the B version is useful for US allies, but the US shouldn't have based its single largest procurement program on our allies.
 

I've no gripe with the America class. It still can perform as a landing craft and as long as the F-35B is a sunk cost, we might as well get some mileage out of it.


Edited by Josh, 04 June 2020 - 1054 AM.

  • 0

#150 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,803 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 1052 AM

 

 

 

 

The concept of Marines restructuring themselves to set up ineffectual fire bases in the Pacific is damn stupid, however. By all means, talk it out and prove me wrong.

 
Agreed!
I don't know, ship to land, is a necessary skill to possess. At the very basic level, how many hours do US Army soldiers spend training at the beach in the muddy sand and waves compared to USMC? Or how many hours do US Army soldries train in mock up fuselage that's dunked into a pool in order to practice getting out of a crashed vehicle at sea? This stuff may sound primative but surely would make a big difference.
Also, I don't quite get the arguments that say "amphib assualts like during the Pacific War are no longer needed so no more need for AAV7s or successors to them".

Not sure that was the takeaway, did you read the earlier messages? I dont think anyone is advocating for less ship to shore capability, but it doesnt make sense to garrison marines on an island to babysit land based harpoon / tomahawk launchers. I mean other than posturing what does that accomplish that the ship or submarine based harpoon / tomahawk launchers (presumably on the ships that carried them there) cannot? At least they can move, in the opening stages of any conflict with China those islands are not going to be a good place to be for anyone involved.

It's all rock scissors papers sort of thing I think. Everything has a counter and limited sphere of application. But the more different things one has, the harder it would be to have weaknesses exploited and the greater the degree of unpredictability there is. If everything is just surface ships, subs, and MPA, then ways of being used is predicatable. Being able to deploy land based anti-ship missiles that can be moved all over the place increases unpredictability.

 

 

Unpredictability shouldn't come at the cost of wasting resources ineffectually. If more anti shipping missiles are needed, make a ship to fire them and cut out the middle man of delivering marines to a shore. Take one of the larger commercial trimarans and put a bunch of Mk41s on it with a short ranged 3D radar and a SeaRAM. Keep it at sea and keep it moving where it isn't an obvious target. Now you don't have to undertake needlessly risk landing operations.


  • 0

#151 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,429 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 1216 PM

 

1 Overpriced in large part because Clinton cancelled it as a cost saving, then they found over a decade later on there wasnt anything that could replace it, and started up the procurement again. Nothing is going to be cheap again after that. Though yes, they should have bought EH101. NIH.

2 The performance of the F35B is identical as best I can tell to the A model, the only exception being range and pulling 1.5G less.With the US military having tankers coming out of its ears (and I suspect it would be viable to carry a buddy pack), this doesnt seem to be the problem it once was.  As for G performance, if a F35B pilot its dogfighting like Maverick, clearly something has gone very badly wrong. That said, you can work with 7.5 G, after all that was the G limit of the F14.

Everyone seems to think the B model is a warmed over Harrier. It just isnt.

3 Cant comment on the America class, other than I read that only 2 of the class have this problem. The rest will have the restored well deck.

 

The F-35B drastically impacted the performance of the other variants and the costs of the total program. All so a dozen aircraft can take off from a landing platform when there is absolutely no shortage of space on any of the actual carriers. If I were in charge, the Marines would be told to pound sand and fly the 35C off CVs. Yes, the B version is useful for US allies, but the US shouldn't have based its single largest procurement program on our allies.
 

I've no gripe with the America class. It still can perform as a landing craft and as long as the F-35B is a sunk cost, we might as well get some mileage out of it.

 

Its not that there is shortage of space on the carriers, its that there is a shortage of carriers. Ultimately if that is the case, the USMC is going to get more deck from using the QE's, Japan and Europes helicopter carriers, than it will from conventionally equipped carriers, such as the Charles De Gaulle or the Indian carriers. its for that reason the USMC have been trying to use their LPH as ersatz carriers, there isnt enough to go around anymore. Even fewer perhaps now the Fords seem to have had their procurement trimmed.


  • 0

#152 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,296 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 1237 PM

The entire plan is starting to sound like a response to an order to come up with a doctrine that refocuses the raison d'etre for future USMC funding, and its existence itself, on Obama's pivot to the SCS.

 

Based on how far up the bureaucracy it would need to travel, the emergence of it a few years after the fact sounds about right.


  • 0

#153 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,803 posts

Posted 04 June 2020 - 2144 PM


 


1 Overpriced in large part because Clinton cancelled it as a cost saving, then they found over a decade later on there wasnt anything that could replace it, and started up the procurement again. Nothing is going to be cheap again after that. Though yes, they should have bought EH101. NIH.
2 The performance of the F35B is identical as best I can tell to the A model, the only exception being range and pulling 1.5G less.With the US military having tankers coming out of its ears (and I suspect it would be viable to carry a buddy pack), this doesnt seem to be the problem it once was.  As for G performance, if a F35B pilot its dogfighting like Maverick, clearly something has gone very badly wrong. That said, you can work with 7.5 G, after all that was the G limit of the F14.
Everyone seems to think the B model is a warmed over Harrier. It just isnt.
3 Cant comment on the America class, other than I read that only 2 of the class have this problem. The rest will have the restored well deck.

 
The F-35B drastically impacted the performance of the other variants and the costs of the total program. All so a dozen aircraft can take off from a landing platform when there is absolutely no shortage of space on any of the actual carriers. If I were in charge, the Marines would be told to pound sand and fly the 35C off CVs. Yes, the B version is useful for US allies, but the US shouldn't have based its single largest procurement program on our allies.
 
I've no gripe with the America class. It still can perform as a landing craft and as long as the F-35B is a sunk cost, we might as well get some mileage out of it.
 
Its not that there is shortage of space on the carriers, its that there is a shortage of carriers. Ultimately if that is the case, the USMC is going to get more deck from using the QE's, Japan and Europes helicopter carriers, than it will from conventionally equipped carriers, such as the Charles De Gaulle or the Indian carriers. its for that reason the USMC have been trying to use their LPH as ersatz carriers, there isnt enough to go around anymore. Even fewer perhaps now the Fords seem to have had their procurement trimmed.

When have marines ever operated outside the range of land based or CATOBAR aircraft? How useful is the half dozen fighters of a typical MEU? A lot of coin was spent just so marines could have a pair of attack planes in the air at any given moment.
  • 0

#154 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,429 posts

Posted Yesterday, 01:54 AM

 

 

 

1 Overpriced in large part because Clinton cancelled it as a cost saving, then they found over a decade later on there wasnt anything that could replace it, and started up the procurement again. Nothing is going to be cheap again after that. Though yes, they should have bought EH101. NIH.
2 The performance of the F35B is identical as best I can tell to the A model, the only exception being range and pulling 1.5G less.With the US military having tankers coming out of its ears (and I suspect it would be viable to carry a buddy pack), this doesnt seem to be the problem it once was.  As for G performance, if a F35B pilot its dogfighting like Maverick, clearly something has gone very badly wrong. That said, you can work with 7.5 G, after all that was the G limit of the F14.
Everyone seems to think the B model is a warmed over Harrier. It just isnt.
3 Cant comment on the America class, other than I read that only 2 of the class have this problem. The rest will have the restored well deck.

 
The F-35B drastically impacted the performance of the other variants and the costs of the total program. All so a dozen aircraft can take off from a landing platform when there is absolutely no shortage of space on any of the actual carriers. If I were in charge, the Marines would be told to pound sand and fly the 35C off CVs. Yes, the B version is useful for US allies, but the US shouldn't have based its single largest procurement program on our allies.
 
I've no gripe with the America class. It still can perform as a landing craft and as long as the F-35B is a sunk cost, we might as well get some mileage out of it.
 
Its not that there is shortage of space on the carriers, its that there is a shortage of carriers. Ultimately if that is the case, the USMC is going to get more deck from using the QE's, Japan and Europes helicopter carriers, than it will from conventionally equipped carriers, such as the Charles De Gaulle or the Indian carriers. its for that reason the USMC have been trying to use their LPH as ersatz carriers, there isnt enough to go around anymore. Even fewer perhaps now the Fords seem to have had their procurement trimmed.

When have marines ever operated outside the range of land based or CATOBAR aircraft? How useful is the half dozen fighters of a typical MEU? A lot of coin was spent just so marines could have a pair of attack planes in the air at any given moment.

 

You are missing the capablities of some of the new LPH's. In Iraq, they removed all the helicopters from them and were using them as Mini Carriers. Just like the Invincible class in the Falklands, they could take 20 plus Harriers. They can take a similar number of F35B's as well. 20 F35B's is not the kind of threat that can be sneezed at, whether you are Iran or even the PRC. In an era when the US has more threats than carrier decks, its VSTOL is becoming of increasing importance.

 

Well its the old argument I had with Chris, is it better to operate at the end of a tanker to the target, or better to have them on hand on a carrier deck with a tanker. I think personally the latter, if only because of airframe and pilot fatigue, you are going to get a better sortie rate, at least as long as the ammunition lasts. As far as CATOBAR, yes in theory those large carriers are far more effective. But ive pointed before to the diminishing number of capabilities on the average US Carrier deck. 30 years ago you had electronic, awacs, tankers, fighters, interceptors and antisubmarine. Today you just have fighters, electronics and Awacs. I suspect 20 years from now you are just going to have fighters. Its not enough to justify 100000 tons of real estate, which may be why the Ford class seem to be having their procurement trimmed.

 

The F35B in is a LOT more than just an attack aircraft. The onboard sensors make it practically an RC135 for starters. In fact, I believe the USAF are withdrawing JSTARS at least in part because of the F35A. There is only two ways its not as effective as F35C. One of them is range, and with tankers I think that may be a moot point. And the other is G load, and I suspect with the dogfight missiles we have now, its increasingly irrelevant.

 

 

Just a personal view anyway FWIW.


  • 0

#155 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,803 posts

Posted Yesterday, 09:05 AM

In Iraq, did those aircraft actually bomb anything? If so, what was their sortie rate? Could they have been replaced by a squadron based on the CV two miles away? Or by land based air out of Al Udied?

 

The F-35 *is* a lot more than an attack aircraft. But inside an MEU, about the only role it has is as a CAS aircraft. The STOVL requirement was a complete waste of resources.


  • 0

#156 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,803 posts

Posted Yesterday, 09:17 AM

Back to the topic at hand - if the USMC really wants to this, here's how it should be done with existing equipment. Use LCACs and helos only. LCUs, and any other landing craft they intend to buy, are too slow and too large of a target. Heavy equipment on the LCACs, lighter stuff on the 53's, personnel in MV-22s. The entire force must be delivered in one LCAC lift, plus helos (these can probably do a couple shuttle runs in the time LCACs can land). Use the new forward base ships to supply additional LCACs as attrition replacements, as well as basing additional heavy ground equipment spares. Keep these ships well back from the regular MEU but within LCAC ferry range. For offensive weapons, use HIMARS. Spend the money on an antiship variant of PrSM; the Army has already done most of the leg work. It is faster, longer ranged, and backwards compatible with existing artillery units. Don't drop all tanks and howitzers, simply re balance Pacific theater MEUs to emphasize shoot and scoot rocket artillery missions. Provide some kind of short to medium range air defense; buy SHORADs directly off the army and some kind SLAMRAAM mounted on hummer using the existing GATOR radars as fire control.

 

I still don't think the idea has much merit, but if you do it my way you use existing infrastructure, reduce the exposure time of the landing force, and increase total effective range all while sacrificing minimal overall USMC capability.

 

ETA: you also gain the capability to bombard opponent islands within 500 clicks.


Edited by Josh, Yesterday, 09:27 AM.

  • 0

#157 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,429 posts

Posted Yesterday, 10:27 AM

In Iraq, did those aircraft actually bomb anything? If so, what was their sortie rate? Could they have been replaced by a squadron based on the CV two miles away? Or by land based air out of Al Udied?

 

The F-35 *is* a lot more than an attack aircraft. But inside an MEU, about the only role it has is as a CAS aircraft. The STOVL requirement was a complete waste of resources.

They werent just bombing in Iraq, they were using tanker aircraft (including some British tanker units I gather) to bomb in Afghanistan too!

https://www.amazon.c...91370706&sr=8-3

Ill grant you in second Iraq they subsequently deployed ashore to get a higher sortie rate (and there was a Marine Detachment at Bagram IIRC). But they still had the floating workshop off shore if they needed it.

 

Well, we will respectfully beg to differ I guess. :)


  • 0

#158 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,803 posts

Posted Today, 04:58 AM

https://breakingdefe...unt-ships-sams/
  • 0

#159 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,429 posts

Posted Today, 05:22 AM

Whats the betting this is going to get hung up in the great game of 'No, thats MY mission!' :)


  • 0