Marine Aviation has no Other Option but Wait for JSF

Defense Update ^ | 03/01/2010 | Defense Update

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps are running out of fighters. Heavy wear and tear over nearly a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan has depleted the two services’ combined fighter force. Purchases of new planes have been delayed by controversial planning decisions. As a result, U.S. maritime forces operate at elevated risk. Robotic systems could help mitigate this risk, but the Navy has resisted adopting pilot-less aircraft.The U.S. Navy also has shortage of fighters, primarily F/A-18C/Ds. Together, both services are currently short by around 50 aircraft, but this so-called “fighter gap” could deepen to an estimated 125 aircraft by 2017 before the new Lockheed Martin F-35 enters service in large numbers. The naval fighter gap first appeared around 2006, when the Marines decommissioned two fighter squadrons flying F/A-18D and AV-8B, owing to unexpected fatigue issues.

[valkyry1]

Yes UCAVs are the way of the future, bur sentient AI?

Nothing based in silicon chips, CPU’s, integrated circuits and software could ever achieve sentience. Its a contradiction of terms, an oxymoron.

Nice flight of fancy though, well written.

[A.A. Cunningham]

That should be the choice.

That would be a foolish choice since it cannot operate from the deck of a CVN or LHA/LHD.

[A.A. Cunningham]

But the Marines want SVTOL(sic)

STOVL

[magslinger]

SONOBUOY PING!

Click on pic for past Navair pings.

Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.

[freedumb2003]

>>That would be a foolish choice since it cannot operate from the deck of a CVN or LHA/LHD. <<

Yet.

;)

[Yo-Yo]

Take the F-22 Light! That should be the choice.

The Marines don't want stealth. They don't want air superiority. The Marines want vertcial operation to replace their AV-8Bs. If it must come wrapped in a semi-stealth package, they'll take it.

After all the work done on the F-35B, it would both be stupid to try to start over with a vertical lift F-22 derivative, and the F-22's footprint is too big to fit on the types of ships the Harrier II operates from.

The F-35B will get built, and will end up costing $300 million apiece when R&D is factored in, due to the low volume of F-35s that will end up being built.

[Starwolf]

F-22 is fundamentally inadequate for naval use. Minimal strike capability and totally unable to operate from a carrier.

[Starwolf]

X-47 is a deep strike and ISP platform, when its finally ready. There remains some serious issues with it operating with manned aircraft. Its got lots of potential, but its no where near ready.

[DesScorp]

"Yes it is, but the Marines don't want a fighter per se, they want an attack aircraft to support the Marines on ground. Air Superiority is a Navy and Air Force job."

More specifically, their job is Close Air Support... which is why the JSF is such a stupid buy for the Marines. It's a $100+ million apiece stealth strike aircraft. It's just a further expensive expansion of the Marines into areas outside their core mission. What they really need is something like new-build OV-10 Broncos strapped with hellfires and rocket pods.

[Right Winged American]

The problem with the X-47 and other current and planned UCAV's:

• None of them are supersonic, nor do their current performance characteristics make them useful for the primary fleet defense role. They would be completely useless in a supersonic sea-skimmer anti-ship swarm scenario.
• To be useful in a anti-aircraft role, wouldn't it be cheaper to build longer-ranged, more capable anti-air missile?

Since losing the F-14 and the AIM-54C, designed to defend from Bomber-streams launching anti-ship weapons, the Navy began to rely on the the short-legged F/A-18 variants with AIM-120D's for Fleet Defense. Currently, the X-47 cannot support AIM-120's, and to make them capable would cost more than makes sense.

Using X-47 with the F-35B for land-attack purposes makes some sense, but UCAV's for Fleet Defense will take more development time and money than the degradation of the current F/A-18 force will allow, as the article points out.

Further, I've always been unhappy with the reliance on Burke/Tico class ships for Long- and Medium-range Fleet Defense AAW. Besides AEGIS ship's vulnerability to swarm attacks, and the Mk 41's cluster risk of damage, I worry about shooting themselves dry and being unable to reload cells while under way. Let's face it, you can build a LOT of Sunburn or better Anti-Ship, supersonic, sea-skimming missiles for the cost of  a DD or CA.

But that's just my uninformed opinion...

[Right Winged American]

More specifically, their job is Close Air Support... which is why the JSF is such a stupid buy for the Marines. It's a $100+ million apiece stealth strike aircraft. It's just a further expensive expansion of the Marines into areas outside their core mission. What they really need is something like new-build OV-10 Broncos strapped with hellfires and rocket pods.

Or, better yet, a navalized version of the A-10.

Now, THERE's a thought! Can't you just imagine what that'd look like!?! "Go Ugly" could take on a whole new meaning with Marines driving...

Naah, no telling what kind of complete disaster the procurement process would make of that. I mean, look what they did with the A-12.

Sheesh.

[RC one]

I’m looking at the UCAV role beyond fifth generation. I guess, in the mean time, we’ll need to go to war with what we have until we have what we need.

[tallyhoe]

Then they need the A-10 Warthog!

[tanknetter]

The naval fighter gap first appeared around 2006, when the Marines decommissioned two fighter squadrons flying F/A-18D and AV-8B, owing to unexpected fatigue issues.

Bullsh*t.

2006 was also the year that the USN retired the F-14 Tomcat. The Tomcat was supposed to stay in service until 2010, got decommissioned early because of the cost savings involved.

Initial production of the F/A-18E/F series focused too much on the 2-seater "F" variant as the Tomcat replacement. Had the Tomcat stayed in service until this year, the focus would have been on building single-seat "E" variants as replacements for about 1/3 or the F/A-18A/Cs. Those Legacy Bugs that were trapping out would then be rolled off to the Marines and Adversary (VFC-13) squadrons in a more "leisurely" manner to fly land-based for the remainder of their fatigue lives.

[El Gato]

F-35 makes a lot of sense for the Marines, but frankly, I don’t quite get it’s purpose in other services. It’s like it’s trying to do too much at once, like it’s an F-16/F-117/A-10/AV-8 all rolled into one, but without the F-16s dogfighting record, without the F-117s bomb capacity, or the A-10s huge gun.

There are different versions, just like there were of the F-111. Only more so. The Marines, and the Brits at least, want the STOVL version. The other services will want CTOL, with the Navy wanting theirs to be carrier capable. All versions will share many systems and parts, but will be different aircraft. The AF will have the biggest paylond and/or longest range. The Marines the smallest/shortest, with the Navy's in between somewhere. Only the STOVL versions would have the heavy weight penalty of the extra powered lift devices.

But nobody gets the GAU-8. Mores the pity.

[El Gato]

A-12A Canceled.

I worked on the Flying Dorito. We got canceled before Dick Cheney (as SecDef) did for the aircraft.

[El Gato]

What they really need is something like new-build OV-10 Broncos strapped with hellfires and rocket pods.

Or A-10s. I'd bet with minimal mods, the A-10 would be carrier capable. Wing folding might a problem, but maybe not too. It uses the same engines as the S-3. But they'd have add a probe for aerial refueling, since the Navy doesn't do booms, which the A-10 is equipped for. But many aircraft have had that modification when sold to foreign customers. Some have gone the other way when taken into USAF service from a Navy design. Like the F-4.

Unfortunately neither the OV-10 or A-10 is STOVL capable.

[Quix]

Of course the DESTROYER IN CHIEF is just gleeful . . . and dreaming of other treasonous ways to destroy our military.

[Right Winged American]

I understand; but another thing to consider is the current airframe lacks a vertical stabilizer, severely limiting high-g ACM.

I’d have to say that for the fleet CAP role, they’re going to have to start with a clean sheet of paper. That implies anywhere from 7 to 15 years development before it’s ready.

For the Marines, I have to say I like the idea of someone like Grumman taking the Fairchild A-10 and reworking it for Short-Deck carriers. If we had to, I think this is more do-able than going for the UCAV’s.

Besides, the only thing UCAV’s are is a re-useable SLAM, which will take longer to develop, and cost WAY more. Why not build more Tomahawks?