What is up with the F-35? Part II

**Versus** · 27 Dec 11,, 22:19

I never believed in the marine version of F-35 since they need a much robust,heavy duty aircraft. F-35 is too delicate for that role. Besides, when the marines are rolling that means that the first hour of next gen war has already passed and I don't know why they would need the stealth at that stage, anyhow. What they need is something similar to the A-10 with vertical take off and landing capability in order to complete the mission. Something sturdy that can deliver a big punch and take the punishment just as well. F-35 is not that kind of aircraft and I really don't know why it was ever taken under consideration for that role.

**NUS** · 28 Dec 11,, 10:44

Originally Posted by Versus

I never believed in the marine version of F-35 since they need a much robust,heavy duty aircraft. F-35 is too delicate for that role. Besides, when the marines are rolling that means that the first hour of next gen war has already passed and I don't know why they would need the stealth at that stage, anyhow. What they need is something similar to the A-10 with vertical take off and landing capability in order to complete the mission. Something sturdy that can deliver a big punch and take the punishment just as well. F-35 is not that kind of aircraft and I really don't know why it was ever taken under consideration for that role.

Good point. However, as far as i know, to use instruments of "the first hour of next gen war" US presidint need a Congress approval. Marines on the other hand can start a fight with minimal political support.
As someone said here before, the main problem with F-35 is politics.

**Versus** · 28 Dec 11,, 12:45

Originally Posted by NUS

Good point. However, as far as i know, to use instruments of "the first hour of next gen war" US presidint need a Congress approval. Marines on the other hand can start a fight with minimal political support.
As someone said here before, the main problem with F-35 is politics.

Well of course that it is political, the whole project was made to be a political thing from the start. The whole JSF program fails on that basis a lot more than it does on pure technical/tactical one. I am not an expert on US military doctrine but I doubt that Marines could be sent to do all things on their own, without the support of other military branches/assets.
From my point of view, and I am by no means an expert on this, wouldn't be a lot easier to assign some Air force Units to the Marines, when they need the strong air support and utilising the assets so that they can be used with maximum effectiveness? The wish that Marines could operate on their own and to have the air force capability when they are not the air force at the first place, is really weird to me. I understand that self reliance is important and that due to specific tasks that marines have they need to be independent but I think that there are limits to that independence and that that limit is reached with the JSF. Simply it can't be done.
What I would like to know is, does the certain antagonism exist between military branches? Cause this whole idea of one aircraft in three variants for three completely different services looks to me as an attempt to satisfy those antagonisms rather than to minimize costs of operations. If this trend continues you would get the Marine version of some thing, for the Air Force with the both land based and naval variants in regular and special ops versions...Mish mash and jack of all trades, master of none type of assets which will than completly mess up the very structure of the armed forces. Let the Marines be the Marines and the Air Force be the Air Force, this is their identity, this is what they are.

Can someone tell me, what would be the JSF cost only if it was developed for the Air Force?

**GrayGhost1975** · 28 Dec 11,, 19:54

The USMC doesn't trust anyone (especially the USAF) to provide CAS. That is why they insist on their own CAS assets. And considering until recently how the A-10 was never a favorite of AF brass, it's hard to blame the MC for having this policy.

**Versus** · 28 Dec 11,, 20:13

Originally Posted by GrayGhost1975

The USMC doesn't trust anyone (especially the USAF) to provide CAS. That is why they insist on their own CAS assets. And considering until recently how the A-10 was never a favorite of AF brass, it's hard to blame the MC for having this policy.

So there is an antagonism than?

**Doktor** · 28 Dec 11,, 20:38

Originally Posted by Versus

So there is an antagonism than?

Since college Go Army, Beat Navy!

**Versus** · 28 Dec 11,, 21:43

Originally Posted by Doktor

Since college Go Army, Beat Navy!

As I thought...It's surreal, almost like the case when you have a family with three kids. One kid wants a pet dog,the other one wants pet kitty and third one wants a pet parrot so parents genetically engineer a pet that is all three things in one. The result was the griffon and kids ran away form it, screaming in horror.

I would like to have the tank that is both the submarine and the strategic bomber that can fire torpedos that are also the cruise missiles and the air to air missiles and it has to be able to go to space. And it needs to be stealthy.

**Doktor** · 28 Dec 11,, 22:02

If I had such parents, I'd be happy with the griffon. The morale? Have 4 kids

**Versus** · 28 Dec 11,, 22:25

Originally Posted by Doktor

If I had such parents, I'd be happy with the griffon. The morale? Have 4 kids

If it was possible to summon the spirit of Kelly Jhonson, I wonder what he would have to say about this type of thinking? Good old days,clear skies,clear minds,clear designs.

**Albany Rifles** · 29 Dec 11,, 23:59

Folks...trust me. I work within the belly of the acquisition beast for DOD. Acquisition decisions don't get to be made in the way you folks are saying. I don't have time to go into it now but will say more later.

**gf0012-aust** · 30 Dec 11,, 01:18

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

Folks...trust me. I work within the belly of the acquisition beast for DOD. Acquisition decisions don't get to be made in the way you folks are saying. .

that makes you and I part of the "brotherhood"

**Versus** · 30 Dec 11,, 23:22

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

Folks...trust me. I work within the belly of the acquisition beast for DOD. Acquisition decisions don't get to be made in the way you folks are saying. I don't have time to go into it now but will say more later.

Of course that it doesn't work that way, that is why things are they way they are now.

**Gun Grape** · 31 Dec 11,, 02:21

Originally Posted by Versus

As I thought...It's surreal, almost like the case when you have a family with three kids. One kid wants a pet dog,the other one wants pet kitty and third one wants a pet parrot so parents genetically engineer a pet that is all three things in one. The result was the griffon and kids ran away form it, screaming in horror.

I would like to have the tank that is both the submarine and the strategic bomber that can fire torpedos that are also the cruise missiles and the air to air missiles and it has to be able to go to space. And it needs to be stealthy.

I hope you people are not taking our bantering about each others service serious.

As for Marines not trusting other people to do CAS for us. As a retired Marine that use to call in CAS missions, let me clear that up.

I don't care if Girl Scout Den 345 is flying the plane. I just want Bombs on deck.

**Jimmy** · 05 Jan 12,, 02:16

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

Okay, then what should the USMC have gotten?

And how did the USMC conduct the operational needs analysis which got it so wrong?

Sorry for the late response, I actually got to go home for the holidays for the first time since 2006 and my Leave balance under 80 for the first time in about as long (hooray ops tempo). But my take on it was well said in the post at the top of p15.

The Marines don't need a stealth fighter for CAS. They need a CAS aircraft. They weren't going to get one in the current political climate. I don't blame them for jumping onto the F-35 bandwagon, it was that or nothing and I agree they needed something.

Nobody has their heads screwed on correctly in this business. Hell, now that OIF/OND is done and OEF is (supposedly) 2 years away from winding down, the USAF has decided to buy Super Tucanos to support the COIN fight. Oh, and they're buying 20 airframes.

**Stitch** · 05 Jan 12,, 17:22

Originally Posted by Jimmy

Nobody has their heads screwed on correctly in this business. Hell, now that OIF/OND is done and OEF is (supposedly) 2 years away from winding down, the USAF has decided to buy Super Tucanos to support the COIN fight. Oh, and they're buying 20 airframes.

Do you mean no engines, either, or just no avionics? I know the avionics are being out-sourced (Elbit Systems), didn't know about the engines.

BTW, I can't believe we're taking a step backward by acquiring a prop-driven a/c for our armed forces, I'd think more A-10C's would be the way to go. Why aren't we buying more Texans instead? We've already got a bunch in service, seems to me commonality of parts & service would be better if we just bought more Texans.