WT Forums

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21488.pdf

Interesting in that the Marines Corps is to reduce to 14 squadrons of 10 aircraft each with 10 squadrons dedicated to CVWs. That leaves 4 Marine Corps along with 3 Navy squadrons(70 aircraft)to provide detachments for the 12 planned ESGs and any other Marine TacAir deployments such as in Japan or in the conflicts of the recent past such as Eastern Europe, Afghanistan and Kuwait.

Apparently, the Marine Corps is eliminating the 7 AV-8B squadrons without replacement. As they now maintain 8 F/A 18A/C, 6 F/A 18D and 7 AV-8B squadrons.


I should also note that the USMC now maintains 4 F/A 18A squadrons in reserve to be replaced by 3 JSF squadrons.


Edited by - rickusn on Jan 31 2004 3:01 PM

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21488.pdf

Interesting in that the Marines Corps is to reduce to 14 squadrons of 10 aircraft each with 10 squadrons dedicated to CVWs. That leaves 4 Marine Corps along with 3 Navy squadrons(70 aircraft)to provide detachments for the 12 planned ESGs and any other Marine TacAir deployments such as in Japan or in the conflicts of the recent past such as Eastern Europe, Afghanistan and Kuwait.

Apparently, the Marine Corps is eliminating the 7 AV-8B squadrons without replacement. As they now maintain 8 F/A 18A/C, 6 F/A 18D and 7 AV-8B squadrons.


[/quote]

When did the British treasury start making decisions for our military? If they want to cut costs somewhere, let it be the Air Force.

Well, BigVette heres the planned retirement of the next four CV(N):

Kitty Hawk 2008 47 years old

Enterprise 2013 52 years old

Kennedy 2018 50 years old

Nimitz 2025 50 years old

Cant see them stretched any further without a mammoth investment for little return. Much better off with new construction of some sort and thats the real discussion. Some warships have been used for 60 years but they werent worked nearly as hard as the USNs. The Ex-US Gearings are still around but they have seen little sea time in the last 10 years and make for port if heavy seas are predicted because hull fatigue becomes a crap shoot. CV(N)s are no exception. The sea is very unforgiving of even the smallest weakness or fault(This I know from personal experience). The rest is my understanding from much reading. Correct me if Im wrong but its what Ive been lead to believe by the experts.

Warships age quickly (I know this also from personal experience). It takes boatloads of money to keep them operationally EFFECTIVE for more than 15 to 20 years much less 60.

AS for SuperHornets in the USMC well the JSF isnt a done deal yet. But the SH limitations are well known. Im sure Sniper could more than adequately fill you in on this. Time tells all things. But it would be a monumental reversal of plans if such a scenario came to pass.

Hi Rick, good to see you're still around bud.

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>

Let me see if I understand it right. The Navy's Carrier Air Wings will have (2) Super Hornet Squadrons, (1) Navy-owned JSF squadron, and (1) Marine-owned JSF squadron under this plan. And the Navy will supply three JSF squadrons to the Marines.

I thing I don't get is the Marine Corps side. How many total squadrons will they have?

I ask becuase in an interview the Marines said:

Question: Could you address how TacAir [tactical aircraft] integration fits into Sea Basing?

General Hagee: Absolutely. I strongly support TacAir integration. I will give an executive summary of what we are doing. Over the next six to seven years, we are going to put one of our F/A-18 squadrons on each one of the big-deck carriers. The Navy is going to send us three of their F/A-18 squadrons. They are still going to be Navy squadrons, but they are going to participate in our unit deployment program. So we are going to be fully integrated. Are we going to lose any squadrons in the Marine Corps? No. We have 14 F/A-18 squadrons right now, and we have seven Harrier squadrons, and that is not going to change.

*

Hagee seems to be suggesting the Marine Corps will still have 21 squadrons. Even if Hagee is including the 3 Navy-owned JSF squadrons the Marines will have at their disposal in that figure, that still leaves around 18 Marine-owned JSF squadrons. Yet, the PDF linked on this thread suggests the Marines will only have 14 Marine-owned JSF squadrons.

How many Marine-owned JSF squadrons will there be?

Also, will the Marine-owned squadrons deploying with CVW's be all STOVL, all CV, or a mix?

Furhter, will the Navy buy three squadrons worth of STOVL JSF's to support the Marines?



Edited by - viperttb on Feb 07 2004 1:10 PM

The USMC will get between 17 and 25 squadrons. Thats between 350 and 609 aircraft. It depends alot on who is doing the figuring, apparently, on the # of aircraft needed. The USN is not going to buy any "B"s the 3 USN squadrons in the USMC UDP rotation will fly "C"s.

What the aircraft mix for the USMC is going to be is still being debated.

I still have not seen any confirmation to BigVettes assertion that F/A18Ds are going aboard carriers. If they are its a close kept secret. I still have not seen it in any of the planning material Ive read.

By the way smaller carriers are not cheaper either in the short run or the long run. For a variety of reasons. Plenty of material out there on this. And has been debated for the last 40 years. No need for me to go into it here.

What do you make of this?
<b>
Air Force Joins the Short-Runway Pack (Posted: Monday, February 09, 2004)
[National Journal, Feb. 7, 2004]

The Air Force, in a turnaround, will follow the lead of the Navy and Marine Corps and buy scores of new-generation Joint Strike Fighters that can take off from short runways. The lack of lengthy airstrips in Afghanistan and Iraq was the clincher. The Air Force had originally planned to buy only the conventional takeoff and landing version of the JSF, which requires long runways, but now it will buy both editions. This embrace of short takeoff and vertical landing planes -- which are otherwise known as STOVLs -- is good news for Lockheed Martin and other JSF contractors. The bad news: All three military services are cutting back on their projected total buys of the fighter-bomber. The contract will still be the largest Pentagon procurement contract ever -- $200 billion to $300 billion -- but the number of planes purchased will be less than the planned 3,000, unless foreign sales offset the U.S. cuts.
</b>


Lack of lengthy airstrips? I think the USAF is getting its arm twisted to bail the F-35B out of the cost trouble coming from low quantity production.

_________________
????

I think you're right Stress.

Politics(as usual) was the deciding factor.

WTF is the USAF gonna do with F-35Bs?

They should ALL just buy the C model if you ask me.

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> The Air Force had originally planned to buy only the conventional takeoff and landing version of the JSF<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

not totaly true. Back when F-35 was still JAST, the AF was planning on buying as many as 3 squadrons worth (perhaps as many as an entire wing)of the STOVL versions for Swedish style emergency off basing capability, just in case. That plan may of course have been scrapped and resurected numerous times since then.

The AF says they cant afford the C in the numbers they want, and for the USMC the C version cant operate off the assault carriers for the organic support the corps wants, so.... 3 versions. But the C will be the top dog of the trio I'm sure, although I wonder what the Vmax differance will be between the C and A version with the shorter wingspan.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> the AF was planning on buying as many as 3 squadrons worth (perhaps as many as an entire wing)of the STOVL versions for Swedish style emergency off basing capability, just in case.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Question for logistics experts out there: What's up with going through all the trouble and expense to make a STOVL just so you can move the base into enemy mortar range, when a suitable long range version can be had cheaper? I also wonder how they keep from FODing engines at these FOLs when we have troubles at the factory even with a vacuum cleaned tarmac? Those Marines must be well trained, protecting the base from attack, protecting the base supply lines, arming & fueling, launching & recovering, FOD walking, troubleshooting & repairing, offensive ground ops, wow. This isn't sarcasm. They must be doing it now with the AV-8. I'm impressed. Maybe it makes more sense for the Swedes, but given the option, even Swedish planners would probably prefer to base their expensive and irreplaceable combat aircraft further from harm.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The AF says they cant afford the C in the numbers they want, and for the USMC the C version can't operate off the assault carriers for the organic support the corps wants, so.... 3 versions. But the C will be the top dog of the trio I'm sure, although I wonder what the Vmax differance will be between the C and A version with the shorter wingspan.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Apparently, no one will get the numbers they want. That is contibuting to the unit cost problem. They are in a mess. It's out of my element, but what if new ships with cat/arrest capability, and all other features the Marines need, can be designed and built for less money than F-35B development (about $6 billion)? Then they could spend less money for producing Marine C models rather than B's. Incidently, the C will be a dandy bomb truck, close to A-6 capability and supersonic when clean (maybe M=1.6 at altitude). Would that be attractive to Leatherneck Aviators? Oh wait, I mean is it "Transformational" enough?

_________________
????

Yes, but stress the USMC would still end up spending most of that 6 billion on F-35C's instead.

And the USN has 8 modern Wasp LHDs that would be rendered far less effective if there is no VTOL fixed wing asset.

Knock the Harrier and F-35B as we may, they can both take off of very small ships.

The Faulklands was stands testament to the fact that the Harrier is a combat effective machine. The F-35B should be better in all respects.

This adventure is going to get mighty interesting by the time the politicians and pentagon are through.



<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Yes, but stress the USMC would still end up spending most of that 6 billion on F-35C's instead.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Do you mean they would have to spend $6 bill on development of Marine modifications to the "C"? The production money earmarked for the "B" should be about $20 billion more (including the Brits). If you buy a similar number of "C's" you would be saving money (they are cheaper).
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
And the USN has 8 modern Wasp LHDs that would be rendered far less effective if there is no VTOL fixed wing asset.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Yeah, that's a problem. I didn't think it all the way through. Maybe just keep the AV-8 going.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Knock the Harrier and F-35B as we may, they can both take off of very small ships.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
They (F-35B's) can land on a small ship but they can't take off with any decent load. Don't you think there's a minimum size ship that you can actually operate from. One with some space for some parts and workshops. The last thing you need is a bunch of hanger queens that can only be removed with a crane.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The Faulklands was stands testament to the fact that the Harrier is a combat effective machine. The F-35B should be better in all respects.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I guess Harriers did OK for what they are in the Falklands. There was impressive aviating on both sides, but I would use the same example as a failure of the Navy V/STOL idea. Several important British ships were sunk from air attack. Were they the Atlantic Conveyor (V/STOL carrier), HMS Sheffield, HMS Sir Galahad? They also got a break because several bombs failed to explode, saving other sinkings. Am I remembering that wrong? None of that would have been probable if they had effective AEW and CAP. The F-35B won't improve on that, and doesn't need to in the Marine role. Those functions (AEW & CAP) need catapults and arresting gear. I don't know what the Brits are thinking but "big decks" rule the waves.

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

To me, with an entirely different wing and chassis for carrier landings, they might as well save their cash and either develop a NATF or even revive the A-12 program, it can't be any worse than the F or V-22 program has been!

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The F-35C looks real good on paper, even as a land based fighter. Look into it, even Air Force types should find it useful. The big wing helps with some performance items. The heavy landing gear and such does add about 1800 lbs of ballast for a land based type, but it is still competitive. It also has the most internal fuel I have ever seen in a tactical fighter (a whopping 19000 lbs is claimed) which can give you an edge. I never heard anyone complain they had too much fuel, or thrust. The F-35C has a lot of both. Try it, you'll like it.

_________________
????

Really no reason the USAF couldn't alter the F-35C by ONLY using lighter landing gear from say the F-35A is there?

My point on the faulklands war is that the British lacking Harriers wouldn't have even been able to go to the party.

Absent real carriers, little carriers are a whole helluva lot better than nothing.

F-35B is supersonic, carries AMRAAM, has a FAR better radar than Blue Vixen(Sea Harrier), and should have somewhat more range.

I don't see how the F-35B couldn't be far better for A2A than the Harrier.

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Really no reason the USAF couldn't alter the F-35C by ONLY using lighter landing gear from say the F-35A is there?

My point on the faulklands war is that the British lacking Harriers wouldn't have even been able to go to the party.

Absent real carriers, little carriers are a whole helluva lot better than nothing.

F-35B is supersonic, carries AMRAAM, has a FAR better radar than Blue Vixen(Sea Harrier), and should have somewhat more range.

I don't see how the F-35B couldn't be far better for A2A than the Harrier.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


Roger that.

_________________
????