Thanks for the article Conrad.
via Aviation Week
Why?
Because the F-35 is doing more than simply wrecking the Marine Corps budget. Its also taking Marine Air further away from its primary mission of supporting the grunt on the ground. The F-35 could actually become a game changer, just not in the way intended. That airplane could actually be the end of close air support in the manner in which Marines have enjoyed it for over 100 years. Instead of prompt and enthusiastic support from the "wing" we could instead be stuck with brand new aircraft that perform at a lower level than the airplanes they replace.
The A-10C (which the USAF just refurbished) could be a safeguard against that. That's why I like Sweetman's idea (shared by many...he just "formalized" it).
Sidenote: One additional thing. The mess that is the F-35B has caused not only financial problems for the USMC but has had a knock on effect of throwing procurement into a tailspin. When the EFV was canned it was with the idea that a new vehicle would quickly be procured. That effort has waned. The only thing that has been on track is the MV-22 buy (which has been accelerated) but other important decisions have been shelved...the MPC, ACV, JLTV...and others are all taking a backseat to the F-35.
via Aviation Week
Since the summer, the case for buying 340 F-35Bs for the Marines has been weakened by the service's admission that only 10% of operations will use the heavy, expensive short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing kit. What that implies is that the F-35B will only do Stovl when it is part of small detachments on amphibious-warfare ships; 100 F-35Bs would be more than enough for that.Read it here, but despite the "dig" about the Navy's Army's Air Force, I'm leaning in Sweetman's direction.
So what replaces the majority, expeditionary land-based piece of Marine air, now equipped with aging Hornets? The Marines are all about close air support (CAS). They want to operate from runways that are shorter and rougher than most fighters need. Wouldn't it be great if someone had a force of around 200 dedicated CAS aircraft they were trying to divest?
They do and they are. They're called A-10s (AW&ST Dec. 9, p. 15) and transferring them to the Marines would do more than create a durable, focused force to provide CAS, not just for the Marines but for the Army and special operations forces. It would give the Navy's army's air force a mission.
Why?
Because the F-35 is doing more than simply wrecking the Marine Corps budget. Its also taking Marine Air further away from its primary mission of supporting the grunt on the ground. The F-35 could actually become a game changer, just not in the way intended. That airplane could actually be the end of close air support in the manner in which Marines have enjoyed it for over 100 years. Instead of prompt and enthusiastic support from the "wing" we could instead be stuck with brand new aircraft that perform at a lower level than the airplanes they replace.
The A-10C (which the USAF just refurbished) could be a safeguard against that. That's why I like Sweetman's idea (shared by many...he just "formalized" it).
Sidenote: One additional thing. The mess that is the F-35B has caused not only financial problems for the USMC but has had a knock on effect of throwing procurement into a tailspin. When the EFV was canned it was with the idea that a new vehicle would quickly be procured. That effort has waned. The only thing that has been on track is the MV-22 buy (which has been accelerated) but other important decisions have been shelved...the MPC, ACV, JLTV...and others are all taking a backseat to the F-35.
Pretty sure you should change the name of your blog to f35 death blogspot.... Come on mate get back to the other stuff we all enjoy reading on your blog...
ReplyDeletename the biggest thing going on in the Marine Corps today. i can only find two. Amos pushing women into the infantry (and females passing a watered down infantry school...i can prove it but the innocent will remain unnamed) and the F-35. nothing else is going on. ACV? no decision. MPC? canceled. current missions? Afghanistan is winding down for Marines, the movements in Africa are a show. propaganda photos from the Corps? even those aren't catching my attention and look more and more staged instead of showing guys doing real training.
Deleteso when the action picks up on any front i'll be all over it like a tick on a dog but nothing else is happening military news wise and females in the infantry don't interest me so its F-35 news.
I have to totally agree here. I love the A-10 but its just not adequate for medium to high threat environment amphibious landings. USMC needs something that can kill a jet. The A-10 was designed with a grass runway in mind not a wasp class where there is a real limitation on space and aircraft, there's only room for 3-6 fixed wings they can not be watered down. Removing the air-to-air capability calls the survivability/feasibility of the entire amphibious fleet into question.
DeleteTrading a 190 million dollar aircraft that you're actually getting for a 15 million dollar aircraft that you're not actually getting in an environment where capabilities need to go up instead of down is the mindset of poverty to the point of delirium.
Some one please park an MPC in these folks driveway so the blog can return to a balanced perspective. Because nothing makes sense and nothing is right in the world until the USMC replaces 1/8 of its armored component's vehicles with something marginally better thereby better protecting 2.5% of the USMC never mind the rest of it or the sailors on the ships.
In what world does a A-10 on a LHA beat even a ratty old harrier let alone a F-35. Im really glad the commanders can see though the pundits, or we may find the pundits fussing about something of grave proportions.
I dont know a Combat Arm Marine who doesnt want the A-10. The one thing most Marine Jtac's will tell you we dont like about A-10's, and nothing against the pilot themselves, is that they are Piloted by the Air Force. Put some Marine Pilots in the Hog, and It would be to us anyways perfect.
ReplyDeleteDrop some F-35B's for these bad boys, lets the Air Force get a few more A's and i think we would benefit greatly from it
That makes sense... Until you realize the the entire F-35 line is built around compromises needed for the STOVL model. Reducing F-35B models would likely increase F-35B costs, while retroactively making the JSF program seem even less sensible. Allowing the USAF to order more A models might reduce the costs for that model, though, possibly helping foreign sales.
Deletewhen i say some i really mean all. Upgrade the F-18's to either Ultra or get the C version and drop the B line. The A-10 will add more to what we need in CAS, that the AV-8 has shortfalls in.
Deletewhat surprises me more than anything else is the talk about the shortcomings in the AV-8B operations. well sort of. we all have to remember that its an old airplane that hasn't had engine upgrades and its had all kinds of extra bits added to it. so its payload would suffer as would its range, performance etc.
DeleteSol, im not hating on the bird im just saying facts.
DeleteIts old, hasnt had upgrades, has alot of extras bolted on, and the pilots who fly it do a amazing job with that.
Just imagine if they had A-10's? do some work so it can fly and operate off a Amphib. and you have a CAS player with a long Time on Station, large payload, has already upgraded its pod to a Sniper/Lighting IV.
People get wrapped around the gun sometimes on the A-10 (the harrier mounts a 25mm thats impressive) but really its its Time on Station, ability to hang around with large amounts of Ordnance, and its upgraded pod that has me.
I think for the CAS missions the Marines should continue with the F-18 linage, in this case with the Super Hornets.
ReplyDeleteThey can also take off and landing in short runways or improvised airfields, they can carry a lot of bombs, rockets and AG missiles keeping it's grate maneuverability, wih two engines and two pilots, aesa radar, acting as growlers they can also jam the enemy comunications to impeach them to detonate bombs or coordinate attacks, it also can use it's 20mm cannon with great presition, and in the case of a major war against a serious enemy with advanced air defences or remaining fighters it has a lot of electronic countermeasures and missiles for BVR and dogfight allowing it to remain close to the action during the initial combat operations protecting the groumd forces and can even return to base after being impacted by a manpad. The only disadvantage against the A-10 is its level of protection against AAA but thanks to its great maneuverability and sensores it can avoided better than an F-35
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYGM-aB1Luc&feature=youtube_gdata_player
www.youtube.com/watch?v=42wmLrU21Bw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
The Rolls-Royce LiftSystem® on the F-35B comprises the Rolls-Royce LiftFan®, Driveshaft, 3 Bearing Swivel Module (3BSM) and Roll Posts.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rolls-royce.com/defence/products/combat_jets/rr_liftsystem.jsp
The Liftsystem of course takes up space and adds weight in the aircraft, resulting in a smaller internal weapon bay and less internal fuel capacity than the F-35A. It also adds cost. The LM/R-R contracts in low rate initial production carry an average cost of about $25 million (the contract unit costs varying widely).
contract values in millions of dollars
Lot 3 $171 / 9 = $19m ea
Lot 4 $315 / 17 = $18m ea
Lot 5 $195.5 / 3 = $65m ea
Lot 6 $215 / 6 = $35m ea
An A-10 cannot land and take off from a carrier /LHD, but an OV-10 could.
ReplyDeleteAll it takes is an upgrade and mod for the landing gear and oh yes.....a tailhook.
DeleteThat beast could probably launch without a Cat shot and land slow and easy enough to catch the three wire.
It wouldnt fit without massive modifications to either platform or carrier. The wingspan is just too big for carrier ops
DeleteA fully navalized A-10 would require rebuilding the wings to fold. If you can live without folding wings, a basic tailhook and tow bar would be simple to add, given the strength of the aircraft's frame.
DeleteAlso, they once landed a C-130 on USS Forrestal, just to prove they could.
from War On The Rocks is an article by a MC captain discussing the MC budget, including procurement.
ReplyDeleteexcerpt:
....The massive amount of money necessary to fund the F-35B, however, will force the Marine Corps to assume risk when it comes to other aerial enablers that it depends on, like rotary and fixed wing transport aircraft. Additionally, the F-35B falls on the Navy’s tab and the Navy will probably have less enthusiasm for supporting the program than HQMC. As vital as air support is to the way Marine units operate, the F-35B may be too large of an investment.
http://warontherocks.com/2013/12/view-from-the-cheap-seats-the-usmc-and-the-budget-battle/
The Navy budgets MC procurement but not operations, is that how it works? (The author doesn't say.) And if so, within what restraints from Navy for procurement?
news report:
ReplyDeleteNavy to Work with Army on Next Generation Helicopter Program
How about Marines working with Army on A-10? Isn't it good for both?
I got booted for heresy from a mil blog once for daring to state, Give the Marines and Army Aviation those A-10 flying tanks.
ReplyDeleteI say again, if the Air Force is not going to do close air support then hand the A-10 to those who will.
Not ro much difference...
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=jJoY5V0O7jU&feature=youtube_gdata_player
www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1guVRnkSi8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
From a practical point of view you have a problem. One of the advantages of the A-10 is its large wingspan. This is a problem for carrier operations, elevators, deckspace, hanger storage etc.
ReplyDeleteA-10 wingspan is 17meters. F-35 is only 10 or so which you have to believe is spec'd with carrier ops in mind.
F-18 is less and has folding wingtips.
Put simply, it wont fit!
Doesnt matter how good an idea you think it is, it wont work.
The USMC could rebuild a squadron of A-10s with folding wings for the cost of one JSF.
DeleteThat's hilarious. USMC operates a primarily fast jet force today for CAS, but somehow the introduction of a new fast jet (regardless of type) to replace these old, busted jets will lead to the death of CAS for the USMC?
ReplyDeleteHonestly Sol, you've lost your sh*t. Start breathing and scanning brother! You've got tunnel-vision of the worse sort I've encountered lately. Listen to the good Staff Sgt Mac for a change instead of the ELP / APA / Sweetman brigade, just for a CHANGE mate.
See how it looks from a different perspective.
JJS.
The ridiculousness of your position is that if USMC were buying Gripen instead of JSF, you'd be praising it to the high heavens, regardless of the fact that the Gripen isn't better at CAS in ANY aspect than JSF will be.
DeleteEXCUSE ME? how the fuck are you gonna come on MY blog, talk shit...tell me "you've lost your shit" then have the balls to call me brother.
Deletei'm not. i wouldn't punch my brother, but i'd knock the fuck out of you.
my perspective is clear you son of a bitch.
WE'RE ABOUT TO TOSS MANY GREAT MARINES OUT ON THERE ASS to pay for this fucked up jet.
WE'RE ABOUT TO PUT WEAK ASS FEMALES IN THE INFANTRY so that the Marine Corps can be as shit sorry as every other organization in the US.
so yeah. i'm focusing on the one program and the leadership behind it so that MY MARINE CORPS can return to greatness.
fuck you. fuck your family. eat shit and die bitch.
I DON'T KNOW YOU, DON'T WANT TO KNOW YOU AND IF YOU GOT MICRO FRAGMENTED BEFORE MY EYES ALL I'D DO IS WIPE YOUR GUTS OFF MY FACE AND RAISE A TALL GLASS TO THE BASTARD THAT DID YOU.
THE STUPIDITY OF YOUR POSITION JASON IS THAT THIS PROGRAM CAN CONTINUE FOR ANOTHER 10 years and you still would find no fault in it.
Deletespend enough money and you can make a tractor trailer fly. well it seems that this airplane has cost enough and has delivered squat.
nothing. nada.
yet you want to think that you can read into my words instead of simply listening to what i'm saying.
if the plane cost what was projected. delivered what was projected. and served well then i'd be all for it.
instead we have this plane wrecking our budget, costing Marines careers and basically delivering what we already have in service just with a bit more stealth. want to see me cheer? cancel this fucked up monstrosity and have the Marine Corps fly Super Hornets.
i am SO FUCKING SICK of the lockheed martin mafia, mixed with the AMOS ASS KISSERS coming on my blog. don't like it? go somewhere else. but if you do come here, then consider this your warning. nothing is gonna change and my patience is done. you're getting all three barrels from here on out.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThe latest USAF Proposed F-35A Altitude Distribution has it at two percent below a thousand feet (and 80% above 23,000 MSL) because it sucks at CAS. But it was supposed to do everything including CAS!
ReplyDeleteThe USAF, in the recent EIS:
The F-35A is intended to be the Air Force’s premier air-to-ground strike fighter aircraft through the next several decades. The F-35A specifications require it to be more effective than existing F-16 and A-10 fighter attack aircraft in air-to-ground combat, suppression/destruction of enemy air defenses, reconnaissance, air-to-air combat, and have better range while requiring less logistics support.
But that's not what Admiral Winnefeld said:
"Is the F-35 going to be as good a close-air support platform as an A-10? I don't think anybody believes that," he said, "But is the A-10 going to be the air-to-air platform that the F-35 is going to be? So again, the Air Force is trying to get as much multimission capability into the limited number of platforms it's going to have."
While Air Force fighter aircraft are the most advanced in the world, some critics have said the need for an aircraft that can outfight near-peer rivals seems a bit over the horizon. But Winnefeld said the issue is not so clear-cut.
"It could be that those who think there's never going to be an air-to-air engagement ever again in the history of the world could be wrong," Winnefeld said. "It could be those who believe that the close-air support role of the A-10 is absolutely paramount could be wrong, as well."
http://www.armytimes.com/artic...
a better link
Deletehttp://www.armytimes.com/article/20120130/NEWS/201300303/
The golden days of CAS, i.e. desert storm are coming to an end, IFVs and other military vehicles fitted with large cannons (30mm+), complete with laser range finders and other electronic mechanisms to assist firing are becoming increasing prevelant. In otherwords the vehicles the A10 is supposed to kill with the cannon are gaining the ability to shoot back, sometimes with much larger guns! And how many such vehicles armed with 30/40mm+ cannons at say 1.5M ea must a modern A10 destroy before it breaks even?
ReplyDeleteFurthermore ADS systems like LEDS150 which has won a contract to be fitted on I believe all Indian T90s (and can defeat upto 12 atgms) make missile based CAS also difficult, but at least they aren't shooting back at this range. Perhaps given the emergence of such cannonry which makes missile based CAS more favourable, the A10 and harrier roles should be merged, and a slightly smaller gattling gun (bigger than 25mm) with slightly less ammunition should be used?
It could also serve the army in CAS and support for the faster tiltrotor aircrafts!
Most CAS today uses missiles or guided-bombs, which easily outrange any guns.
DeleteFurthermore, ADS on tanks are designed to defeat light ATGMs fired from IFVs and trucks.
- Hellfires (which Apaches and Cobras carry) have far more capable warheads than any tube-launched ATGM.
- Mavericks, which A-10s carry, have even bigger warheads, to the degree that even a "defeat" by an ADS would render the tank a mission kill. Also, they come in IR guided flavors.
- Guided bombs have a standoff of miles from high altitude, and the warhead to crush any tank.
The beauty of the A-10 is really it's loiter time and low cost of operation.
ADS systems are something that crews are already training on defeating, most are base of laser detection, You offset laser and bring onto target roughly 5/10 secs before impact.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of ADS, with more versions of these coming on line, and most needing laser detection, we could see a comeback of EO guided missiles, or a larger use of LJDAMS. Almost all AGM-114's and AGM-65's carried by the Marine corps are Laser guided, something to think about.(a conversation could be made about acquiring brimstone for the marine corps)
Also your comment on "golden" days of cas being gone i think is in error, if anything it’s just getting started; the introductions of A/C pods(ATFLIR, SNIPER, LIGHTNING), lightweight ground base lasers (JTAC LTD), lightweight video downlink capabilities, and with JTAC's/JFO's being seen for their importance on the battlefield(Marine corps is slowly understanding this) CAS is becoming more efficient and accurate .
While IFV's are being fitted with larger cannons they still have to track a moving A/C. most are going about 8nm's in a min, not something you simply do in a manned turret, even a RWS has trouble. Now certain vehicles like the S26, and ZSU-23-4 being radar equipped (Prowlers, Growlers help solve this) have that capability but your BTR90's are going to have a lot of trouble tracking a A-10 and a even harder time on a AV-8B. (RW CAS, they have to worry but that’s why we have LOAL capabilities) my second point being a Gun run isn’t something you lead off, its the icing on the cake when you’re out of PGM's and left with Guns and Rkts. You sort your high threat / high payoff targets for a reason. That’s why most A-10's have more kills against armor vehicles with AGM-65's, GBU's and CBU than gun, and it's capability to carry a lot of ord and fuel is what makes it a player in CAS, not its Gun.