The USMC obsession with VTOLS/VSTOLS

[yetgdhfgh]

The marines dont need aircraft that can do mach 3 for missions like picking off enemy positions.

The Harrier during the Falklands was a jack of all trades Aircraft. It could do those close support missions cause it was slower and it was fast enough to take down the poor Argentinian Airforce.

When you want a aircraft that can do what a A-10 can do but in a smaller package that can take off from small run ways and in the numbers you need to support a quick amphibous landing then clearly the USMC feels its the right craft for the job and clearly it still works for them cause like i said they bought the last of our Harriers back in 2011 and obviously still feel a need for them even with the F-35 coming into service and if shit with Pyongyang blows up and the Marines decide to do another inchon landing then its gonna be pressed into service again cause its basically there and in large numbers with pilots who know what it can do and how best to do it.

[Seranthor]

.

Here you continue to show your uninformed garbage... the A and C are not VSTOL capable, only the B is, but if you were as informed as you think you are, you'd already know that. The rest of your post is unintelligible word salad, gave you a chance and you muffed it. I'm done with you.

[sarahtasher]

What point I'm badly informed about ?

A and C are not capable of being VSTOL. Their airframe is the same than B, which is VSTOL

What is exactly a ''word salad'' in saying that the Harrier was less a good aircraft than a aircraft that could be flown from Marines ships ?

[Mafic]

The marines dont need aircraft that can do mach 3 for missions like picking off enemy positions.

The Harrier during the Falklands was a jack of all trades Aircraft. It could do those close support missions cause it was slower and it was fast enough to take down the poor Argentinian Airforce.

When you want a aircraft that can do what a A-10 can do but in a smaller package that can take off from small run ways and in the numbers you need to support a quick amphibous landing then clearly the USMC feels its the right craft for the job and clearly it still works for them cause like i said they bought the last of our Harriers back in 2011 and obviously still feel a need for them even with the F-35 coming into service and if shit with Pyongyang blows up and the Marines decide to do another inchon landing then its gonna be pressed into service again cause its basically there and in large numbers with pilots who know what it can do and how best to do it.

I agree.

Find a replacement for the A10.

Drones have replaced most aircraft for scouting purposes.

[sarahtasher]

I agree.

Find a replacement for the A10.

Drones have replaced most aircraft for scouting purposes.

Find a replacement for the A10: logical goal
Find a replacement for the A10 that the Marines will control : uh, okay I guess
Find a replacement for the A10 that can take off from tiny carriers : uh....

And that's before shackling the design with ''usable by the Army and the Navy too !'', ''that is fast aircraft'' and especially ''that is stealthy''

[Mafic]

Find a replacement for the A10: logical goal
Find a replacement for the A10 that the Marines will control : uh, okay I guess
Find a replacement for the A10 that can take off from tiny carriers : uh....

And that's before shackling the design with ''usable by the Army and the Navy too !'', ''that is fast aircraft'' and especially ''that is stealthy''

The starting point should be replacing the A10. Drones are going to provide the vertical take off/short take off role soon enough that the marines want.

[Auxora]

The OP is kind of mixing apples and oranges to include Ospreys and VSTOL-capable F-35s together. The Osprey is VTOL/VSTOL because that capability is essential to it's primary duty as a high-speed military transport.

The F-35-B came more out of the idea that it would be a good idea to use the same aircraft across all of the forces with different variants, for economies of scale. I don't think you'd find many people that don't consider that to be a massive mistake in hindsight, since it made the F-35 decent at a lot of different things but master of none.

[sarahtasher]

The OP is kind of mixing apples and oranges to include Ospreys and VSTOL-capable F-35s together. The Osprey is VTOL/VSTOL because that capability is essential to it's primary duty as a high-speed military transport.

The F-35-B came more out of the idea that it would be a good idea to use the same aircraft across all of the forces with different variants, for economies of scale. I don't think you'd find many people that don't consider that to be a massive mistake in hindsight, since it made the F-35 decent at a lot of different things but master of none.

It's especially baffling for ''jump jets'', as jump jets are not very good at ground support and are especially not good at all at stealth (again : cross section, engine...) That Lockheed managed to make an ''Harrier 2.0'' that is actually SVTOL and actually stealthy is nothing less than a miracle to be honest-but that's the entire point of this thread, all this effort went to design an airframe that will use this SVTOL gimmick in less than 10% of the production line, a gimmick that is moderately useful in the best of cases and a gimmick that affects the performance of the A and C variants.

You might disagree with me, but the Harrier performance against the outdated, embargoed and outranged Argentinian aircraft (the crux of it's combat experience against foes with credible airforce) was despite the aircraft, not because of it.

[Seranthor]

It's especially baffling for ''jump jets'', as jump jets are not very good at ground support and are especially not good at all at stealth (again : cross section, engine...) That Lockheed managed to make an ''Harrier 2.0'' that is actually SVTOL and actually stealthy is nothing less than a miracle to be honest-but that's the entire point of this thread, all this effort went to design an airframe that will use this SVTOL gimmick in less than 10% of the production line, a gimmick that is moderately useful in the best of cases and a gimmick that affects the performance of the A and C variants.

You might disagree with me, but the Harrier performance against the outdated, embargoed and outranged Argentinian aircraft (the crux of it's combat experience against foes with credible airforce) was despite the aircraft, not because of it.

It would seem you continue to try and be 'right' instead of become educated... the US military has a need for them, despite all your protestations... I am quite certain that the US government will give your concerns all the weight that they deserve. Why you continue to raise hell about the performance of first-gen Harrier performance 35 years ago continues to be a source of great laughter because it underscores your absolute lack of knowledge about the airframe.

[sarahtasher]

Because the Harrier was a flawed jet of dubious use against anyone but third world countries ? Because the Marines managed to push for a ''Super Stealth Harrier'' (the F-35 B), which certainly answers (in a way) to Marine requirements, but at the cost of reduced performance for F-35 A and C ?

It's not ME that imagine this. You can't do miracles in engineering and put every feature on one airframe. Have you noticed that the Harrier have a unique profile compared to other jets ?

[Seranthor]

Because the Harrier was a flawed jet of dubious use against anyone but third world countries ? Because the Marines managed to push for a ''Super Stealth Harrier'' (the F-35 B), which certainly answers (in a way) to Marine requirements, but at the cost of reduced performance for F-35 A and C ?

It's not ME that imagine this. You can't do miracles in engineering and put every feature on one airframe. Have you noticed that the Harrier have a unique profile compared to other jets ?

It's crystal clear you have a cob up your ass about the Harrier and the F-35... tell us... based on your vast knowledge of the military what airframe should the Marines be using in place of the Harrier/F-35, when you answer please be specific, and tell us why YOUR recommendation is better than what the military is using or is planning on using. Go.

[sarahtasher]

Dude, again, F-35A and C have the same basic airframe than the B.

[Mafic]

I love the Harrier and F14. But there time to shine is now over because the combat theater has changed.

The F35B ironically may perform better than other F35 variants, because it actually has a niche that needs to be filled. The other F35 variants are inferior than existing air craft like the F22, drone family, F16 variants, Super Hornets, etc.

[Seranthor]

Dude, again, F-35A and C have the same basic airframe than the B.

Dude, you are being given free reign to show us how brilliant you are, take the opportunity, I may never be this charitable ever again.

[sarahtasher]

Are you aware that you can't strap a fan on an airframe and call it a VTOL ?

[Deleted]

you'd think cruise missiles or something would be a more practical solution for something like the marines over jet aircraft.

helicopters for close combat support, missiles for anti aircraft defense and taking out big targets at range.

[Kellhound]

That's kinda the point here.

VSTOL is an interesting and useful feature for aircraft. VTOL remains a gimmick of rather limited value.

- - - Updated - - -



To be blunt, I really don't see why the Marines should insist of doing major operations without the Navy, service pride aside...

Hmmm.... Because the Navy uses the ARGs as force multipliers that allow the carriers to perform other operations?

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, so it's stupid to wonder why the Marines acts while they are all alone, when (IRL), they have access to full deck carriers, an EXTREMELY pricy ressource ? If the British had full deck carriers at the Malouines, would they have used jump jets ?

BECAUSE THEY DO NOT ALWAYS HAVE CARRIER SUPPORT!!!!!

- - - Updated - - -

It was my understanding that Opreys are not jump jets, and are instead superior aircraft troop-deployers than any helicopter option (range, speed, troopers-per-aircraft). The F-35(C) is the jump jet option for the Marines, but you should know why the Marines need jump-jets if you're writing this much about it.

Marines don't have aircraft carriers - they have troop carriers that deploy aircraft - hence the VTOL/SVTOL requirement.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your point. If so, apologies ahead of time.

Technically, the Marines do not have amphibs, the Navy does.

- - - Updated - - -

that's why your number is so low.

I wasn't talking about incidents and mishaps that rendered a bird completely wrecked.

If an incident doesnt result in hull lose or loss of live, it isnt even worth worrying about.

- - - Updated - - -

The Marines are not the first advocates of having jets on their amphibious ships ? (which, on this I'm uncertain, are ''their'' but still remains Navy)

That's not a minor detail : is the Harrier an adequate attack aircraft or an attack aircraft that can fit on amphibious ship decks ? (Because, again, short or long airstrips are a moot point on land : while it's conceivable that a longer one might take more time to build, cost more to maintain and such, a shorter strip is not that useful if it can only fit Harriers with limited capacities)

The thing is, the Harrier was what the cash strapped Royal Navy could afford.

You do know that the Harrier was originally designed for the RAF and they operated more of them than the RN? I mean, do you ever actually study the history of why the military does things?

- - - Updated - - -

The point is also that if the Marines keep insisting of getting a VTOL, well, they are free to ask and I suppose their know their trade.

However...

A)Like the Harrier, it's not a real VTOL. (From what I gather, the F-35 Marines version is barely able to take off without weapons in ''full VTOL'' mode). It's a VSTOL. I actually don't understand why people keep pushing a feature (''real VTOL'') that never really worked for aircraft with combat loads. VSTOL is a more useful feature (or a more realist one) but far less flexible than VTOL.

B)Unlike the Harrier, the Marines desire for one compromised to a large degree the two others F-35, who share the same airframe as the Marines one.

So, the Marines have a stealth, high speed, more capable Harrier. Super for them. Except that to provide this aircraft to picky customers, compromises had to be made for the A and C versions.The Navy does not need a VSTOL. The Army does not need a VSTOL. The foreign customers do not need a VSTOL (except the Royal Nacy).

The Army cannot operate armed fixed wing aircraft. The Navy does need VSTOL to operate with the ARGs

[Prokne]

The question is thus pretty simple : is the Harrier an adequate strike fighter, or merely a strike fighter that can operate from assault ships decks/cheap carriers ? Does the Marines actually need their own fighters that can operate from their own carriers is a multi billion dollars question, since the DOD obviously thought ''yes'' to the point of making a trillion dollars aircraft procurement scheme following the whims/desires of the Marines above the Navy and the Air Force.

IDK about the Harrier, but the marines don't really need a strike fighter. If they are somewhere where those types of planes are needed, an aircraft carrier strike force will group up with them to provide them. In most circumstances, marines operate from different naval groups centered on smaller ships designed to hold amphibious boats. They need planes that can take off on a shorter runway than a normal jet to provide ground support. They could probably do that with an aircraft that takes off horizontally, but idk what the comparison would be between that aircraft and a harrier or F-35 in combat.

The only thing I see as really stupid is the F-35 being a bad aircraft for the navy because of its one engine. It almost has to be single engine because of vertical takeoff and wanting to make everyone use the same plane (really stupid IMO and isn't saving any money). The navy should just stick with their own aircraft.

And the ships marines ride on do not belong to them, they are US Navy ships, so they are not their ships.

[Kellhound]

Spoiled the punch for the customers of the ''A'' and ''C'' versions of the F-35, who do not need, at all, a VSTOL. (And yeah, before you ask, the need to have an airframe capable of VSTOLing had effects on A and C on payload, endurance, range, cross section, speed...)

- - - Updated - - -



The Harriers were the aircraft the British Navy had to use for the Falklands, because of lack of full deck carriers and/or navalized high performance fighters. The Marines wanted a fighter that could operate from their mini-carriers-I strongly suggest here that ''that fighter can be used on our ships'' prevailed over ''aircraft that can actually do what it's supposed to do compared to other aircraft''

The question is thus pretty simple : is the Harrier an adequate strike fighter, or merely a strike fighter that can operate from assault ships decks/cheap carriers ? Does the Marines actually need their own fighters that can operate from their own carriers is a multi billion dollars question, since the DOD obviously thought ''yes'' to the point of making a trillion dollars aircraft procurement scheme following the whims/desires of the Marines above the Navy and the Air Force.

One of the carriers the RN used was a former conventional carrier, that just a few years before was flying F-4s and Buccaneers. The war pretty much proved that a Harrier is massively superior to no fixed wing support. The first full of winning an air battle is having a plane to battle with!

The answers are pretty simple, the Harrier is a good attack aircraft (it was not intended to be a fighter). The Marines needed a VSTOL replacement more than the Navy needed a F18 replacement or the USAF needed a F-16 replacement.

- - - Updated - - -

Find a replacement for the A10: logical goal
Find a replacement for the A10 that the Marines will control : uh, okay I guess
Find a replacement for the A10 that can take off from tiny carriers : uh....

And that's before shackling the design with ''usable by the Army and the Navy too !'', ''that is fast aircraft'' and especially ''that is stealthy''

The Marines were not looking for a dedicated ground attack aircraft, and the USAF is not really looking for a true A-10 replacement.

[Antius]

Considering the USMC is the branch that doesn't get all the fun toys I think OP is just posting nonsense.

This. For a long time Marines have gotten hand me downs from the Navy.