The USMC obsession with VTOLS/VSTOLS

[sarahtasher]

The biggest proponent in the USA of VSTOLS (Ospreys, F-35 sub-models) have been the Marines. It might be turf wars, it might be legitimate requirement of having organic aircraft on ''their'' ships'' (VTOL itself is almost always a lie, as while it looks impressive on paper, realist operations are usually VSTOL to spare the airframes and have genuine combat loads)

The issue is, VSTOLS are still tricky, and with all things being equal, a VSTOL is usually inferior to an equivalent aircraft without that gimmick (for instance, the Osprey might looks mightily cool in Half Life but it remains to be told how it's markedly better than the safer and cheaper decades old CH-46 and CH-47 helicopters. The same thing go for the various iterations of the Harriers-they are drastically inferior to virtually all aircraft of the same generation). The Harrier performance in the Malouines was impressive first look, a lot less impressive if you realize that the Argentinians did not even carried AA missiles because of range and combat loads.

A VSTOL aircraft supposedly tasked with air-air defence or limited air-ground strike capacity is an fact aircraft designated to be operable from financially bearable carriers. Considering that as of 2017, there are exactly two countries in the world that can afford real CATOBAR carriers with CATOBAR aircraft on them (ZING, Royal Navy), such a concept make a lot of sense for regional powers who will never really need high performance naval aviation...

Thus, why, of all countries of the world, the US Marines insist(ed) on getting jump jets that were unreliable and inferior in loads, speed, endurance, performance to the ''real'' jets fielded by the US Navy ? (I mean, getting Harriers or the equivalent make sense if you are any country except the US, where you have real carriers instead of ersatz ones)

As said in the opening sentence, this is a loaded question, since the SVTOL F-35 version (which, again, will like Harriers do VTOL for official photo and be a SVTOL the rest of the time) have design limitations (cross section, aerodynamism, pilot visibility) that apply to the two others versions, for a gimmick (VTOL/SVTOL ) that is not [I]THAT/I] useful.

[Puupi]

Ok.

/10chars

[Wallmaker Yahzarah]

Who are you talking to?

[Post]

I feel like this is one of those broken english spam emails.

[sarahtasher]

I feel like this is one of those broken english spam emails.

Ah ah. It's a perfectly legit post. Why the USMC insist on getting jump jets that are actually used by countries too poor to have real carriers ?

[Machismo]

If the Marines actually got what they wanted, they'd have an A-10 over their shoulder the entire time.

[stabetha]

the style of mission the marines are tasked with require quick in and quick out style of deployment and many places they may be needed don't have runways. Also they aren't going in to drop bombs or dogfight, their planes are for infantry support style rolls (infiltrate - exfiltrate, close air support, recon...etc) if they don't have to fly back to a carrier or air base to refuel it means more time covering the grunts.

[Independent voter]

The idea that you can fly 20K marines and drop them pretty much anywhere is tempting.

[stabetha]

The idea that you can fly 20K marines and drop them pretty much anywhere is tempting.

they seem to be having problems with these lately

[TITAN308]

The first company to somehow make a Hybrid A-10 Warthog and Osprey will be rich beyond belief.

[sarahtasher]

the style of mission the marines are tasked with require quick in and quick out style of deployment and many places they may be needed don't have runways. Also they aren't going in to drop bombs their planes are for infantry support style rolls (infiltrate - exfiltrate, close air support, recon...etc) if they don't have to fly back to a carrier or air base to refuel it means more time covering the grunts.

Except that jump jets are not terribly suited for such tasks. They can't actually operate from ''videogame like'' places like jungles clearings, rooftops, and the like. They are actually VSTOL, that require ''baby carriers''. And why use cheap carriers when you have fully operational ones ? (a F-18 is superior in all possible ways to an Harrier, EXCEPT VSTOL capacities)

- - - Updated - - -

The idea that you can fly 20K marines and drop them pretty much anywhere is tempting.

A CH-46 (maiden flight in 1960) or CH-47 (Chinook) can carry more marines on a longer range (My bad : the osprey have a longer range), WAY more safely, at a non markedly inferior speed

[Independent voter]

Except that jump jets are not terribly suited for such tasks. They can't actually operate from ''videogame like'' places like jungles clearings, rooftops, and the like. They are actually VSTOL, that require ''baby carriers''. And why use cheap carriers when you have fully operational ones ? (a F-18 is superior in all possible ways to an Harrier, EXCEPT VSTOL capacities)

- - - Updated - - -



A CH-46 (maiden flight in 1960) or CH-47 (Chinook) can carry more marines on a longer range (My bad : the osprey have a longer range), WAY more safely, at a non markedly inferior speed

It flies faster and farther than a helicopter otherwise what's the point?

Do you want me to invoke Skroe? I will if I have to.

[sarahtasher]

It flies faster and farther than a helicopter otherwise what's the point?

Do you want me to invoke Skroe? I will if I have to.

If it's not carrying as much as what it replace...

[stabetha]

Except that jump jets are not terribly suited for such tasks. They can't actually operate from ''videogame like'' places like jungles clearings, rooftops, and the like. They are actually VSTOL, that require ''baby carriers''. And why use cheap carriers when you have fully operational ones ? (a F-18 is superior in all possible ways to an Harrier, EXCEPT VSTOL capacities)

can't imagine an f-18 doing that

- - - Updated - - -

If it's not carrying as much as what it replace...

CH-46 25 troops range 265 miles, CH-47 33 troops range 400 mi, v-22 32 troops range 1,011 mi

[Risale]

As their ASVAB required minimum is only 32 it is fully understandable for Marines to choose the most hazardous vehicle possible.
Come to think of it the the reduced visibility in an F-35 vtol is also easy to explain it was done to prevent these muppets from licking the windows mid take off and or landing.

[MrMatticus]

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

[sarahtasher]

can't imagine an f-18 doing that

- - - Updated - - -

CH-46 25 troops range 265 miles, CH-47 33 troops range 400 mi, v-22 32 troops range 1,011 mi

That is combat landing, not CAS, air defence, recon, whatever.

[MrMatticus]

As their ASVAB required minimum is only 32 it is fully understandable for Marines to choose the most hazardous vehicle possible.
Come to think of it the the reduced visibility in an F-35 vtol is also easy to explain it was done to prevent these muppets from licking the windows mid take off and or landing.

Air Force only requires a 36 and it's the most "prestigious" force of the US military.

[Kellhound]

The biggest proponent in the USA of VSTOLS (Ospreys, F-35 sub-models) have been the Marines. It might be turf wars, it might be legitimate requirement of having organic aircraft on ''their'' ships'' (VTOL itself is almost always a lie, as while it looks impressive on paper, realist operations are usually VSTOL to spare the airframes and have genuine combat loads)

The issue is, VSTOLS are still tricky, and with all things being equal, a VSTOL is usually inferior to an equivalent aircraft without that gimmick (for instance, the Osprey might looks mightily cool in Half Life but it remains to be told how it's markedly better than the safer and cheaper decades old CH-46 and CH-47 helicopters. The same thing go for the various iterations of the Harriers-they are drastically inferior to virtually all aircraft of the same generation). The Harrier performance in the Malouines was impressive first look, a lot less impressive if you realize that the Argentinians did not even carried AA missiles because of range and combat loads.

A VSTOL aircraft supposedly tasked with air-air defence or limited air-ground strike capacity is an fact aircraft designated to be operable from financially bearable carriers. Considering that as of 2017, there are exactly two countries in the world that can afford real CATOBAR carriers with CATOBAR aircraft on them (ZING, Royal Navy), such a concept make a lot of sense for regional powers who will never really need high performance naval aviation...

Thus, why, of all countries of the world, the US Marines insist(ed) on getting jump jets that were unreliable and inferior in loads, speed, endurance, performance to the ''real'' jets fielded by the US Navy ? (I mean, getting Harriers or the equivalent make sense if you are any country except the US, where you have real carriers instead of ersatz ones)

As said in the opening sentence, this is a loaded question, since the SVTOL F-35 version (which, again, will like Harriers do VTOL for official photo and be a SVTOL the rest of the time) have design limitations (cross section, aerodynamism, pilot visibility) that apply to the two others versions, for a gimmick (VTOL/SVTOL ) that is not [I]THAT/I] useful.

Ask the Argentinians about how useless VTOL aircraft are....

Seriously, as carriers do not normally operate with the amphibs, the STOVL aircraft and the AH-1s are the only air support the Marines know they will always have. The F-35B is equal or better than the F-18C in most regards that matter in combat as well. Plus, the F-35B can operate from roads and parking lots, something few conventional fighters can do.

Both the V-22 and the H-46 can carry 24 passengers, the V-22 just does it twice as fast and 25% further. The CH-47 is a heavy lift helicopter, while the H-64 is a medium lift helicopter. The Marines use the CH-53E/K for their heavy lift, which is superior in range and payload to the CH-47.

[sarahtasher]

Ask the Argentinians about how useless VTOL aircraft are....

Seriously, as carriers do not normally operate with the amphibs, the STOVL aircraft and the AH-1s are the only air support the Marines know they will always have. The F-35B is equal or better than the F-18C in most regards that matter in combat as well. Plus, the F-35B can operate from roads and parking lots, something few conventional fighters can do.

Both the V-22 and the H-46 can carry 24 passengers, the V-22 just does it twice as fast and 25% further. The CH-47 is a heavy lift helicopter, while the H-64 is a medium lift helicopter. The Marines use the CH-53E/K for their heavy lift, which is superior in range and payload to the CH-47.

The Harriers are not ''useless'' : they are however a cost-effective alternative to high performance naval aviation on CATOBAR carriers. They are F-18s/F-14s for people too poor to have a CATOBAR carrier.