The role and suitability of STOVL aircraft in the modern battlefield

Re: STOVL Discussion

I suppose we could go on like this, but is where this is going advancing the stated topic?
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

It's as relevant as any talk about STOVL ever was in the first place.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

This conversation is presenting some good points and I would like to see it continued - but it is true it should be somewhere else. We're not adding anything to NGAD, and if it were in its own thread it'd be easier to search. I'll ask SOC to move the relevant discussion to its own topic.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

again the USN requirement states the role of new craft include CAS in an Anti-Access Area Dominance environments opening the door for NGAD to be STOVL.

The F-35B STOVL is a stated warfighter requirement w/ historic precedence.
and an option necessary for the US to survive and win in modern contexts.

The reasons for STOVL have been repeated and repeated only to be met constantly w/winded prattle from a private planets idling about the Gulf war MRLS and Vietnam Skyraiders. ..discussing Waterloo muzzleloaders in the year 2040.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

I could address Skyraiders and other issues, but I feel it is more appropriate to wait until the STOVL vs non-STOVL topic is set up. Otherwise, we're hijacking the purpose of this one.
 
We've started this discussion on the NGAD thread (here), but it degenerated to the point that we need its own separate thread. We are discussing the role and effectiveness of STOVL aircraft on the modern battlefield in light of declining budgets, which militate against expensive specialized weapon systems, and evolving threat environment.
 
Please correct if I am wrong, but the argument for STOVL is as follows:


Ground troops need air cover / air support on a very short notice. The most practical way to accomplish this is by staging STOVL aircraft at small bases very close to the battlefield.


Is this correct?
 
The role of a STOVL aircraft is the same as a CTOL aircraft. It just has the option of operating from places that CTOL aircraft can't.

The F-35B isn't an ideal example of STOVL!
 
Do we need two threads to have a pop at STOVL? ;)

The other one http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,16253.0.html
 
SteveO said:
Do we need two threads to have a pop at STOVL? ;)

The other one http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,16253.0.html
Click to expand...

My bad, I created two threads accidentally while going back to insert the link to our previous discussion on the NGAD thread. We could further streamline this thread by taking F-14D's and Sundog's OT posts from the NGAD thread and posting them here. edit: redundant post removed

AdamF said:
Please correct if I am wrong, but the argument for STOVL is as follows:

Ground troops need air cover / air support on a very short notice. The most practical way to accomplish this is by staging STOVL aircraft at small bases very close to the battlefield.

Is this correct?
Click to expand...

Part of the discussion hinges on whether this is indeed practical. There is mixed evidence in this regard. AV-8Bs operated in this fashion during Desert Storm. At the same time support of STOVL aircraft at forward bases by CTOL aircraft is problematic and defeats the purpose, unless you can come up with a STOVL resupply transport. There is also the question of vulnerability of FOB to precision guided munitions. Some very good arguments for both sides of the issue were made by F-14D and Sundog, which is why I'd like to continue the discussion here.
 
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/130226.pdf

F-35 Key Performance parameters (KPP) from the official requirements document.

Thankfully there is noone on this forum forum from Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) w/ real budget authority and that this is not a classified forum.

Dispersion and range is life. 1000miles off the coast is not CAS.

this is extremely old.
 
OK, I think I did this right. The STOVL/etc. stuff from the last few pages of the 6th Gen fighter thread should now be here. Let me know if I missed something.
 
correction:

depth, speed, stealth, range and dispersion are life.
 
A few hopefully quick points as I read thru this 4 page combo thread.

Forcing the USMC to operate from navy carriers by buying CTOLs creates a carrier bottleneck-- If you can figure out how to keep twice as many aircraft using the same amount of super carriers you are smarter than me. dispersion doesn't just make since from a survivability since, It makes sense in the "we dont have to buy 6 more 13.5 billion dollar super carriers" sense. Along with the crew to man them, along with the fleet to protect them. There is a good reason the majority of nations operate light carriers. STOVL aircraft are price changers and tactically more flexible.. The USS America, will cost one third of what the Ford class costs. if the US were to have nothing but CTOL we would have 8 ships capable of fixed wing operation. STOVL brings that number up to 32.

So no, forcing the USMC to take CTOL aircraft doesn't make things cheaper or easier beyond the aircraft themselves. Its makes the Marines' jobs tougher, And forces a massive increase in fleet size, cost, and people required, along with more deployments and the inherent cost of family problems involved as well.

You can ask the UK about what a super carrier costs. They finally got the bill and went back to the F-35B. The aircraft is more expensive (in the F-35Bs case), but the ship is cheaper to build and operate in every single sense. In fact the STOVL version of the F-35 is going to have more export sales than the F-35C. There is a much higher demand and need for the STOVL version than the CTOL version.

As for the "the USN won't leave the Marines again..." argument. How much risk do you think the Navy will tolerate to a 13.5 billion dollar aircraft carrier loaded with billions more in aircraft and nearly 5,000 people? If you think they won't pull back to safer waters and leave 1,000 men on a beach, you don't know math. Its not OK to lose a carrier. its ok to lose 1,000 Marines. You can lose three America Class ships before that Ford class number is reached, and even if something like that were to happen, The aircraft are still capable of fighting ashore from small/austere bases.

it wasn't until the early 1940's that carrier aircraft were even with land based aircraft. The F-35B creates another big event were a STOVL aircraft is equal to its counterparts. We know this because the counterparts will be different versions of the same plane ;D

You have to pay for the gator navy anyway, why not give it fixed wing capability at a rock bottom price? No wires to change, no catapults to fix, no limit on the amounts of cats and traps the airframe can take. STOVL is a much more elegant solution in how to launch an airplane from a ship.

Im actually surprised STOVL is still questioned. I thought it had proven itself more than a few times, but I guess there are some weapons that have to prove themselves every war.
 
TaiidanTomcat said:
....

Im actually surprised STOVL is still questioned. I thought it had proven itself more than a few times, but I guess there are some weapons that have to prove themselves every war.
Click to expand...
Very well put TaiidanTomcat!
 
TaiidanTomcat said:
A few hopefully quick points as I read thru this 4 page combo thread....

Edited to keep the quote short

I'm actually surprised STOVL is still questioned. I thought it had proven itself more than a few times, but I guess there are some weapons that have to prove themselves every war.
Click to expand...

It seems to me you just made more of an argument to get rid of super carriers and go to smaller more dispersed carriers in greater numbers.

Of course, given the fact that China specifically is looking at high-speed stand-off missiles to take out carriers, the smaller LH's won't be any more survivable in close then the CV's.

My problem with all of this beach head fighting is it seems to me that they're still trying to refight WW2. I don't think future wars will be that way. If you can keep the Navy's large CV force at bay, you can definitely do the same for the Marines. If STOVL is going to survive at the front, you'll need air superiority and if you have air superiority then you don't really need STOVL.

The only argument I've seen for STOVL that rings true to me is F-14D's about quick response for the Marines on the ground; to advance with them. Which I've read about many times before, but if that is the mission than it seems to me the F-35B is massive overkill for such a mission. Not to mention trying to maintain the stealth coatings in an austere environment should prove interesting at the least.

Now, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here, but I still think an F-35A, F-35B, and F-35C was the wrong way to go about it, although I realize it was a Pentagon political decision, not a what would work best decision. Also, now seeing that the F/A-XX may be an F-35C plus I see that as a huge mistake as well. All single engined combat aircraft for the Navy? I guess they figure the cost of planes and pilots they will lose due to engine loss will be made up for by having a lot of commonality on the ship.
 
..would agree w/ an argument against large ships including LHs.. so far that has fallen on deaf ears. There are migating technologies, tactics etc.. this is not the forum. planning must be for surviving the worst somewhere deep, dispersed inland. A2AD is not quite WW2 over again, but large conventional or mixes of un/conventional forces will end up looking much like certain WW2 scenarios, but maybe not at first, therefore "overkill" no such thing.. Likewise, air superiority and STOVL is simply not as easily rendered binary... not spending a lot of thought and reading on this is a disqualifier..not a big fan of F-35, but the STOVL is a legimate requirement..it is surprising we are still arguing this. The political decision was the JSF w/o a single propulsor...another discussion F-14D locked up.
Couldn't agree more that a single engine F/A-XX as F-35C is a mistake.. Not an impossible goal, but not knowing it or even being qualified to know if I saw it, it sure seems dangerous.
 
Just to correct a few points made here..

TT - We're not talking about "double the number of aircraft". Per Navy documents, the nominal JSF count in an Marine aviation unit on an LH-class is six aircraft. This can be expanded to 20-22 (still less than half a CVN complement of FJ types) by offloading all the transport helicopters. However, this leaves the problem of what to do with with the Marines on board, particularly on LHA-6/7, which have no well deck.

And the all-JSF air wing has no AEW, no EA and no AAR. Which torpedoes the "Guadalcanal" argument, because only a lunatic would send a Marine force against any adversary with advanced weapons (SAMs, aircraft, ASCMs or SSKs) without AEW and EA cover.

As far as I know, too, CVN aircraft capacity is not the limiting factor that it used to be, with a reduction in jet numbers (offset by greater availability) and fewer types on board.

Another point on dispersal of JSF - As far as I know, the Marines have not talked in any recent history about operating F-35B off strips less than 3000 feet long. This may be because of the need to resupply with C-130s - even the CH-53K can carry only two F-35B-loads of fuel on a 110 nm delivery.
 
Sundog said:
TaiidanTomcat said:
A few hopefully quick points as I read thru this 4 page combo thread....

Edited to keep the quote short

I'm actually surprised STOVL is still questioned. I thought it had proven itself more than a few times, but I guess there are some weapons that have to prove themselves every war.
Click to expand...

It seems to me you just made more of an argument to get rid of super carriers and go to smaller more dispersed carriers in greater numbers.

Of course, given the fact that China specifically is looking at high-speed stand-off missiles to take out carriers, the smaller LH's won't be any more survivable in close then the CV's.

My problem with all of this beach head fighting is it seems to me that they're still trying to refight WW2. I don't think future wars will be that way. If you can keep the Navy's large CV force at bay, you can definitely do the same for the Marines. If STOVL is going to survive at the front, you'll need air superiority and if you have air superiority then you don't really need STOVL.

The only argument I've seen for STOVL that rings true to me is F-14D's about quick response for the Marines on the ground; to advance with them. Which I've read about many times before, but if that is the mission than it seems to me the F-35B is massive overkill for such a mission. Not to mention trying to maintain the stealth coatings in an austere environment should prove interesting at the least.
Click to expand...

One of the plans now is to run in close and estabilish an a base in some nasty unpleasant area that the enemy has a hard time getting to. ITs not just "beaches". I have a friend who is an 08, time from beach landing to being ready to fire 155MM arty? 8 hours. Marines don't have a lot of arty we rely on our aircraft, its even more important with the departure of naval gunfire. So the idea of an aircraft that can provive support and must also survive a 21st century battlefield, is bordering on common sense and is far from overkill.

Maintaining the skin is yet to be seen, even if it is less than ideal, its still better than a forty year old design Harrier.

There seems to be this idea, that if the circumstances aren't perfect, like if the skin isn't pristine, or if there is no AEW around that the show will just kind of stop. We call a "time out" and the enemy patiently waits until we are in great position. it should be noted that AEW need not just be provided by carrier aircraft only as well.

I never claimed that LHDs or LHAs wouldn't fall victim to Chinese missiles. I claimed it was better to lose a few of them than a CV. This is all basically risk. If you want to point out less than ideal situations in a war and then use that as a reason to not get something, you would have a military with zero anything. we can play that game all day.

"China has super missiles the end" Ok then in that case, there is no point in having a navy since china beat us without firing a shot.

They will win some and we will win some, hopefully we win more. but people will die. You have to be crazy to think we would take on china and not take casualties. we will lose ships, aircraft, tanks, and people... maybe lots of them. Maybe you don't just hang around waiting for the AEW to show maybe you go and lose 25 percent of your aircraft because the AEW was needed elsewhere and 25 percent is "acceptable" Marines aren't afraid to die and we have never fought in "ideal circumstances" so you can scream super missiles all you want but eventually someone has to get in there and land some hits.

STOVL and the F-35B are the BEST CHANCE the Marines have. there are no guarantees. on paper STOVL isn't that impressive. Wars aren't fought on paper though, and STOVL has been adding practicality and winning from 1982 to the present. I hear a lot of things like "the harrier is just an airshow trick" Well that makes sense if you have only seen it at airshows, but there is a whole world that exists beyond the narrow limit you see at an airshow. I usually ask "how do you land an F-18 on an oil rig? or a cargo ship? Or any ship with arresting wires?" Then they think and go "oh" this can be followed with "good point" or for the truly stubborn "You would never need to do that anyway" Of course you wouldn't --which is you know, why STOVL has been in use for forty years and will be in use for decades more. We use it because its impractical and makes people who must be right, very angry. Thats the secret. STOVL is all about the LULZ and making you mad. the AV-8B is avaition's best troll.

In the end It really doesn't matter if I change your minds in this little internet debate, history is on my side and when the F-35B enters service the future will be too. So it can make you unhappy, or due to ignorance and the inability to google the combat history of the AV-8B, you can remain ignorant about its virtues. But STOVL has value, like many weapon systems its not always needed in certain conditions or you need something else entirely but thats the nature of war, mostly though its "thank god for STOVL!! "
 
Glade to see interservice budgetary rivalry is alive and well. Not sure what "AAR"is (needs explaining as does "SSKs" Surface Skiming Cruise Missiles?) but the F-35's AESA et al. afford AEW, EA, Full Spectrum Dominance etc. not even enjoyed by the F-22.. until F-22 is hopefully upgraded to the JSF standard. ::). This should be commonly known by now.

What used to be titled Early Entry now A2AD is best w/ a amphibious option included regardless of other options.. All options need to include troops on ground. Troops still require organic CAS..USAF and USN can never assure CAS for early entry amphibious or close to coast troops. As long a USMC has Congressional support and amphibious option necessary having this arguement is.....

Not sure if certain operational capabilities belong on this forum.

The F/A-XX monkier moving to F-35C+ and inclusion of CAS in the USN requirement might well argue for complete interchangability of LHA and CVN possibly STOVL craft. This meshing/interchangeability of missions could add greater mission variance further questioning any USAF tactical aircraft role in any A2AD until after the fact. 'If you're not there when it starts why are you there?' Was never an big USMC advocate but this continuing argument is certainly convincing for the USMC argument.
 
Why not fit the LHA-type ships with an angled deck and a couple bow catapult similar to the Essex-class conversions to operate CTOL F-35's?
 
jsport said:
Not sure what "AAR"is (needs explaining as does "SSKs" Surface Skiming Cruise Missiles?)
Click to expand...


AAR: Air-to-Air Refueling
SSK: Hunter-Killer/ASW Submarine (non-nuclear)

jsport said:
the F-35's AESA et al. afford AEW, EA, Full Spectrum Dominance etc. not even enjoyed by the F-22.. until F-22 is hopefully upgraded to the JSF standard. ::) . This should be commonly known by now.
Click to expand...



I agree that it should be commonly known...that won't stop some from acting as though it doesn't in order to further their arguments though.


In fact, to go further, the sensor suite/information processing power and inter-connectiveness (i.e. ability to share data) of the F-35 are probably is greatest, though rarely looked at capability and will be the benchmark for many, many years to come.

BTW, I am more than willing to bet anyone that before too long we will see a buddy refuelling option for the F-35...
 
GTX said:
jsport said:
Not sure what "AAR"is (needs explaining as does "SSKs" Surface Skiming Cruise Missiles?)
Click to expand...


AAR: Air-to-Air Refueling
SSK: Hunter-Killer/ASW Submarine (non-nuclear)

Thank you for the clarification GTX.. beleive the US is not behind in submarine warfare so throwing this is in as deterent for deploying Carriers or LHAs is not legimate.
Click to expand...
 
GTX said:
I agree that it should be commonly known...that won't stop some from acting as though it doesn't in order to further their arguments though.

In fact, to go further, the sensor suite/information processing power and inter-connectiveness (i.e. ability to share data) of the F-35 are probably is greatest, though rarely looked at capability and will be the benchmark for many, many years to come.[/size]
Click to expand...

I didn't even want to get into the sensor thing since it fries a lot of people brains... "wait you mean you don't need AWACs? You don't need JSTARS? Thats impossible." The 80's must have rocked because everyone seems to think military aviation peaked then.

The US not only has great submarines, we have tons of them. Quantity and quality are huge attributes of the Silent Service. I pity any conventional navy that comes their way.

What If we were to go to war with China, and everything went amazingly well-- China's tanks turned out be thin as pepsi cans, the J-20 was made of wood, the navy slept in, Their Air force wouldn't start, and the Army had a fireworks show featuring all their dud anti-ship missiles. And we can all drink our beers and laugh about how we thought the Paper Dragon would require survivability, redundancy, dispersed aircraft, stealth planes and even stealth planes with STOVL. But I have a feeling thats not how it would turn out, Be more than happy if it did though.

remember too, on paper the F-117 sucked-- slow, two bombs, no gun, fuel hog you name it... and yet it had some very unique abilities that turned out to be war winners.

you are going to be doing more with less the next ten years, hopefully it will be more with fewer, but in the end it will be more. Hopefully you will have support, hopefully you will have arty and air, and other combined arms, but you are just as likely to be on your own, out numbered and outgunned, but never out manned or out prepared. You must be ready to make war in any capacity.
 
When the F-35 enters service (at a date that none of the US service customers will identify) it will have:

- Good ESM. Whether and how much better than any other fighter ESM at IOC, none of us here knows.

- Powerful active jamming (EA) in X-band, in the 120-degree sector around the nose. No evidence suggests any active EW capability in other bands.

- Spot hi-res SAR and ability to do GMTI, also in the forward sector. Ability to do GMTI while remaining LPI (low probability of intercept) against contemporary ESM (eg Czech Vera-E and equivalents) is undetermined.

- Air to air radar. Again, the ability to do area search/provide SA while maintaining LPI is undetermined.

It is actually no discredit to the designers that the APG-81 can't provide the range and field of view of an AEW radar, or the combination of area coverage or resolution of a dedicated airborne ground surveillance radar. Ye canna alter the laws of physics...

All of these capabilities, too, will be limited by endurance and the ability of the force to generate sorties. Fighters don't do persistent ISR very well, particularly with F-35B's F-16-like internal fuel fraction and (relative to gross weight) small external fuel load. By the way, the latter also militates against its usefulness as a tanker.
 
LowObservable said:
When the F-35 enters service (at a date that none of the US service customers will identify) it will have:

- Good ESM. Whether and how much better than any other fighter ESM at IOC, none of us here knows.


- Powerful active jamming (EA) in X-band, in the 120-degree sector around the nose. No evidence suggests any active EW capability in other bands.

- Spot hi-res SAR and ability to do GMTI, also in the forward sector. Ability to do GMTI while remaining LPI (low probability of intercept) against contemporary ESM (eg Czech Vera-E and equivalents) is undetermined.

- Air to air radar. Again, the ability to do area search/provide SA while maintaining LPI is undetermined.

It is actually no discredit to the designers that the APG-81 can't provide the range and field of view of an AEW radar, or the combination of area coverage or resolution of a dedicated airborne ground surveillance radar. Ye canna alter the laws of physics...

All of these capabilities, too, will be limited by endurance and the ability of the force to generate sorties. Fighters don't do persistent ISR very well, particularly with F-35B's F-16-like internal fuel fraction and (relative to gross weight) small external fuel load. By the way, the latter also militates against its usefulness as a tanker.
Click to expand...
Thanks for reinforcing the ful spectrum dominance arguement.
Anyone who understands AESA and its current uses would know the above description is biased argument against AESA and the F-35, therefore can not be judged as objective or for that matter informed. unclassified, Internet sources claiming to to judge these systems is laughable. Please explain"Ye canna alter the laws of physics... "? Each craft is not dependant on its external AEW.. Very simple. ISR and tanking associated endurance has never been included in the STOVL arguement except by the above commentor so would appear to be some sort of spoiling technique to disparage the F-35.
 
Say again all after "Thanks". Message garbled and not understood. Roger and out.
 
If my cryptographic skills are still intact, he is saying your arguments are strawmen because you have an agenda against the F-35.
 
Jsport, I might be wrong, but the "Laws of physics" comment might refer to the field of view of an AESA radar. If it's mounted in the nose, unless it has a repositioner, you can probably see some sixty degrees off the centerline on both sides. If you want 360 degrees coverage, you need to got to multiple arrays and get creative (see Wedgetail layout, I think it's called "top hat" or something). Obviously, there is more usable real estate for that purpose on a large airliner with an aerodynamic monstruosity on top of the fuselage than on a tightly integrated LO-conscious fighter.


also, unless you assume that everyone here is an EE, it can be useful to explain briefly WHY you disagree with a given assertion on radar systems and not just dismiss it period. One of the reasons i read this blog is to learn from people who work in disciplines different from mine. Moreover, it tends to lend credibility to your arguments.
 
AF - Yes, plus aperture/power questions. And AEWs generally use frequencies below X-band.
 
Dear gentlemen, try to avoid the personal confrontation or this topic will be closed immediately.

Many thanks.
 
AeroFranz said:
Jsport, I might be wrong, but the "Laws of physics" comment might refer to the field of view of an AESA radar. If it's mounted in the nose, unless it has a repositioner, you can probably see some sixty degrees off the centerline on both sides. If you want 360 degrees coverage, you need to got to multiple arrays and get creative (see Wedgetail layout, I think it's called "top hat" or something). Obviously, there is more usable real estate for that purpose on a large airliner with an aerodynamic monstruosity on top of the fuselage than on a tightly integrated LO-conscious fighter.


also, unless you assume that everyone here is an EE, it can be useful to explain briefly WHY you disagree with a given assertion on radar systems and not just dismiss it period. One of the reasons i read this blog is to learn from people who work in disciplines different from mine. Moreover, it tends to lend credibility to your arguments.
Click to expand...
Sir,
the Distributed APerture is the only openly acknowledged embedded sensor regardles of the AESA..we'll leave that there. The performance requirements for the F-22 and F-35 have long assumed AWACS or JSTAR, EA etc. will not be available as wide bodies are increasing vulnerable. This is well known and has been for some time. So to disparage the F-35 (claim one "is a lunatic to deploy w/o AEW, EA etc.") because it needs these other craft seems .... 35 and 22 are to operate "alone and unafraid". Most discouraging is having to sound like a fan of F-35 and its contractor..which could not be further from the truth.. If there are performance KPPs unmet on final operational capability it will be broadcast.

The AF could likely face even worse safe refueling issues than the USMC and USN so....
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

Sea Skimmer said:
F-14D said:


USMC championed the Harrier for one simple reason: It could get there faster than anything. During the Vietnam War they learned that in the overwhelming majority of the cases, once the call for fixed wing air support went out, if it didn't arrive in 20-25 minutes, the results of the battle was already decided.
Click to expand...

Yeah, exactly, a war in which the enemy presents no air opposition (south of the DMZ anyway), winning any given battle wasn’t vital to the US strategic defense and generally was pointless. A war in which the Skyraider was the most popular CAS plane no less, hardly a massive endorsement of fast moving jets of any sort.

The US precisely has the Marines and Navy carrier air power for bushfire nonsense like that. No reason exists why the USAF should also end up orienting its combat power to low intensity warfare like that. In any event we now have reasonably low cost and immensely accurate artillery guided missiles that make a joke of a 20 minute reaction time for anything really important. In Afghanistan GMLRS has become more popular then air strikes because of this. Since brushfires tend to make air to air combat irrelevant in the first place and the A-10 is entirely capable of operating from limited bases it has the job covered anyway. You certainly don’t need anything like 9000ft of runway for it. I see no reason why every branch of the US military should be armed for every possible situation, even when this means highly redundant capabilities. That kind of thinking is what turns into a bloated and unsustainable defense budget.


It's true that CTOLs generally have greater range (although the AV-8B had greater radius than the Hornet [not sure about the Super Hornet, but the F-35B has greater than the E/F, according to USMC]), but that's kinda irrelevant in the context in question. The AV-8B or the F-35B can increase its range and/or by making a CTO, but again that's irrelevant. In the case of the -8B, all that matters is what it can do with a ground roll of 300 meters; that's the reason for its existence.
Click to expand...

If your runway is that short then you also have no decent way to resupply the base in a remote area. You’d be stuck with parachute drop of bulk fuel, how long do you expect to sustain that kind of operation? You need 3,000ft for a C-130 to land for realistic resupply meanwhile, and an A-10 can fly from 2,400ft in the first place. If you intend to resupply overland then the question is rapidly raised as to what is the source of this resupply?

Course the closer to the enemy the field, the ever more effort needed to protect it from ground attacks. Even the most trivial ground opposition can blow up parked aircraft. Good reason to keep them away from the front.

After all, no one compares the F-16's payload/range if it had to operate solely from a similar strip. A related point is that because the STOVL is going to be based closer to the action, it doesn't matter that it can't fly as far as a CTOL so long as it can fly the distance it needs to for its mission. It's true that USAF has scads of tankers, but now you're into a very expensive massively complex operation, which still doesn't get you around the transit time and basing issue. During Gulf War I, USMC Harriers never required USAF tanking, because they were close enough that they didn't need it. In fact, had the ground war played out like they thought it was going to, the plan was that AV-8Bs would move forward as the troops did, operating from roads.
Click to expand...

They did operate from a road actually, but so did A-10 Warthogs, which also trained for this mission in Germany. Yeah the Marines have some use for Harriers and similar aircraft, how does this translate into the USAF being horrible for not fielding them? Helps also that Iraq was one of the most incompetent and inactive enemies the US ever fought. It wouldn’t have taken much at all for an active Iraqi air force to blow those forward strips off the map if they didn’t have a layered defense of air force fighters and airborne early warning aircraft overhead at all times. A dozen or so harriers at a small airfield can’t support ground troops and maintain a CAP to defend the base at the same time.

As far as rapidly constructing combat airbases, if I remember the "bare base" concept, it assumed that the runway and apron were already there, and they could "rapidly" build the rest.
Click to expand...

That is one concept, the capability and material also exists to build such runways from scratch. If you truly want to get big on deplorability in low threat situations, then an aircraft that can operate off dirt or grass would be a lot more desirable then a harrier, which still needs a hard surface or steel/aluminum matting. This was in fact part of the logic of the USAF buying and operating the Super Tucano, for vastly less money then Harriers or F-35B. In a low threat situation it will do anything anyone could want. In a big war it’s cheap enough not to worry about not using, and it can always help secure rear areas against enemy helicopter or guerrilla threats anyway.

Runways really aren't that hard to damage anymore. Hard to destroy, absolutely, but not that hard to damage. For example, using our 9,000 ft. runway example, you don't have to destroy it, just deeply crater it in three or four properly spaced locations.
Click to expand...

But you do realize that your 300m strip would in fact be completely destroyed by the same bombing raid right? But a much bigger concern is the enemy drops several thousand cluster bomblets on the base, at which point a couple of Harriers clustered around a tiny 300m strip will be obliterated. Jets and ground equipment are easier to destroy then a runway is to damage. As Israel showed if you have good pilots its plausible to wipe out an entire enemy air force just with strafing.
Want to start building dispersal? Well the engineering effort required for this small will commence skyrocketing. But this is also just one more reason why small austere bases in isolation aren’t actually going to work out well in a hot war. You could have many of them sure, but then that will also mean each one has even less engineering support to keep it operating and fewer ground defenses from air or ground attacks.
Add in some delay-fused explosives, and you're going to keep the CTOLs on the ground for quite a while. The STOVLs will be (gingerly) operational again as soon as you fill in one of those holes. In fact, depending on how they're spaced, they may not even need any filled in before you can fly.
Click to expand...
Risk 100 million dollar F-35Bs flying over known UXOs? Yeah I don’t see that happening. Now in fact, the USAF now has concrete that can cure to 3,500psi within 30 minutes, so patching those craters is going to be pretty quick and you don’t need 9000ft of runway to launch and recover fighters for an air to air mission to defend the base. In fact an F-15C can takeoff from only 1,500ft of runway with air to air missiles and full internal fuel. You need more like 4,500ft to land the thing, but you’d gain a couple hours to do more repairs in, assuming the plane cannot divert to another base or be inflight refueled by tankers dispatched from another base.

This means in fact, blow a 9000ft runway into four pieces and F-15s could still takeoff as soon as you swept the FOD off the concrete, FOD sweeping will be time consuming though if you don’t have the proper equipment to do it. This is likely to be the case at a small base. This also all assumes all your planes aren’t on fire and your ammunition dumps aren’t exploding and raining more burning debris onto said runway, which is fairly likely at a small forward base with little or no fortifications.
Click to expand...

Sea Skimmer said:
F-14D said:


USMC championed the Harrier for one simple reason: It could get there faster than anything. During the Vietnam War they learned that in the overwhelming majority of the cases, once the call for fixed wing air support went out, if it didn't arrive in 20-25 minutes, the results of the battle was already decided.
Click to expand...

Yeah, exactly, a war in which the enemy presents no air opposition (south of the DMZ anyway), winning any given battle wasn’t vital to the US strategic defense and generally was pointless. A war in which the Skyraider was the most popular CAS plane no less, hardly a massive endorsement of fast moving jets of any sort.

The US precisely has the Marines and Navy carrier air power for bushfire nonsense like that. No reason exists why the USAF should also end up orienting its combat power to low intensity warfare like that. In any event we now have reasonably low cost and immensely accurate artillery guided missiles that make a joke of a 20 minute reaction time for anything really important. In Afghanistan GMLRS has become more popular then air strikes because of this. Since brushfires tend to make air to air combat irrelevant in the first place and the A-10 is entirely capable of operating from limited bases it has the job covered anyway. You certainly don’t need anything like 9000ft of runway for it. I see no reason why every branch of the US military should be armed for every possible situation, even when this means highly redundant capabilities. That kind of thinking is what turns into a bloated and unsustainable defense budget.


It's true that CTOLs generally have greater range (although the AV-8B had greater radius than the Hornet [not sure about the Super Hornet, but the F-35B has greater than the E/F, according to USMC]), but that's kinda irrelevant in the context in question. The AV-8B or the F-35B can increase its range and/or by making a CTO, but again that's irrelevant. In the case of the -8B, all that matters is what it can do with a ground roll of 300 meters; that's the reason for its existence.
Click to expand...

If your runway is that short then you also have no decent way to resupply the base in a remote area. You’d be stuck with parachute drop of bulk fuel, how long do you expect to sustain that kind of operation? You need 3,000ft for a C-130 to land for realistic resupply meanwhile, and an A-10 can fly from 2,400ft in the first place. If you intend to resupply overland then the question is rapidly raised as to what is the source of this resupply?

Course the closer to the enemy the field, the ever more effort needed to protect it from ground attacks. Even the most trivial ground opposition can blow up parked aircraft. Good reason to keep them away from the front.

After all, no one compares the F-16's payload/range if it had to operate solely from a similar strip. A related point is that because the STOVL is going to be based closer to the action, it doesn't matter that it can't fly as far as a CTOL so long as it can fly the distance it needs to for its mission. It's true that USAF has scads of tankers, but now you're into a very expensive massively complex operation, which still doesn't get you around the transit time and basing issue. During Gulf War I, USMC Harriers never required USAF tanking, because they were close enough that they didn't need it. In fact, had the ground war played out like they thought it was going to, the plan was that AV-8Bs would move forward as the troops did, operating from roads.
Click to expand...

They did operate from a road actually, but so did A-10 Warthogs, which also trained for this mission in Germany. Yeah the Marines have some use for Harriers and similar aircraft, how does this translate into the USAF being horrible for not fielding them? Helps also that Iraq was one of the most incompetent and inactive enemies the US ever fought. It wouldn’t have taken much at all for an active Iraqi air force to blow those forward strips off the map if they didn’t have a layered defense of air force fighters and airborne early warning aircraft overhead at all times. A dozen or so harriers at a small airfield can’t support ground troops and maintain a CAP to defend the base at the same time.

As far as rapidly constructing combat airbases, if I remember the "bare base" concept, it assumed that the runway and apron were already there, and they could "rapidly" build the rest.
Click to expand...

That is one concept, the capability and material also exists to build such runways from scratch. If you truly want to get big on deplorability in low threat situations, then an aircraft that can operate off dirt or grass would be a lot more desirable then a harrier, which still needs a hard surface or steel/aluminum matting. This was in fact part of the logic of the USAF buying and operating the Super Tucano, for vastly less money then Harriers or F-35B. In a low threat situation it will do anything anyone could want. In a big war it’s cheap enough not to worry about not using, and it can always help secure rear areas against enemy helicopter or guerrilla threats anyway.

Runways really aren't that hard to damage anymore. Hard to destroy, absolutely, but not that hard to damage. For example, using our 9,000 ft. runway example, you don't have to destroy it, just deeply crater it in three or four properly spaced locations.
Click to expand...

But you do realize that your 300m strip would in fact be completely destroyed by the same bombing raid right? But a much bigger concern is the enemy drops several thousand cluster bomblets on the base, at which point a couple of Harriers clustered around a tiny 300m strip will be obliterated. Jets and ground equipment are easier to destroy then a runway is to damage. As Israel showed if you have good pilots its plausible to wipe out an entire enemy air force just with strafing.
Want to start building dispersal? Well the engineering effort required for this small will commence skyrocketing. But this is also just one more reason why small austere bases in isolation aren’t actually going to work out well in a hot war. You could have many of them sure, but then that will also mean each one has even less engineering support to keep it operating and fewer ground defenses from air or ground attacks.
Add in some delay-fused explosives, and you're going to keep the CTOLs on the ground for quite a while. The STOVLs will be (gingerly) operational again as soon as you fill in one of those holes. In fact, depending on how they're spaced, they may not even need any filled in before you can fly.
Click to expand...
Risk 100 million dollar F-35Bs flying over known UXOs? Yeah I don’t see that happening. Now in fact, the USAF now has concrete that can cure to 3,500psi within 30 minutes, so patching those craters is going to be pretty quick and you don’t need 9000ft of runway to launch and recover fighters for an air to air mission to defend the base. In fact an F-15C can takeoff from only 1,500ft of runway with air to air missiles and full internal fuel. You need more like 4,500ft to land the thing, but you’d gain a couple hours to do more repairs in, assuming the plane cannot divert to another base or be inflight refueled by tankers dispatched from another base.

This means in fact, blow a 9000ft runway into four pieces and F-15s could still takeoff as soon as you swept the FOD off the concrete, FOD sweeping will be time consuming though if you don’t have the proper equipment to do it. This is likely to be the case at a small base. This also all assumes all your planes aren’t on fire and your ammunition dumps aren’t exploding and raining more burning debris onto said runway, which is fairly likely at a small forward base with little or no fortifications.
Click to expand...


Because I'm such crap with multiple quotes, I beg everyone's indulgence while I address these points here all at once.

For the record, I never said USAF was horrible, just that USAF simply isn't interested in any regular operations that aren't conducted from one of its mega-bases. That's why there's Marine and USN air. I also said that barring a breakthrough a STOVL NGAD is unlikely.

"War where the enemy presents no air opposition". Not really relevant. The US hasn't faced a serious air threat to our ground troops since WWII, yet we have been involved in one or two "misunderstandings" since then.

"Winning any given battle [in Vietnam] wasn't vital..." Oh really?

"...Skyraider was the most popular CAS plane, no less...". Actually it wasn't. When USAF's choices were it or the F-100, F-105 or F-4 it did a better job if it could get there in time. Again, though, if it took longer than 22 minutes to get there, it wouldn't change the outcome of the battle. It also suffered a high loss rate, not surprising, given its speed and size. It's worthy of note that in that conflict USAF did the unbelievable and actually voluntarily acquired a Navy aircraft, the A-7. In fact, they did such a good job with that plane that USN decided to buy the USAF version. BTW, USAF only suffered four A-7 combat losses in the entire war.

"No reason exists why the USAF should also end up orienting its combat power to low intensity [italics mine] conflict..." Finally! Someone admits USAF isn't that interested in CAS.

"...low cost and immediately accurate artillery guided missiles..." Artillery is always the best thing if the target is in range and you know exactly where it is. But lots of times you have neither A nor B. You can't do saturation of an area to deal with the lack of precise location with missiles, they aren't that low costs. BTW, Afghanistan was made to order for Crusader, but we canceled that.

Yes, the A-10 is capable of operating from limited areas, 2,500 feet is all it really needs provided you've got good weather and you're willing to offload a lot of payload. The difference with a STOVL aircraft is that it operates from its ~300 meter area with design payload over its design radius. That's the whole point.


"If your runway is that short then you also have no decent way to resupply the base". They're called "trucks" or "helicopters". They easily operate from FOBs that only have 300 metes of operating surface. Air supply simply isn't available way to do resupply to a base on a sustained basis for an extended period of time.

"Course the closer to the enemy the field, the more effort needed to protect it from ground attacks...". Well, no one said we were going to park the STOVLs 86 feet behind the front line. 35 nm is less than 4 1/2 minutes flying time, but is an awful long way for an enemy force to penetrate undetected. Frankly, as has been seen multiple times, being well to the rear doesn't guarantee safety. In fact it could be argued that the large rear base brings with it its own vulnerabilities given its much larger perimeter, whereas the STOVL operating area is easier to defend, arguably harder to find, you can get the a/c away to safety easier, can set up shop all over the place and can relocate quickly and tends to be organically located with the staging area of the force its working with, which brings with it its own defenses.

Yes, F-16s have operated from road on very specialized occasions, but again you offload a lot of payload to operate from roads two or thee times as long as what a STOVL needs and its not a routine thing. A STOVL can do it just about anytime. A-10s can also forward deploy. Col. Robert Rasmussen authored an excellent paper on this very thing sometime in the late '70s. Even so it can't operate in the conditions under which a STOVL can (there's a reason why the A-10 was the 2nd strike aircraft to operate in Afghanistan). Note that in Iraq the plan for the A-V8B was that it would move forward with the troops operating from roads. That was never a plan for the A-10, and please don't think my writing here is to slam the A-10.

Actually, a Harrier can operate from grass.

USAF was going to buy the Super Tucano for the Afghans, not for its own use.

Regarding your various knock out the base scenarios, they are all valid, but they are even more so for a CTOL force. It's a lot easier to move a STOVL flock under threat (find another 300 meter flat surface) than it is a CTOL one. Even if you don't move them, you've got to knock out the operating strip, any taxiways and a good portion of whatever you're using for a parking area in order to keep them from getting away. In fact, if it's just a matter of moving them, only put on a minimum weapons load and you don't need any ground run.

While your description of an F-15 takeoff roll is accurate, it's also something they are only going to do in dire circumstances from a damaged runway and in the air to air role that would require a good deal of 'burner which means a fairly short flight time and a divert. The STOVL would do it routinely. Also, I'm not sure how reassuring it would be to anyone with a ground target to hear that a/c with AIM-120s and AIM-9s are on the way.

We could go on and on, but the bottom line is this: If you've got an 8,000-9,000 runway always available whenever you need it to be in a timely manner where you need it to be, then STOVL makes no sense. Most of the time, STOVLs are going to operate from the same bases that CTOLs do for peacetime operations. What STOVL gives you is a flexibility and versatility when you need it, and there are significant cases where it is the only option. Some things are surprising. There have been multiple reported cases in Afghanistan where Harriers actually had more loiter time than A-10s. I'm not implying that the AV-8 loiters better in the air than does a Warthog. It doesn't. It's because in those cases it was loitering on the ground with the engine off and then flew a much shorter distance to where it was needed whereas the A-10 had to fly a considerable distance to get where it was needed in those cases. Yes, USAF has the finest tanker fleet in the world, but since you raised the issue about air superiority, those tankers aren't going to be operating where we don't have total control of the air, and they're already stretched too thin, they made not be available on short notice when we need them. For those that say we then shouldn't be operating in those cases, that's again the tail wagging the dog. The other forces shouldn't be limited to what is best for air, air should figure out how to be where those forces are when they need it. In many (but not by any means all) cases, you're talking STOVL.

In closing let me remind everyone of an oft forgotten factoid: After Gulf War I, Gen Norma Schwarzkopf and his staff identified only three air assets that were critical in winning the War. The first was the F-117. The 2nd was the AH-64 (hey, he's Army, he has to say that!). The third was not the F-15E, not the F-16, not the F/A-18, not the B-52, C-130, Chinook or A-10. It was the AV-8B.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

F-14D said:
For the record, I never said USAF was horrible, just that USAF simply isn't interested in any regular operations that aren't conducted from one of its mega-bases. That's why there's Marine and USN air. I also said that barring a breakthrough a STOVL NGAD is unlikely.
Click to expand...


Downright absurd is more like it, if the navy wanted a STOVL plane they'd just buy the F-35B. Not that this would make any damn sense when the USN has a 100 billion dollars worth of aircraft carriers with catapults and wires. The USAF will never go for it, for the same reason every other air force except the RAF rejected STOVL aircraft, and even the RAF fielded more Tornadoes then Harriers.

Not really relevant. The US hasn't faced a serious air threat to our ground troops since WWII, yet we have been involved in one or two "misunderstandings" since then.
Click to expand...


If you are going to suggest that enemy air opposition is a non factor in the design of a plane being labeled as for 'air dominance' I don't think your really on the same page as anyone else.


Oh really?
Click to expand...


Yeah considering the US ran away from fights all the time, that no ground victory was capable of ending the threat and winning the war, and that the US ended up completely loosing the war anyway for a long list of reasons, yeah, not vital.


Actually it wasn't.
Click to expand...


Yeah for the troops on the ground it was. Low and slow gave the best possible support, and it worked best when flown by VNAF pilots who had far more combat hours then any US pilots could.


When USAF's choices were it or the F-100, F-105 or F-4 it did a better job if it could get there in time. Again, though, if it took longer than 22 minutes to get there, it wouldn't change the outcome of the battle.
Click to expand...


Considering many major battles lasted for days, even weeks, I think your 22 minute figure always being the rule is more then a bit of an exaggeration. Might be true of small unit actions, but small unit actions are then also ideal for quick reaction by artillery as I have mentioned before. Just as importantly the Skyraider had a great deal of endurance without refueling so it could stick around the cover operations for protracted periods, while fast jets normally had to be held on some kind of ground alert and then left after making one or two passes. This is after all one of the reasons why the A-10 was then created as a slow plane that could fly a long time.


It also suffered a high loss rate, not surprising, given its speed and size.
Click to expand...


Yes, but it was also a very cheap plane to buy, and cost a fraction of what a jet did to fly. Still worked out great considering it came from WW2.


It's worthy of note that in that conflict USAF did the unbelievable and actually voluntarily acquired a Navy aircraft, the A-7.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you know they also had already acquired the Phantom II from the Navy, but the heavy losses of F-105s and the desire to phase out the A-1, which was running out of service life, also it was desired to give the ones left to the VNAF didn't leave the USAF with much choice. I'm not sure why this really matters though, I like the A-7 but it sure isn't STOVL.


In fact, they did such a good job with that plane that USN decided to buy the USAF version. BTW, USAF only suffered four A-7 combat losses in the entire war.
Click to expand...


The USAF also mostly flew the A-7 over the south and the trail, which were low on air defenses and it had a fair bit of armor so low losses are not surprising, the USN lost more of them. I'm not sure what your point is though, the Harrier has a fairly high loss rate and the A-7 sure wasn't a STOVL aircraft. In fact 10% of Harriers sent to the Gulf were lost, and this is in spite of the plane never being called upon to fly over the heavily defended regions of central Iraq. Never mind its rather high high peacetime accident rate, though a lot of that is linked to the VTOL features themselves and should hopefully not affect the F-35B with lift fan.

Finally! Someone admits USAF isn't that interested in CAS.
Click to expand...


That's why it bought all those hundreds of Soviet tank killing A-10s to fight in Europe right? Because it totally didn't care?



Artillery is always the best thing if the target is in range and you know exactly where it is. But lots of times you have neither A nor B. You can't do saturation of an area to deal with the lack of precise location with missiles, they aren't that low costs. BTW, Afghanistan was made to order for Crusader, but we canceled that.
Click to expand...


Lack of precision is a huge problem for CAS you know, when the number one goal is not killing friendly forces. GMLRS will be getting a shrapnel warhead soon enough to deal with area targets. When you consider the F-35, all models, are is expected to cost over 30,000 dollars an hour to fly, and that it has to fly high numbers of hours just to keep the pilot trained in peacetime, the cost of missiles doesn't look so bad at all. Your talking about being able to buy several thousand of them for the lifecycle cost of a single F-35, and any follow on jet is only going to be more expensive, while the cost of a GMLRS like weapon can realistically go down. Crusader was very expensive, I would have liked to have it, but having it would have meant a number of other projects didn't happen including the GPS capability on GMLRS.


Yes, the A-10 is capable of operating from limited areas, 2,500 feet is all it really needs provided you've got good weather and you're willing to offload a lot of payload. The difference with a STOVL aircraft is that it operates from its ~300 meter area with design payload over its design radius. That's the whole point.
Click to expand...


I doubt an A-10 with reduced payload will be any less then the payload an AV-8B is going to lift off that short runway, and the A-10 has the gun from hell. Not sure what an F-35B is going to get off the ground with in that kind of run, nor I think does anybody precisely, since at last word it wasn't meeting its runway requirement specs, but the designers were still hopeful for improvement.

They're called "trucks" or "helicopters". They easily operate from FOBs that only have 300 metes of operating surface. Air supply simply isn't available way to do resupply to a base on a sustained basis for an extended period of time.
Click to expand...


Trucks need a source of supply, that becomes very situational, and its own exposure. Such as, are they being unloaded from big navy ships that are sitting ducks at anchor? What bridges do they cross? Do they need escorts that much be drawn from ground combat unit through hostile towns?


Helicopter resupply isn't going to cut it for any serious scale of deployment. Internal fuel for an F-35B is 18,000lb, when you add in the weight of the tanks to hold this is basically a single CH-53E sortie just for that, it might have the payload for a few spare parts and weapons as well but not many of either, depending on the radius that must be flown. Max payload radius is only around 50nm which is pretty crummy. Might as well keep the jet on the ship offshore at that point. Nobody ever has enough rotary wing transport assets for what they want to do, all the more so a very helicopter centered operation like the USMC.

Well, no one said we were going to park the STOVLs 86 feet behind the front line. 35 nm is less than 4 1/2 minutes flying time, but is an awful long way for an enemy force to penetrate undetected. Frankly, as has been seen multiple times, being well to the rear doesn't guarantee safety. In fact it could be argued that the large rear base brings with it its own vulnerabilities given its much larger perimeter, whereas the STOVL operating area is easier to defend, you can get the a/c away to safety easier, can set up shop all over the place and can relocate quickly and tends to be organically located with the staging area of the force its working with, which brings with it its own defenses.
Click to expand...


The problem is, STOVL forward strip concepts tend to involve invading the enemy, so the enemy doesn't have to penetrate, your coming in right on top of him already. We can also expect his artillery to reach upwards of several hundred kilometers with fairly small tactical missiles, and if you fight China life is going to be very tough inside a thousand plus kilometers. If the enemy is not China, you quickly slide down the scale to the point that a Super Tucano is credible CAS. Cheap enough to fly endlessly CAS instead of waiting for jets from strip alert.

Yes, F-16s have operated from road on very specialized occasions, but again you offload a lot of payload to operate from roads two or thee times as long as what a STOVL needs and its not a routine thing. A STOVL can do it just about anytime. A-10s can also forward deploy. Col. Robert Rasmussen authored an excellent paper on this very thing sometime in the late '70s. Even so it can't operate in the conditions under which a STOVL can (there's a reason why the A-10 was the 2nd strike aircraft to operate in Afghanistan).
Click to expand...


Yeah, mainly that the Marines were in the lead of the invasion, as they should be. If the Army airborne were in the lead they would have parachuted onto an air base and had A-10s backing them up as soon as possible as they are assigned to 17th airborne corps. Still not seeing why we'd want to sacrifice performance in an air superiority platform to do any of this when the Marines are already getting F-35B at such a massive cost. F-16 might only do a road with reduced load, but then it can also do its full load all the rest of the time, it didn't physically limit itself for all time in the process. STVOL does do this. A air superiority jet that had some kind of clip on STVOL ability would be cool, but unworkable in reality.


Actually, a Harrier can operate from grass.
Click to expand...


Got proof of that? Seriously I am interested, because in the Falklands War the British seized a functional grass airfield at Goose Green, and then built a steel matted runway on it before they would fly Harriers out of it. If they could have just flown off the grass, they surely would not have bothered given how scare of resources they had. Maybe only really firm, well drained grass will support Harriers? In any event, the FOD hazard of grass operations is considerable, and the downblast of a landing Harrier or F-35B would be a very serious problem. Jet exhaust is going to strip off the turf quickly.

USAF was going to buy the Super Tucano for the Afghans, not for its own use.
Click to expand...


That is incorrect. The Super Tucanos were for the USAF, and at one point they hoped for over a hundred aircraft. Part of the reason was to help facilitate training the Afghan and other air forces in the use of light planes, but they were fully intended to be operational for US attack missions, specifically because they could be easily operated at very low costs and still pack a couple thousand pounds of weapons.

Regarding your various knock out the base scenarios, they are all valid, but they are even more so for a CTOL force. It's a lot easier to move a STOVL flock under threat (find another 300 meter flat surface) than it is a CTOL one.
Click to expand...


You have to move all your ground equipment and secure a supply line, not just find another flat surface. As I have been saying, when it comes to air base survivability this stuff is a lot more vulnerable then the runway.


Even if you don't move them, you've got to knock out the operating strip, any taxiways and a good portion of whatever you're using for a parking area in order to keep them from getting away. In fact, if it's just a matter of moving them, only put on a minimum weapons load and you don't need any ground run.
Click to expand...


Assuming the enemy is ever so nice as to only target the runway. I really don't get why people think this is what an enemy is going to make his priority.

While your description of an F-15 takeoff roll is accurate, it's also something they are only going to do in dire circumstances from a damaged runway and in the air to air role that would require a good deal of 'burner which means a fairly short flight time and a divert. The STOVL would do it routinely. Also, I'm not sure how reassuring it would be to anyone with a ground target to hear that a/c with AIM-120s and AIM-9s are on the way.
Click to expand...


Winning and maintaining air superiority is the first goal of an air force, and rationally the first goal of an aircraft labeled as 'air dominance'. The ground pounders have other support. In fact over reliance of CAS in a permissive air environment is probably the number one weakness of the US military today, and should be addressed by increasing the firepower of ground units. Against someone like China this could be a fatal weakness in action, against weak powers, USAF runways aren't getting blown up in the first place and can be built at will, and in general conflicts will be executed on the whim of the United States. If the US is loosing because forward units are being sent into action with no artillery support, that means the war strategy is wrong. Just like Vietnam was wrong in every possible way perhaps.

We could go on and on, but the bottom line is this: If you've got an 8,000-9,000 runway always available whenever you need it to be in a timely manner where you need it to be, then STOVL makes no sense. Most of the time, STOVLs are going to operate from the same bases that CTOLs do for peacetime operations. What STOVL gives you is a flexibility and versatility when you need it, and there are significant cases where it is the only option.
Click to expand...


Sure, but this is why the tip of the spear, the Marines get STOVL and already have it in the works. I see no reason presented why the USAF and USN, especially the USN which already has all those big mobile carrier flight decks, should do the same for a new design. That has been my point, and I see precious little attempt to address it. The endless focus on ground support is dodging the issue, and an issue which is already addressed by several existing platforms, and could be further addressed with cheap additional weapons without hampering design of a new high end fighter. If it was zero performance penalty, then sure, go for it, but that's never going to be the case. The USAF and USN need fighters that can deal with the best enemy aircraft, and since no enemy is interested in STOVL, maybe you know, because they have good reason not to want to cripple designs like that, that means building conventional fighters.


Some things are surprising. There have been multiple reported cases in Afghanistan where Harriers actually had more loiter time than A-10s. I'm not implying that the AV-8 loiters better in the air than does a Warthog. It doesn't. It's because in those cases it was loitering on the ground with the engine off and then flew a much shorter distance to where it was needed whereas the A-10 had to fly a considerable distance to get where it was needed in those cases.
Click to expand...


So? The US has deliberately limited its presence in Afghanistan, and is now planning to scale it back without securing a victory. Different air units operate in different parts of the country, though about all of them from paved runways, how well do you think a harrier flying up from Kandahar to to the north east of the country would do on loiter?


Yes, USAF has the finest tanker fleet in the world, but since you raised the issue about air superiority, those tankers aren't going to be operating where we don't have total control of the air, and they're already stretched too thin, they made not be available on short notice when we need them.
Click to expand...


The tankers only go part of the way, and then allow a fully refueled fighter to fly into opposed airspace. Meanwhile the fighter and tanker are operating from a base outside the unrefueled range of the enemy, which is awesome protection. If you think the enemy is going to shoot down the tankers, I'd love to know how you think STOVL will survive inside enemy range when like any combat aircraft it spends the majority of its time on the ground. The USAF considers new tankers its number one priority for good reason, its a shame the latest program has been so delayed by nonsense.


For those that say we then shouldn't be operating in those cases, that's again the tail wagging the dog. The other forces shouldn't be limited to what is best for air, air should figure out how to be where those forces are when they need it. In many (but not by any means all) cases, you're talking STOVL.
Click to expand...


Yeah actually, its completely suicidal to commit expeditionary ground forces into battle when the enemy has a serious ability to challenge US air power. Modern weapons are far too destructive against ground forces, and US forces are so critically lacking in forward deployed air defenses. This is why gaining control of the air is going to take place first against a serious enemy threat, and for that range and speed are vital. No surprise that the USN wants a plane with more of both vs the Hornet.


In closing let me remind everyone of an oft forgotten factoid: After Gulf War I, Gen Norma Schwarzkopf and his staff identified only three air assets that were critical in winning the War. The first was the F-117. The 2nd was the AH-64 (hey, he's Army, he has to say that!). The third was not the F-15E, not the F-16, not the F/A-18, not the B-52, C-130, Chinook or A-10. It was the AV-8B.
Click to expand...


I'd love to see a quote on that in context. Course its a joke anyway considering that most US tanks never fired a shot, no tank fired off a full load of ammunition and the US took only a few hundred dead while killing so many tens of thousands of Iraqis we can't even settle on a number accurate to within ten thousand. The war was a complete curb stomp and its completely blatant that huge portions of the Coalition Forces could have been removed, and the Coalition still would have won. Sure helps that most of the good Iraqi units retreated without trying to engage either. In fact I do recall that Schwarzkopf also commented years later, might have been in that Clancy book Into the Storm, that the ground war would have been fine had V Corps never been deployed from Germany.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

Sea Skimmer said:
In fact I do recall that Schwarzkopf also commented years later, might have been in that Clancy book Into the Storm, that the ground war would have been fine had V Corps never been deployed from Germany. [/size]
Click to expand...

Err ... good point? what does that have to do with STOVL?

I'm not going to get bogged down in a billion little details so you can counter mine with microdetails and so on. I will just say this.

The Marines are happy with STOVL, The "light" Navies that use STOVL are happy with it. The RAF was happy with it. The STOVL Mafia isn't advocating the US Navy go full STOVL, nor the Air Forces. Why is it so crazy that the Air Force does their thing, the Navy does their thing, and the USMC once again, does their thing? All of these methods being a reflection of culture and and mission? I wouldn't want the Air Force to try and operate like the Navy, Nor would I want the Marines to operate like the USAF.

Its nothing new to the Marine Corps we have to validate ourselves and our equipment everyday, we take up less than a nickel from every defense dollar and the American people get their moneys worth in a big way. That shows in a big way, Congress was advocating the AV-8 for the USAF over the A-10 in the 70's simply because "IF the Marines like it, it must be great!" Once again, STOVL has a very bright future beyond the USMC and is going to be an export success.

PS I have no idea if the F-35 can take off of grass LOL You boys need to get out more though.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

Sea Skimmer said:
Finally! Someone admits USAF isn't that interested in CAS.
Click to expand...

That's why it bought all those hundreds of Soviet tank killing A-10s to fight in Europe right? Because it totally didn't care?
Click to expand...

No, they actually bought A-10's, which they didn't want and have been trying to phase out for years, to undermine the Cheyenne program. When the USAF saw the what the Cheyenne program would cost, they figured it would be less for USAF coffers. So they came out with the A-X program and went after the Cheyenne program. They were trying to phase the A-10's out before GWI, but the damned things worked as advertised.

But don't worry, they're now going to replace the $14million dollar aircraft with a $200 million dollar aircraft and then it gets really expensive when you start comparing operating costs.
 
Re: STOVL Discussion

Sundog said:
Sea Skimmer said:
Finally! Someone admits USAF isn't that interested in CAS.
Click to expand...

That's why it bought all those hundreds of Soviet tank killing A-10s to fight in Europe right? Because it totally didn't care?
Click to expand...

No, they actually bought A-10's, which they didn't want and have been trying to phase out for years, to undermine the Cheyenne program. When the USAF saw the what the Cheyenne program would cost, they figured it would be less for USAF coffers. So they came out with the A-X program and went after the Cheyenne program. They were trying to phase the A-10's out before GWI, but the damned things worked as advertised.

But don't worry, they're now going to replace the $14million dollar aircraft with a $200 million dollar aircraft and then it gets really expensive when you start comparing operating costs.
Click to expand...

Don't want this devolving into an A-10 vs. everything thread, but one of the dirty little secrets of the last libyan incursion, (not the 1805 or the 1986 one, but the 2011 one) IS that when the Libyan were suspected of having advanced SAMs. AV-8s, A-10s and AC-130s recieved flight restrictions and areas they were no longer allowed to enter. So the A-10 is awesome, but its not invincible. The F-35 will be more survivable, one of the reasons the USMC is hot on it and the USAF is willing to lose the A-10 without too much fuss.
 
TaiidanTomcat said:
Its nothing new to the Marine Corps we have to validate ourselves and our equipment everyday, we take up less than a nickel from every defense dollar and the American people get their moneys worth in a big way. That shows in a big way, Congress was advocating the AV-8 for the USAF over the A-10 in the 70's simply because "IF the Marines like it, it must be great!" Once again, STOVL has a very bright future beyond the USMC and is going to be an export success.
Click to expand...

That's part of the issue I haven't seen addressed yet. Is it really cost effective to have all the specialized and relatively expensive equipment for a limited set of missions? Given the shrinking budget, could you do something better overall allocating money to something else?
It's may not be a perfect example, but consider the case of the Army and RAH-66. Granted, the mission for which it was designed was not relevant anymore, but cancelling the program freed up enough money to renovate the entire helicopter fleet. Somebody must have figured out that they'd get more bang for the buck by getting rid of that capability.

Regarding the export success, there's (maybe) all the SHAR and AV-8B operators, and I doubt given costs those will be replaced on a one-to-one basis. India, a large SHAR operator, may not go that way. I don't know if that's enough planes to really bring down costs. Has anyone tried tallying up how many birds we're talking about?

TaiidanTomcat said:
PS I have no idea if the F-35 can take off of grass LOL You boys need to get out more though.
Click to expand...

It comes down to temperature and exhaust velocity of the hot section. My guess is the F-35's nozzle runs hotter than a Pegasus, and has higher energy. Might be ok for a couple of STOVL takeoffs but once the grass is gone, there's a serious risk of FOD.
 
AeroFranz said:
TaiidanTomcat said:
Its nothing new to the Marine Corps we have to validate ourselves and our equipment everyday, we take up less than a nickel from every defense dollar and the American people get their moneys worth in a big way. That shows in a big way, Congress was advocating the AV-8 for the USAF over the A-10 in the 70's simply because "IF the Marines like it, it must be great!" Once again, STOVL has a very bright future beyond the USMC and is going to be an export success.
Click to expand...

That's part of the issue I haven't seen addressed yet. Is it really cost effective to have all the specialized and relatively expensive equipment for a limited set of missions? Given the shrinking budget, could you do something better overall allocating money to something else?
It's may not be a perfect example, but consider the case of the Army and RAH-66. Granted, the mission for which it was designed was not relevant anymore, but cancelling the program freed up enough money to renovate the entire helicopter fleet. Somebody must have figured out that they'd get more bang for the buck by getting rid of that capability.
Click to expand...

The missions are not necessarily limited because the aircraft is still capable of a wide variety of missions-- it just takes off and lands differently. No one as of yet has figured a way to do it better and cheaper than the USMC. The Marine corps has the best dollar to personnel ratio of all the armed services. The Marines as a whole are the same-- Big wars or small wars they are great to have around, they just may get there in a different way. IT makes little sense to me (but again I'm Biased) to hurt the most dollar efficient service in the entire DOD in the name of "savings". And anyone who advocates the elimination of the USMC in the name of savings is saving only 5 percent, which I would call a "cop out" in terms of actual savings. "Savings" that would quickly be eaten up by the other 3 Big Services anyway, who would then try to do the marine missions anyway at a much higher cost.

As for numbers the USMC is getting 340 F-35Bs and 80 F-35Cs. Italy is slated to get 22, the RN I think was talking around 60?? The US Navy will get 260 F-35Cs My point is simply that the F-35B will have more copies sold and I believe as "the bugs get worked out/serial production lowers cost" More nations are going to pitch in and get Bs. It also needs to be remembered that the USMC is eliminating 3 different aircraft types (F-18, AV-8s, EA-6B) and "bottlenecking" to one which makes life and logistics a helluva lot easier.

The final thought about the USMC and STOVL is that eliminating each does not eliminate the need for them anymore than firing your doctor cures your cancer.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom