AHC: retain independent aircraft development in Europe

But did they? I can accept that the USN needed a "stealthy" multirole aircraft, and that the USAF needed something to take the place of all the retiring A-10s and F-16s (I'm not convinced the F-35 is the right airframe for both roles, but let's leave that aside). However, although I don't know much about the USMC, it's not clear to me why they need a VSTOL fixed-wing aircraft. Situations in which the USMC is operating without access to airbases or USN carriers are vanishingly rare these days, and I can't imagine any in which the USMC is doing that AND needs a 5th generation multi-role fighter instead of, say, a few more SeaCobras or something more like a Gripen.

So what's the logic here? Is it just the USMC being unwilling to give up their own airforce and insisting on VSTOL as a way of keeping that, or is there a genuine reason behind this?

Part of the strain will eventually be picked up by America class LHA's to cover for when the USN Carriers aren't around. Of course, no doubt they and their air groups will get tasked as Light Carriers when the cupboard is a bit light of CVN's.
 
Thanks for explaining that, I feel like I have a better idea of the thought process now. I agree that the Harrier was never particularly great, which is why the idea of replacing it seemed strange to me. Even for other navies with small carriers it was a distinctly second-best solution, viable only due to there being no practical alternative. Hard to imagine the F-35 being used for ASW, though - can it even carry the sensors and weapons needed?

It sounds like the VSTOL version of the F-35 is based on three assumptions: 1) The USMC will be engaging in high-intensity operations and/or forced entry operations; 2) these operations will be conducted against peer or near-peer opposition; and 3) the USN & USAF will not be providing support. The first and second of these are not-unreasonable planning assumptions - if they're wrong you end up with something more capable than you need, which is a safer side to err on. But the third assumption just seems weird: under what circumstances would the USMC be engaged in forced-entry operations against a peer-level opponent, but the USN isn't involved? Don't the Marines travel on USN ships?
Well, the Marines have never quite gotten over Fletcher and his carriers "abandoning" them during Guadalcanal, which was the formative campaign for the Marines as a separate service rather than an appendage of the Navy. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Marines have always fought since to have their own fixed-wing aircraft, and fixed-wing aircraft that they don't need to depend on the Navy for.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
Well, the Marines have never quite gotten over Fletcher and his carriers "abandoning" them during Guadalcanal, which was the formative campaign for the Marines as a separate service rather than an appendage of the Navy. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Marines have always fought since to have their own fixed-wing aircraft, and fixed-wing aircraft that they don't need to depend on the Navy for.
I still wonder about the sense of Dave B - if the USMC is facing an opponent against which they simply must have fast jets during the landing stage, then it should be the Navy's job to provide such aircraft. That's what the flat-tops are for, eh? Isn't this cuddling a minor service, though?
Financially I think that limiting the order to Dave's A and C makes the most sense. The Marines should be getting one of those, probably C as it has sturdier landing gear.
 
I still wonder about the sense of Dave B - if the USMC is facing an opponent against which they simply must have fast jets during the landing stage, then it should be the Navy's job to provide such aircraft. That's what the flat-tops are for, eh? Isn't this cuddling a minor service, though?
Financially I think that limiting the order to Dave's A and C makes the most sense. The Marines should be getting one of those, probably C as it has sturdier landing gear.

The -A and -C can't be used off the USMC's amphibious ships so the USMC is back to relying on USN carrier support rather than providing their own.
 
The Marines should be getting one of those, probably C as it has sturdier landing gear.

The Marines are getting 80 Cs to equip 5 sqns so these can be integrated into USN CVWs as per a 2002 agreement.

I still wonder about the sense of Dave B - if the USMC is facing an opponent against which they simply must have fast jets during the landing stage, then it should be the Navy's job to provide such aircraft. That's what the flat-tops are for, eh? Isn't this cuddling a minor service, though?

Marines operate ashore for prolonged periods and during these periods the Marines might have to defend their forces from enemy attack while the USN carriers are elsewhere. In Vietnam Marine Skyhawks operated from Chu Lai a short, austere airstrip with portable arresting gear and rocket assisted take off and in PGW Marine harriers operated from an austere airstrip used by the oil industry very close to the Kuwaiti border as well as from Tarawa Class LHA in the Persian Gulf. It is perfectly legitimate for the Marines to want a STOVL version of the F35.

a4c-m214jato.jpg


6678524531_8856d78a31_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
Holy thread-drift Batman!

To answer the OP's question, you need to move the POD back to 1930 and seriously fund Whittle's early jet engine experiments. Have that Hungarian (turboprop) designer flee to Britain or Canada during the war. Turboprops would be a quick upgrade to existing piston-pounding airplanes, allowing them to fly higher and heavier, but not fast enough to create compressibility problems. Turbines also reduce the need for high-octane fuel.

Secondly, have European countries retain most of their colonies. This requires a difference Bretton Woods Conference.
Thirdly, have the USA scrap thousands more airplanes at the end of WW2. That would force serious development of airliners - in several countries - immediately post-war. More of those "DC-3 replacement" programs (1950s and 1960s) would enter production.

No Operation Paperclip, would see far fewer German engineers emigrating to the USA. With that talent more widely spread, many more European nations would be able to compete with large American manufacturers.

Also have the USSR suffer worse casualties during WW2, forcing them to focus on rebuilding the USSR until the 1960s. Rebuilding would distract the USSR from all those petty proxy wars.

"...........................................................
As a taxpayer I don't want to have to replace or drastically upgrade the RAAF F35 fleet at a cost of billions in 10 years because we were too stupid and short sighted to spend a few hundred million extra in the development phase.[/QUOTE]"

.....................................................................................
Sorry to burst your bubble mate, but mid-life refits are the norm for most weapons systems.
First, new airplanes only have a small advantage when they are delivered. Because potential enemies have been developing new counter-measures as soon as they heard about early stage design of the new airplane.
New counter-measures and new enemies constantly move the goal posts, forcing airforces to frequently respond by modifying airplanes. The RCAF has spent untold millions of dollars updating software and avionics in CF-18s.
A third motivation is wear and tear. Military flying is tough on military airplanes and they crack far sooner than airliners. For example, the RCAF may be flying the same CF-18As they bought 35 years ago, but fuselage barrels have been replaced along with most of the electronics plus all the usual high-wear components like tires and brakes and engines. A CF-18 pilot -trained during the 1980s - would have a tough time flying the RCAF's latest upgrade.

As to why the USMC needs a its own dedicated fleet of ground-attack airplanes ..... Air Force or Navy pilots can never truly understand what misery forced Marines to call in air strikes. Only time-the-mud teaches USMC pilots - turned FACs - WHY ground attack is important. Short lines of communication are vital.
The other reason for VSTOL interceptors is redundancy. If bad guys hack carrier computers, Naval interceptors are grounded, forcing USMC to fall back on their own planes.
Finally, consider export sales. Most third world airforces can barely afford one model of fighter, so that model has to be multi-role. See the RCAF for details.
 
Sorry to burst your bubble mate, but mid-life refits are the norm for most weapons systems.

10 years is not the mid life of an F35, a proper mid life update for the F35 fleet should not occur for 20 years. The RAAF Hornet Up Grade Project did not kick off until 2001, some 15 years after IOC and took about a decade to complete for a planned (at the time) withdrawal date of 2015.

Doing a major upgrade, as opposed to the standard constant trickle of minor mods, at 10 years would be the poster child of a failed development/procurement programme.
 
Top