USMC: F-35B or Block III Super Hornets? Was It The Right Choice?

A voice message from a viewer asks whether the F-35B was the right choice for the USMC and Rick Abell weighs in from his experience. From his entry into the USAF as a Civil Servant in 1964 till his retirement in 1997, Mr. Eric "Rick" Abell worked on or led the development and fielding on almost every aircraft and related system in the USAF including the A-7, A-10, F-15, F-16, YF-17, F-117, YF-22, YF-23, F-22, B-1, B-2, and several classified programs. He has also worked extensively with the US Navy and US Army.
ABSOLUTE VENGEANCE eBook by C.W. Lemoine is only $0.99 for the month of October! books2read.com/Absolute-Venge...
Check out The Mover and Gonky Show Mondays at 8PM ET LIVE. • The Mover and Gonky Show
Buy one of C.W. Lemoine's books: www.cwlemoine.com
The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.
Views presented are my own and do not represent the views of DoD or its Components.

[@stanleyspadowski235]

Started cackling at his reference to the whiz kids asking for the blitz fighter - Glad Pierre Sprey and James Burton received the appropriate response: Laughter.

[@therocinante3443]

Mr. Abell might be my favorite guest so far. He's got tons of wisdom but also a good sense of humor and a sharp wit.

[@davidsmith8997]

Definitely interesting to listen to!

[@ronaldschoolcraft8654]

He's right about the reason the F35 came about. I was working on the program that would become the F35B in 1989. It was classified Secret Special Access Required then so very few people knew about it. In 1990, I was a major contributor on the first design report to Lockheed for the Lift Fan system. There were several other contributors. I also oversaw the first preliminary design layout for the Lift Fan system. My signature is on the drawing. I was responsible for the clutch, fan mechanical, vector nozzle, and colation of the other's work. Later, we wrote the first official design proposal to Lockheed. At that time, the only thing the program was working on was a Harrier replacement.

[@jimm2216]

Had a bunch of efforts in play....SSF, MRF, ASTOVL...all ended up rolling into JAST...that resulted in JSF.....the F-35

[@AA-xo9uw]

The primary goal of CALF/JAST/JSF was to produce a STOVL fighter.

[@tarn1135]

Soooooooo other than patting yourself on the back, what was the point of your comment again? You know being a “major contributor” and all.

[@ronaldschoolcraft8654]

@@tarn1135 if you could read, you would know the point. Since you've never accomplished anything or been involved with anything like that, I can see why you are bitter.

[@Retrosicotte]

It absolutely is the right choice from a strategic overview. Without the USMC buy, F-35B wouldn't exist. And without F-35B, the US loses 5th gen carrier strike from Japan, Korea, Italy, and at the very least a reduced strike from the UK (since they wouldn't have afforded both carriers with cats). From an overall perspective, having that many allies lose that would be a critical hit to the US that would far outweigh whatever slim benefits came from this (even aside from that F-35 is just flat out better than F/A-18 anyway)

[@Odysseuss.]

B.S. 50% of UK F35B can not undergo the modification required up to level4. Complete waste of money.

[@Retrosicotte]

@@Odysseuss. The UK has not even reached 50% of the buy yet, and many acquired can be upgraded, it's only the very early ones. As a note, it's Block 4, not "level" 4. Hardly a waste of money for a naval island nation to want the 2nd most potent 5th gen strike force at sea in the world.

[@forzaelite1248]

​@@Odysseuss.Source? I remember hearing about the adaptive engine not being possible but TR-3 is something for all 3 variants

[@aidanwilliams9452]

Yep in every discussion of the F-35 people always forget the huge strategic advantage of equipping allies with them

[@tarn1135]

Things are always cheaper the more that are bought, doesn’t make it a good aircraft or a potential weapon. Tbh, the f35 was a great fake 5th gen aircraft that I have serious doubts about combat effectiveness. I say fake because the more crap you strap on the exterior of the plane the less stealthy it becomes, I say serious doubts about combat effectiveness because their range (regardless of model) is severely limited w/o their external fuel tanks and mid air refueling only gets you so far. They’re slow, barely stealth, ineffective in a dogfight (even in the era of beyond visual range fights) and prone to mechanical failure. Hardly an argument for the 35 being “just flat out better” than the 18.

[@kayakutah]

It seems to me that, in addition to deploying on dedicated ships such as The Wasp (greatly increasing the complexity of targeting those assets), you could also weld some armor plate decking on container ships if you absolutely needed to. It's a game changer when you can deploy these things on allied ships, small carriers, cargo vessels, etc. generating a fluctuating and unknown (to enemies) number of assets.

[@ypw510]

There's the possibility of operating them off of improvised bases. That's the primary reason why Singapore bought the F-35B. They have concerns that their airports and air bases (which are limited given their small footprint) might be damaged in case of conflict.

[@muzmason3064]

Absorbing all that very hot jetwash is not quite as easy as just welding a few plates down!

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

@@muzmason3064Yeah a bit of a stretch but I’m fairly sure given enough prep time the Grunts would figure out a way to launch them off a sailboat.

[@kayakutah]

@@PeterMuskrat6968 That's the point. Necessity is the mother of invention. I do agree that there are complications. I flew the RF-8 off the Independence and F-14A's for 2 cruises off the Big E. It's amazing what can be done if you are willing to NOT be constrained by preconceived notions. On my first cruise, we had to "steal" a wing panel off the static F-8 display at Cubi Pt to repair damage to the wing. If I could get a single use out of an F-35 launch from a cargo platform to get in a first strike it would be worth trashing some deck plating to do so.

[@frankbieser]

I've really enjoyed listening to an engineer's perspective on these programs. An engineer doesn't ask why you need it. Their only concern is figuring out how to build it.

[@austin0351]

The way I see it is this. Who gets the biggest jump in capability? F16 to F35A F18 to F35C AV8 to F35B Hands down the biggest leap is from Harrier to F35B. The Marine Corps is going from having a CAS aircraft to a well rounded multirole fighter capable of defending the amphibious assault ships as well as providing CAS for Marines ashore. Being able to operate from short strips ashore thanks to STOVL is a nice plus. As for the Marine Corps choosing to upgrade their F18C/D squadrons to F35C instead of super hornets, that's a more difficult question for a simple water grunt to answer.

[@yomama629]

The F-35C is immensely superior to the Super Hornet as well, it's actually insane that the Harrier replacement is a variant of the most capable fighter platform ever fielded by a military

[@NanaHoshi35]

And being able to operate from Allies' ships (and islands near the front line without big strips or strips at all) would really help. Now the Bravo from USMC and the Allies' own can operate from US/AUS LHD/LHA, Japanese/UK's smaller carrier in the theater, to provide a far more flexible capability and new choices..

[@trumanhw]

But the way we're looking at the F-35 project is sometimes as myopic and misguided as calculating the cost of teflon based on the cost of getting to the moon in the 1960s. And treats the price of getting to the moon as the only benefit to all of its costs. We're ignoring all the technologies that we still derive benefit from today. Inertial Nav was massively improved during that project and again for cruise missiles. A similar story can be told about GPS, the internet, and so many other things ... but we wouldn't isolate the benefit for their costs to the original purpose for which the projects were undertaken. And for all we know, the F-35B could be a decisive asset during an island hopping campaign in which fwd deployment and the speed of warfare leaves little time for the kinds of runways an F-16 or F-35 require. The EOTS, comms equipment, the F135 engines, sensor fusion and particularly the Open Architecture are each line items that should be as recycled into future projects as the Linux kernel's ubiquity, which is used not only in phones and cars, but in your refrigerator, cameras that we didn't think of as having an OS, and so on. Obviously no one will ever admit the wide reaching implications of the technology we're now complaining about; but if the US Military owns the code it paid for (granted, I'm sure in the best case they'd still have to pay for license it in accordance to typical licensing agreements) and can use it wherever it sees fit..? It'll be an incredible benefit to our entire fleet one day. Who knows, maybe ALIS (Autonomic Logistics Information System) or it's replacement (ODIN) they're now using is another principle in logistics and repair that could be replicated fleet-wide once it's mature and actually isn't limited by all the BS that Lockheed and the sub-contractors are engaging in to make repairing / replacing hardware needlessly expensive. To me, the platform was as much an R&D vehicle as it is a weapons and ISR vehicle. And provided the US didn't gift all of the R&D the US paid for to the IP rights of Lockheed ... it's products are things that will be as useful and cost effective as copying and installing an OS on future aircraft. The comparison of having a generalized architecture from which to replace the monolithic confederation of one-off equipment that needs to be recertified can't showcase it's value until future projects or major overhauls (like Hornet to Super Hornet) occurs. And sure, the public's not going to be treated to an in depth explanation of it for obvious reasons. But there's a reason that we reuse Generalized Operating Systems across the entire gamut of hardware, and it seems to me this'll be a quantum leap for military aviation.

[@Hairysteed]

You do realize AV-8B+ does have BVR capability and is essentially a multirole aircraft?

[@Kman31ca]

My totally unqualified opinion is the F-35 B is great for the marines on those smaller carriers and for using on roads etc. But I still think they should have gone with a more F-22 lite version with 2 engines for the Airforce and Navy. Having 2 engines even using the same engines as the F-16/F-15 would give them that extra speed and acceleration for more of an interceptor config and thrust vectoring in case they do end up in a close in fight. And use as much tech as you need but scrap all the extra goodies that really aren't mature enough and maybe add them in later blocks.

[@shooter2055]

Great stuff! Thanks guys!

[@derekprzybyla5822]

A-10s deployed to Estonia have practiced landing on roads and doing refuels. In fact my old unit had an incident where the speed brake clipped a road sign and did some damage to the lower brake.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

The F-35 was never a F-22 replacement. Without the CALF program developing into the JSF, the F-22 program would have still been axed due to the GWOT.

[@ro-86alkonost78]

I think so too because the F-35 is a multi-role stealth fighter, and the F-22 is an air superiority stealth fighter.

[@TheBelrick]

F-35 was meant to replace the F-16, A-10, AV-8, F-15, F-18 Here is the list of planes the F-35 actually replaced AV-8 By definition a failed program

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

@@TheBelrick Nope. The Legacy Hornet will be replaced by the F-35C while the Super Hornet will be replaced later. The F-16 will eventually be replaced leaving the F-35A. The A-10 is getting more airframes approved for retirement. The F-15 was never to be replaced by the F-35. The F-15 is a twin engine air superiority fighter. It was meant to be replaced by the F-22.

[@TheBelrick]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD After the F35 went into service production began again on F15, F16, F18 and orders for the F35 rescinded . So take your nope and put it in the same place as the Ghost of Kiev is stored . Propaganda.

[@ryansmithza]

Love you guys!

[@jep1103]

Great show and info love watching from here in Lincolnshire UK

[@noyfub]

That guy is awesome!

[@NickThePilotUSA]

I always found it interesting that they hung onto legacy hornets even til now. The Marines are upgrading them with Aesa radars too.

[@niweshlekhak9646]

Canada, Finland and Spain still use legacy hornets as their prime fighter.

[@AA-xo9uw]

The Marine Corps will retire the legacy Hornet in 2030 a year after it retires the AV-8B.

[@cdyjv118]

@@AA-xo9uwHarrier sundown is FY 2026

[@paulbrooks4395]

My understanding was, to his point, that the mission is for LHA/D and rapid deployments of expeditionary forces. Hypohystericalhistory talks about this at length (Australian made drone episode) and the need for affordable air power both in a defensive and offensive sense. The discussion is quite lengthy as the strategic picture also includes foreign allies who can’t use the C model or can’t project power with just the A. The Marines, without the B, would be without air power in their sphere of engagement. They would be dependent upon the Navy or Air Force entirely. I don’t think they want to go that route, and in many ways that would undermine the Corps and its existence as a separate entity. There’s also an overlap in utility when it comes to helicopter carriers being able to host both kinds of aircraft in the sense of “why not put both kinds on an LHA and get more value out of them?” It’s quite complex, and I think it makes strategic sense to have the Corps continue to have their own distinct air forces.

[@kennieg]

Also confused about whether we would still have an F-22 if they didn’t have an F-35. All my time with JSF, it was expected to fly with F-22s, not replace it.

[@RobertWilliams-ox4hz]

Well if they want to operate off the smaller carriers it's the only choice.

[@TheGeorgiaRover]

If you need someone to cut thru the BS and bring you results, this is the guy. Love his stories!

[@valuedhumanoid6574]

I try to keep an open mind and use logic over nostalgia. I don't always succeed but I try. In this case, and the topic in general I think low observability trumps all other aspects of air combat. Being hard to see, lock up and keep locked is by far better than having a flying missile truck, or agility or any other things the Super Hornet has in its favor. No doubt that a case can be made for both sides of the argument.

[@viaticchart3139]

don't forget that the F-35 can use wing mounted pylons as well. still not as hulked out as the hornets but the ability to do both is significant

[@NanaHoshi35]

And with LO now they are enabled for ISTAR stuff in a contested environment as well. More than just a CAS striker or fighter.

[@Odysseuss.]

@@NanaHoshi35 Dream on.

[@restitvtororbis5330]

Important to remember that f35s have a lot more capabilities beyond just firing missiles. They also have sensors that can provide Intel to other aircraft, command, and units on the ground. It just has capabilities that the FA18 doesn't

[@forzaelite1248]

​@@Odysseuss.He's right tho, the sensors and networking are such that most F-35s operate w/o using AWACS and such and relay the info better. Hell, F-35s have been flying the border near Ukraine and in Israel for a few years now just picking up everything happening, and it'll get R.O.V.E.R compatibility with TR-3. Aegis and IBCS being able to fire and have F-35s guide in missiles into contested airspace even if they aren't on the launch platform's sensors is a step above the previous aircraft

[@pollylewis9611]

Mover your knifehands are killing me haha, I would love Rick to help me buy a new car, thanks guys I always enjoy you!

[@timfarley274]

Interesting, I sometimes like to think about all of the angles such as "Blitz fighters".

[@WxWaterFire]

5:57 IIRC, that was some of the concepts for the AV-8 jn the 80s

[@muzmason3064]

The B has many advantages when having to operate closer to front lines supporting the USMC as the ability to re-arm closer than the carriers, to not have this ability is a tactical mistake and an option you no longer have is an angle to a plan you cannot act on as no battleplan survives first contact fluidity is key. Keep well gentleman 😊

[@corvanphoenix]

This is a pretty ridiculous assertion IMO given the realities of remote basing. The fact is, F-35's have a massive logistics train, their fuel needs alone would be difficult to sustain in a remote site. So not only is remote basing expensive & difficult to sustain, there's no way to hide it. Do you genuinely feel anyone with a B would risk putting them within 2-300 km of any front line? I say that's just begging for an Iskander.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

@@corvanphoenix The fuel needs of a larger fleet (because you're going to suffer many more losses with Harriers) will be worse than operating F-35s. Iskanders? They're the ones at risk that close to F-35s.

[@AA-xo9uw]

@@corvanphoenix You're obviously unaware of what has been taking place in locations like Camp Pendleton, Bogue Field or the old Pacific Coast Highway not to mention what occurred during Desert Storm, OIF and OEF.

[@djsmith2871]

Gonky has views on this that I haven't heard fully articulated. Not sure if he got his 2 cents in during this episode. Gonky has said he thought the SH was perfect for the Marines (maybe not an exact quote). I'm really curious why. And no offence to the comment section, but I'd rather hear from someone that flew them than people who read contractor brochures and cite max performance parameters.

[@trumanhw]

Gonky is too modest to demand people listen to him. Personally, I'm a bit more partial to Gonky's opinions in general. That said, it's hard to see how a SH utility is remotely comparable to the B model's STOVL.

[@djsmith2871]

@@zenithplyrzreg6405 Go ahead. Quote me max takeoff weights. I'm listening.

[@AA-xo9uw]

Gonky apparently missed the Marine Corps' stated goal from several decades ago to transition to one tactical airframe.

[@tomwilson1006]

I was tracking a harrier today over TN that came out of NC

[@Oldman1600]

Mr. Abell were you involved in any f&dt sustainment programs? Please discuss why the shift to bomber B1 & B52 have become important.

[@memelephant]

I thought it was a choice between the F-35C and Super hornet block III, because they needed their fleet squadrons that operate on carriers, and needed the harriers replaced with F-35B regardless. Thanks for clarifying

[@AA-xo9uw]

The Marine Corps never seriously considered ever buying any Super Bugs. Only four squadrons will ever have the potential to be tasked with operating in a CVW - currently only two are - as explained in the TACAIR Integration Plan. Were it not for that it's unlikely that they would have bought any Cs.

[@TheBelrick]

And neither plane does the job of the dedicated EA6 Growler. USN has lost capability

[@memelephant]

@@TheBelrick are you stupid, the EA-6 was the Prowler. The growler, the EA-18G, just came into service 14 years ago, which is a modified super hornet

[@petesheppard1709]

For most of its history, the Marine Corps considered itself the poor stepchild of the military, making do with the others' castoffs. The Corps had a saying: 'We've done so much for so long with so little, pretty soon we can do everything all the time, forever.' The abundance of the last few decades may have spoiled the Corps a bit.

[@johnemmert9012]

I can't imagine what the cost of a dedicated AV-8 replacement would be compared to F-35. Now that the family of jets seems to be finally maturing, it seems to be a functional platform.

[@kilianortmann9979]

Probably cheaper than the F-35 program as a whole but not by orders of magnitude. Certainly not worth it for the relatively few aircraft in the USMC, FAA and the Spanish and Italian ones. Without the JSF the Marines would be stuck flying Harriers from their Gator freighters for decades to come.

[@SoloRenegade]

The F-35 started out a s a dedicated AV-8B replacement. and it's done a magnificent job in that regard. It's affordable, and turned our smaller carriers into full blown carriers for next to no relative cost and gave teh marines a MASSIVE upgrade in capabilites.

[@speed150mph]

I’ll be honest, I’m a huge lover of the super hornet, but the F-35B and C makes more sense than the F-35B and F/A-18 combo. I believe there’s enough commonality in parts between the B and C to make it a good logistical decision. Sure both variants have their own dedicated parts, but any piece that you can use with commonality is less strain on the logistical system. Also I could see cross training pilots so the F-35 pilots could fly both variants. I don’t think you could do the same with the 18. Still love the Hornet though. I’m Canadian, and while I understand the decision to upgrade to the F-35 since we were I financial backer for the JSF program, I still feel that the super hornet would have been a better fit for our needs.

[@verdebusterAP]

The F-35B was right choice simple as that The F-35B plus LHA/Ds allow the USNs to bring back light carrier concept

[@bobbyraejohnson]

The problem with anything general purpose in the military it usually isn’t great at anything that’s the big negative of trying to get something to do everything.

[@dougrobinson8602]

Consider the Swiss Army Knife. 28 tools and none of them are as good as a single use tool. With that said, going into uncertain situations with something that has multiple capabilities is better than going into a situation with something that has the wrong capabilities for what the situation demands. Just my utterly worthless two cents....

[@trumanhw]

How's about the operating system in your computer? Or as if the F-35B isn't vastly superior to the AV-8B..? I think people forget not only crash rate but fatalities in the AV-8B.

[@ypw510]

@@dougrobinson8602 The capabilities might be pretty good with the latest platforms and the latest weapons. However, watching a lot of the discussion on CAS over the past few weeks hasn't necessarily been about the capability of the equipment, but the mindset and training of the pilots and WSOs. As much as there's been discussion of the A-10 as a dedicated CAS platform with pilots dedicated to the mission, how good could pilots/WSOs in the F-16/Hornet/Super Hornet/Strike Eagle/F-35 be if they were strictly assigned to CAS duties? Some might say better than the A-10, where I've heard complaints that they were too slow when they needed them on short notice. But the Marines train for CAS with every combat aircraft they have. Marine aviation is just an extension of their ground forces really. Their job is to support the ground troops.

[@michaelsparrow8033]

per the budget & clout discusion I highly suspect that the USMC's favorable position is inversly proportional to it's budget: 50% of Navy & 33% of Army / USAF: lesser requests = less painful to grant

[@Tuglife912]

I think the Lockheed Martin F-35B and F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters where great choices for the United States Marine Corps but I also think they could have gotten some Block III Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets “Rhinos” too. I also think the Marine Corps should bring back their VMAQ squadrons with the Block III Boeing EA-18G Growlers like the Navy. They retired the Northrop Grumman Improved Capability Block 7B EA-6B Prowlers and replaced them with nothing. Sad they had to go!

[@r.s.w.k4569]

I've been hard on the F35. But i would love to hear you guys talk about what we could have done instead. I know it's a useless intellectual exercise but i would still appreciate y'alls opinion (both CW and your viewers here) on what we could have done instead to replace the Tomcat/Intruder. Instead of F35Cs, would it have been feasible to develop, produce and operate a fighter bomber with the official range of the A6 Intruder, but with supersonic dash capability in short bursts, and fit it with 2 supersonic antiship cruise missiles like the Brahmos (apparently there is a mini version of the Brahmos being developed that weighs about 3000 lbs, a little more than the LRASM)? I'm thinking a nonstealthy huge fighter bomber approaching or even slightly exceeding the F14 in total takeoff weight 75k lbs, packed with fuel. And with literally ONE mission - fly 1000 miles while carrying 2 supersonic antiship missiles with a range of 200-300 miles to sink Chinese ships in the South China Sea while keeping the carrier at least 1000-1500 miles away from China's landbased antiship missile arsenal. Or how about a shorter range mission profile where the long range is traded away for low level flight regimes, say a 700 mile mission where the plane flies low to the earth to avoid detection for as long as possible and engages the enemy 900 miles away (700 mile flight + 200 mile missile range launched from lower altitudes).

[@jonwatkins254]

57 years ago I landed a helicopter on the highway 1 of Vietnam. A rocket was working itself out of a defective tube in a 19 shot rocket pod and I was worried it was going to fall out pretty soon. I foolishly thought to land on the road and shove it back in. The road seemed clear of traffic. It was paved but turned out not too clean. Short final flair IFR due to thick dust kicked up. Army training hold what you got actually worked. As the dust clears larger debris flying everywhere. The rotor wash turned over an ox cart I hadn't noticed before, with the ox going crazy and the poor driver struggling to hold it. Slam the rocket back in and heavy dust ITO. I am sure the F-35B won't have any of this trouble.

[@Stinger522]

Of course The F-35B is the right choice for the Marines. It is far more capable than the Harrier in every way. I bet the mechanics will be happy that they no longer have to take the plane apart to get to the engine. And with the Super Hornet line set to close in 2025, we might as well get on the F-35 bandwagon.

[@greggirons67]

My father called the “Whiz-Kids” 90 Day Wonders …!

[@TylerF35A]

The USN took away everything cool about the Block III Super Hornets and threw them away. Allegedly the CFTs were being damaged during hard landings, but Ive heard zero on the enclosed weapons pods, integrated IRST and other caveats.

[@mecampbell30]

Only the public stuff. The biggest benefit to Block III is the most lethal, tech upgrades.

[@kennieg]

Really confused about the title. Wouldn’t it make more sense to compare the “C” to the Hornet?

[@larrydlam]

The Marines had and still have to be a force on the HIll. The army has been trying to get rid of the Marines since before WW1 saying that they could do the job without them.

[@thudthud5423]

I talked to the other guy. He says I need to talk to you.

[@joshbayliss3577]

I see it as the B model as a replacement for the AV8 harrier and the C model as a replacement for the legacy hornet

[@oldftrpilot2593]

The F111 was designed to operate on dirt roads.

[@hvy1ton]

Only one of these airframes can take off from a LHA.

[@Odysseuss.]

Never heard of drones recently? any beachhead would rapidly become a graveyard.

[@heretolevitateme]

You can't preform CAS in a present and near-future environment filled with MANPADS unless you can prevent a weapons grade lock. And anyone paying attention to what's happening in Ukraine is doing everything they can to get MANPADS.

[@CWLemoine]

Stealth has almost nothing to do with MANPADS.

[@scottkelley1558]

Most manpads are IR seekers, not radar guided. The future of CAS is adding laser dazzling capability to aircraft to disable the IR seeker. Army helo aviation is driving the effort.

[@yomama629]

MANPADS are only effective against low and slow-flying aircraft, like helicopters or CAS aircraft. They're also IR-seeking, so radar stealth is irrelevant against MANPADS. No stealth aircraft will be threatened by the current level of technology of MANPADS, you need a much faster and longer-range radar-guided missile to threaten a fighter aircraft and low observable fighters are optimized to defeat that very thing

[@zachansen8293]

Forcing a VTOL into an airframe is never the right choice.,

[@LSmoney215]

Yu gotta be joking

[@jeffreyspinner9720]

You guys are mixing apples and oranges. The F35B is a VTOL aircraft that replaces the Harriers. The Marine expeditionary force on e.g., the USS Battan launch and recover Hornets? I didn't think so...

[@CWLemoine]

It's not that we're mixing it, it's that it's arguable whether the Marines need such a capability.

[@jeffreyspinner9720]

@@CWLemoine I c. My bad. I'm just trying to get the current changes of warfare I've been seeing over the last 20 months, with the Commandant of the US Marine Corps saying they can't hold a beachhead anymore because they would be annihilated by precision weapons, and that was a couple years ago... now with toy racing drones taking out armor, oh boy... I think it now goes deeper than whether or not the Marines need this or that warplane, when the asymmetric responses are so devastating, e.g., the Israelis group 20-30 armored vehicles in one place. In the Ukraine, that would last 5-10mins. The disclosure in the last 24hrs that Hezbollah has Onyx antiship missiles (not just the Noor crap). I'm really concerned for our Naval forces even though I see them way outside the 300km range of the missiles atm. If e.g., the USS Bataan needs to make a landing, uh oh. From my perspective the more I think about it now, the way war is fought by NATO has to change biggly and the way the US/NATO forces in the ME are being arrayed, it don't look like they have made any changes. More weird, at least to me is that even with the aircraft carriers with their Super Hornets/F35Cs available, the US has been bombing Syria with F15s which makes me wonder from what airfield and why do they even need the aircraft carriers if they have Air Force planes available to be tasked to the available missions? It makes me nervous that the Naval display may be all bluff and "deterrence." Stay safe.

[@DNowlan1]

If you want to know one of the key reasons the F-35 got into so much trouble it was the STOVL requirement. It had so many knock on effects, not just in weight but in terms of aero propulsive requirements. If the goal is genuine remote deployment the SAAB Gripen shows you how to get the job done.

[@kinematics7092]

I've always heard it was the Navy requirements that caused the weight issue, at least from an interview with Lockheed. They were designing the planes in order of simple to most complex, the initial design order was F-35A, F-35B, and then F-35C. Then when the B model was going to get canceled, they did the F-35B, F-35A, and finally F-35C. But the C requirements were the ones that triggered most of the redesign and bulkier look (2000 lb requirement, larger wing whereas F-35A and F-35B were fine with 1000 lb bombs).

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

The Saab Gripen is basically a "how to lose a war slower" so that the threat of a Winter War style result was enough to deter invasion. The Gripen is a tacit admission that you can't go head to head with the opponent so you have to resort to guerrilla in the air. The F-35 is meant to knock the doors down. It can go head to head with another nation's air force from halfway across the world. Remote deployment here doesn't mean "we have to hide from an overpowering enemy". It means "we'll use the enemy's own roads as our airbase just in case we don't have a friendly nation nearby that will let us use theirs".

[@DNowlan1]

@@kinematics7092 if you look at the Pentagon DOT&E reports and documents like the Quick Look Review published in 2011 the major culprit in the weight blow out was the B model. It's been the continual problem child of the program.

[@verdebusterAP]

How about no The F-35B from the start was going to be completely different from the rest. The problem was the fact that F-35A and F-35C was so far apart The reason why the F-4 was a successful joint asset was the fact that USAF and USN models had very little differences The F-35A and F-35C are majorly different

[@AA-xo9uw]

The primary objective of CALF/JAST/JSF was to produce a STOVL fighter without the B the A and C wouldn't exist. Let us know when SAAB figures out how to launch and recover the JAS 39 from a LHA/LHD.

[@scarlton3232]

That guy is priceless. Just shows you what a misguided clusterfuck the military budget is. They might want to start thinking about fuel if they embark on another never ending war. Bring back the draft and it will end all of this nonsense.

[@sonasidhu]

Hi Mover, how about a video discussing F-35 design possibilities if it didn't have to fill Marine Corp requirements. I think the aircraft would look a lot different.

[@AA-xo9uw]

"Corp"(sic) It's a Corps not a corporation.

[@a24396]

The F-35B was a replacement for the AV-8B, so the Hornet wasn't able to provide that capability. As for the F-35C? It's more capable than the F/A-18 in almost every way, and it's cheaper too... So... Why would you want a more expensive and less capable aircraft?

[@nunogomes2476]

LOL...the 80 million Super Hornet vs the 109 million F-35C...more expensive?

[@PassportBrosBusinessClass]

@@nunogomes2476 When I read that I did a double take.

[@michaelbenjmitchell1]

@@nunogomes2476 Also the F-18 Super Hornet can carry more into battle than the F-35.

[@yomama629]

@@michaelbenjmitchell1 that's just false. F-35C has a higher max takeoff weight than the Super Hornet

[@bobbyraejohnson]

Ya f35 is more expensive and way more complex.

[@kq1534]

I mean one is 4th gen the other is 5th gen. Come on guys bigger is better, haven’t the ladies taught you that already

[@marcojan5322]

So true with the army joke. I served in the Taiwanese Army and we were like the hobos of the military 😂

[@NanaHoshi35]

F-35B will be hugely appreciated by both the US and the Allies in the next inevitable war in the Indo-Pacific theater. The Bravo might have dragged down the JSF program a bit, but without it, there would have been no chance for these things to exist from the first place or continue to exist, and be ready when they're needed: STOVL combat jet, next-gen STOVL combat jet(that is stealth, which is crucial for saving US and Allie's lives in the next war), UK Japanese Korean Italian Aus(*provide ships only with USMC bring-their-own-a/c)etc naval air forces (and again some of them will play very important role in the next INEVITABLE war)

[@HotForgeChaos]

When you build a jet that needs a gun pod, then I don't think you made the right choice. Sure 99% of engagements are BVR these days, but you still gotta have a sidearm

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

For what? To get pointlessly close to the enemy? Marines on the ground need to to haul back and load more JDAMs, they don't want you to dick around with the gunpod.

[@Philistine47]

The thing about STOVL is that it's an *EXTREMELY* expensive capability, and I don't mean in terms of dollars (though it runs up a tab in dollars as well). So maybe everyone, including the Marines, would have gotten a more capable airplane, faster and cheaper, if Congress had just said "No, actually we're not going to pay for that."

[@forzaelite1248]

The Marines would no longer have the aircraft and sensors to field from their 33 (?) LHA/Ds (which are a lot cheaper0/easier to operate and staff than CATOBARs), lose out on amphibious ops, and either be restricted to the Navy's carriers or run the ARGs w/o a main fighter force. It'd be a Congressional death sentence to the Marines' MO and mission

[@SoloRenegade]

The F-35 was originally designed to replace teh AV-8B. without the F-35, we'd lose a MASSIVE naval strike capability. And it turned our smaller carriers into full blown carriers for very little cost.

[@AA-xo9uw]

The Marine Corps made it known several decades ago that it was going to field one tactical airframe. Congress knew it, agreed with it and funded it.

[@JamesJoyce12]

someone that believes that F-22's and F-35's are basically the same thing is proby a good pilot but a really bad Pilot-General - this is why we don't let bus drivers run bus companies

[@CWLemoine]

Who said that?

[@JamesJoyce12]

@@CWLemoine 1:50

[@CWLemoine]

@@JamesJoyce12 that is not what he said at all. Listen to it again.

[@CWLemoine]

Also, Rick was an Air Force Engineer in charge of programs like this at Wright Patterson, he's not a military pilot. He's an expert in this field.

[@Dyson_Cyberdynesystems]

Asking this question means you fundamentally do not understand Marine Corps doctrine. Having the LPD / LHA with CAS support is an entirely different scenario than having to have a Carrier close by. Every support entity in the USMC supports the Marine on the ground. Helos, CAS ect. And Amphibious attack groups do not travel with carriers. The Marine Corps also would never be able to Justify having dedicated carriers. While having Hornet squads around in the AO is helpful it's not always possible. The Lightning though did negate the need for A2A support that the Harrier never had.

[@CWLemoine]

And yet they have done just fine with Legacy Hornets for the last 20 years. Perhaps it's a doctrine that needs revision.

[@rs232killer]

@@CWLemoine The comment about "have done just fine with Legacy Hornets" confused me. The USMC was at no point without operational STOVL capability, solely relying on Hornets and Super Hornets. There is overlap between F-35B IOC and AV-8B phase out. I believe VMA-231 is still flying harriers and will continue to do so for another year or two and VMFA-542 only phased out its harriers at the end of last year.

[@CWLemoine]

Harriers are a very small part of the operations. Hornets account for a much larger footprint and they’ve done so deploying them using the same footprint as the Air Force.

[@AA-xo9uw]

"Having the LPD / LHA"(sic) LHA/LHD

[@AA-xo9uw]

@@rs232killer " I believe VMA-231 is still flying harriers and will continue to do so for another year or two"(sic) 223 and 231 both continue to operate the AV-8B. The Marine Corps will retire the Harrier II in mid 2029.

[@TC-bq5dj]

Tendrías que reaccionar a los ataques aéreos argentinos a la flota británica en la Guerra de Malvinas. A4, MIRAGE, PUCARA, SUPER ETENDAR, AEROMACHI. saludos de argentina 👍🇦🇷

[@gtdcoder]

Yes, the F-35 is a great plane and will help maintain U.S superiority for decades to come.

[@macarmalite8775]

Constant overhead surveillance would make it too risky for an F-35 to land and rearm/refuel on a random road. Plus it's a logistics nightmare to do that. I think the F-35B will be the last STOVL airplane the Marines will ever get.

[@ypw510]

They're going to get a replacement for the Osprey.

[@mignik01]

The F35 had to be this way. Because the marines needed a stealth fighter. And there is no way they could've had it without support from the other branches.

[@AA-xo9uw]

The primary objective of the CALF/JAST/JSF programs was to produce a STOVL fighter. Without the B the A and C wouldn't exist.

[@gbphil]

Looks like the B’s are a bit of a compromise, they have hard points for weapons now so aren’t stealthy, they land on the carriers at 50 knots rather than vertically so they don’t have to jettison the unused weapon load and they need the whole carrier deck to take off fully loaded (850ft). The British are reportedly looking to convert to conventional aircraft platforms by 2030 for their two carriers.

[@Odysseuss.]

"bit" 🤔

[@gbphil]

@@Odysseuss. ‘bit’ is a relative term, the A’s and C’s only exist because of the need for the B, else they would be completely different. i.e. the C would have two engines, not one and the A would have twice the payload.

[@forzaelite1248]

​@@gbphilThe C having two engines goes against the design philosophy in a lot of ways. More complex, more maintenance, likely more weight, less internal space, a less efficient engine cycle due to the engine size given the airframe space, among other things like having to buy twice as many engines per jet. The Navy preferred twin engines in the past was because turbine engines weren't reliable up until the F-14B and F18. The A having twice the payload would require an F-22 sized aircraft, F-22 sized complexity, and F-22 level costs, all of which were the antithesis of the program. It would take away from the coalition's native industrial base as well, including aircraft tailored to their specific AA needs instead of general multirole ops. Not trying to preach the program as the Word, but it's been pretty far from ineffective for a while

[@AA-xo9uw]

" they land on the carriers at 50 knots rather than vertically"(sic) No plans to implement SRVL recoveries aboard LHAs/LHDs and the Brits have yet to use it operationally on either of their boats.

[@gbphil]

@@AA-xo9uw Have you seen the video released three days ago of the VMFAT 501 squadron doing it on the Prince of Wales?

[@user-cl5zy5qn5d]

They want some their support Aircraft to be as close to their ground troops as possible. That was the whole reason why they bought the harrier. The B model C fat amy follows that reasoning

[@icaleinns6233]

C'mon guys, stop making sense! 🤣🤣🤣

[@deantait8326]

OUT of Ukraine…

[@BilgePump]

Jarines should be flying the a10 if they need a aircraft…..

[@viaticchart3139]

they would die in the first 30 minutes like the SU-25s in ukraine. it's a dated platform that became useless with the T-72 which was very difficult for the A-10s gun to pen and Tunguska style AA. flying low isnt safe anymore and hasnt been unless you're fighting a war like the GWOT in which the A-10 still used mavericks more than the gun which it is so famous for. its only advantage was having a longer loiter time and a few more hard points. while yes some SU-25s are still flying they are constantly being targeted and rendered basically useless.

[@NanaHoshi35]

@@viaticchart3139 not to mention it will be an even more harsh environment for the CASer to survive in the next big war in the Pacific theater...

[@AA-xo9uw]

No thanks. For starters A-10s can't operate from the decks of LHAs/LHDs but thanks for emoting.

[@alexbrokholm4883]

Give the Saab Gripen to the marines

[@AA-xo9uw]

Nope

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

How are they going to fly it off a short deck/helicopter carrier? The F-35B can replace Harriers. The Saab Gripen can't.

[@millicentsquirrelhole582]

Hiya' Mo'..no Go'?..well, okay so yer' floggin' tha' crap outta' Amy like whirly-giggin' her an' then straight out givin' her tha' ol' stick..duz ya' boys inna' moment of drivin' hijinks n' crap..duz ya, duz ya' dial up The Pine Leaf Boys an' sing along to 'Chere Joues Roses'..of course ya' do....ahhhooo, boys!

[@Odysseuss.]

No. F35 A/C for full fuel and weapons loadout

[@eddiet204]

Go Marine and you’ll find yourself flying helicopters

[@W1ckedRcL]

The correct choice is new F14s But no one wants to have that conversation

[@colonelkurtz2269]

The correct choice is not to involve yourself in conflicts or over involve that don't concern you. One day, we might learn that, but I doubt it.

[@crash8926]

@@colonelkurtz2269 That’s irrelevant to the conversation!

[@crash8926]

Respectfully, no one wants to have that conversation because it’s an unreal and asinine conversation to have.

[@colonelkurtz2269]

@@crash8926 not really. Who is seriously thinking about bringing back the F14? No one

[@colonelkurtz2269]

@@crash8926 apparently Wicked does. See their original comment.

[@johndeanjdsvihovic8490]

The Marines should have developed the AV-8C... Fat Amy is a horrible choice for the USMC!!

[@AA-xo9uw]

"The Marines should have developed the AV-8C..."(sic) The AV-8C was an upgraded AV-8A which was succeeded and replaced by the AV-8B.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

The Harrier was woefully outdated and the losses in Desert Storm kind of raised the issue with fielding an aircraft that paints the entire side of the fuselage with the exhaust plume.

[@Turboy65]

Adding many billions of dollars to the cost of the F-35 program and ending up with an F-35 variant that has only 20 to 25 percent parts commonality with the rest of the line just for the neat trick of STOVL operation, which is of questionable utility, was a bad idea. The Marines should simply have been told NO, they can't have that new toy. Take a conventional A or C model or go back to eating crayons.

[@AA-xo9uw]

The primary objective of CALF/JAST/JSF was to produce a STOVL fighter. Without the B the A and C wouldn't exist but thanks for emoting.