• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Air Force Grounds F-35s It Just Declared Ready for War

RogueWarrior said:
BITE
YOUR TONGUE
OFF

The reason the Marines are more effective is because they take combined arms SERIOUSLY.
Click to expand...

So the marines calling in an AF or Navy air support plane isnt combined arms? :neutral:

WorldWatcher said:
The cost of the F-35C for the Navy is about 10 million more than the F-35B for the Marines.
Click to expand...
I am for killing the F35 program, not shifting it to the Navy.

The Marine Hornet squadrons can operate both from land and carriers like Navy Squadrons, but neither can operate out of forward bases for close timely support that their VSTOL squadrons provide.
Click to expand...
I dont buy it. You need to show me a link in which lives were saved because they called in a harrier instead of an F-18, A-10 or other aircraft.
 
PoS said:
So the marines calling in an AF or Navy air support plane isnt combined arms? :neutral:


I am for killing the F35 program, not shifting it to the Navy.


I dont buy it. You need to show me a link in which lives were saved because they called in a harrier instead of an F-18, A-10 or other aircraft.
Click to expand...



I "don't need" to show you anything. We are talking about the operation environment for Marines and the immediate support local aircraft bring forward deployed based where the transit time is measured in minutes and not hours and requires tanker support to even get to the operational area. If you don't see how a VSTOL aircraft can provide immediate support over putting a request in and then waiting hours for a response and transit time - then proper support isn't being provided to the troops on the ground.



>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
We are talking about the operation environment for Marines and the immediate support local aircraft bring forward deployed based where the transit time is measured in minutes and not hours and requires tanker support to even get to the operational area. If you don't see how a VSTOL aircraft can provide immediate support over putting a request in and then waiting hours for a response and transit time - then proper support isn't being provided to the troops on the ground.



>>>>
Click to expand...

This has always been a fundamental tenet of the USMC to my knowledge. But for whatever the rational they will never give up VSTOL
 
PoS said:
So the marines calling in an AF or Navy air support plane isnt combined arms? :neutral:


I am for killing the F35 program, not shifting it to the Navy.


I dont buy it. You need to show me a link in which lives were saved because they called in a harrier instead of an F-18, A-10 or other aircraft.
Click to expand...

WorldWatcher said:
I "don't need" to show you anything. We are talking about the operation environment for Marines and the immediate support local aircraft bring forward deployed based where the transit time is measured in minutes and not hours and requires tanker support to even get to the operational area. If you don't see how a VSTOL aircraft can provide immediate support over putting a request in and then waiting hours for a response and transit time - then proper support isn't being provided to the troops on the ground.



>>>>
Click to expand...

You both have a point, imo.

If you are going to fight far inland AND if the Navy is not going to give the Marines air/artillery support - then it makes sense that the Marines carry their own air support...which has to be V/STOL aircraft.

However, if the Marines were doing what Marines are supposed to do (protect ships, take small/medium islands and establish/hold beachheads), then they should not need their own support as the Navy should be responsible for all the support the Marines need...just minutes away in the form of air strikes or shore bombardment from 5" guns/Tomahawk cruise missiles.

The problem - as I see it - is the Marines are now largely thought of as an independent branch of the military...when they are not. They ARE part of the Navy. Their original purpose has dwarfed to include almost anything....which is not what Marines are supposed to do.
Personally, I thought it was utterly ridiculous to see Marines entering Baghdad during Iraqi Freedom (in the middle of the desert - hundreds of miles from any major body of water) in their AAV's (which are designed as armoured landing craft). It's not like the Army/Air Force was hard-pressed to defeat Saddam alone.

Now since the Marines already have almost 60 F-35B's and lots of amphibious assault vessels to operate them from - they might as well keep them, imo.

But I strongly believe that the Marines should be restricted to traditional missions and leave all inland fighting to the Army/airborne/air force....roles the latter are usually better equipped to carry out.
 
Last edited:
WorldWatcher said:
I "don't need" to show you anything. We are talking about the operation environment for Marines and the immediate support local aircraft bring forward deployed based where the transit time is measured in minutes and not hours and requires tanker support to even get to the operational area. If you don't see how a VSTOL aircraft can provide immediate support over putting a request in and then waiting hours for a response and transit time - then proper support isn't being provided to the troops on the ground.
Click to expand...
So you got no proof that a harrier is superior to any of the other strike aircraft thats out there. Noted.

It's clear to me that this is just politics. The Marines like their shiny VTOL toy because no one else has it and this is one of the factors thats sent the price of the F35 through the roof and made it an inferior plane. Time to ditch all the harriers then.
 
PoS said:
So you got no proof that a harrier is superior to any of the other strike aircraft thats out there. Noted.

It's clear to me that this is just politics. The Marines like their shiny VTOL toy because no one else has it and this is one of the factors thats sent the price of the F35 through the roof and made it an inferior plane. Time to ditch all the harriers then.
Click to expand...


I never said the harrier "was superior", I pointed out that it filled an operation niche in that it (as a VSTOL aircraft) provides forward operational support that other fast movers can't supply unless they are operating from a prepared air field or a mobile carrier. A form of support the F-35B varient will fill going forward.


>>>>
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom