Thoughts on F-35??

That's pretty good gouge except they are NOT falling apart. That's a bit harsh.
Well, maybe a bit exaggerated. In all fairness to the Harrier, with some minor exceptions, they are doing better now than they were 10 years ago.

I was briefly on TARAWA back in '01 with VMF214 embarked. During the middle of the deployment, they had 2 FMC birds out of the 6 that were embarked.

My last deployment was more like 4 of 6 FMC
 
When people build contraptions meant to do the job of many contraptions, it is rare when the new contraption will outperform the individual contraptions it was meant to replace.
FWIW, a few years ago, a coworker who was a Super Hornet guy had a chance to fly against an F-22. He said for the F-22 to go against jets like Hornets was like clubbing baby seals.
 
FWIW, a few years ago, a coworker who was a Super Hornet guy had a chance to fly against an F-22. He said for the F-22 to go against jets like Hornets was like clubbing baby seals.

There is/was an F-15 pilot in one of the forums I follow who will tell you the same thing. Stealth, speed, maneuverability, and situational awareness? That's a heck of a combination.
 
Yeah. But the Hornet guy announces his coming- the F35 guy knows about you a long time out.

The F35 guy does not announce.
 
For the poster saying it only participated in combat once, etc: with all due respect, you're an idiot, lol.

Well, Chiefy, instead of calling me an idiot, why don't you educate me. I'm interested to know what the Harrier has done in combat...who is shooting at it, what missions is it flying, what is its combat readiness profile?

Since VMA 211 rotated home is there even an active squadron in Afghanistan?
 
Well, Chiefy, instead of calling me an idiot, why don't you educate me. I'm interested to know what the Harrier has done in combat...who is shooting at it, what missions is it flying, what is its combat readiness profile?

Since VMA 211 rotated home is there even an active squadron in Afghanistan?

Ummmmm Ever hear of the Falkland Islands? All Harriers on the Brit side.

As for the US Harriers: (From Wikipedia)

The AV-8B saw extensive action in the Gulf War of 1990–91. Aircraft based on USS Nassau and USS Tarawa, and at on-shore bases, flew training and support sorties, as well as practicing with coalition forces. The AV-8Bs were to be held in reserve during the initial phase of the preparatory air assault of Operation Desert Storm. On the morning of 17 January 1991, a call for air support from an OV-10 Bronco forward air controller against artillery that was shelling Khafji and an adjacent oil refinery, initiated the AV-8B into combat.[85] The following day, USMC AV-8Bs attacked Iraqi positions in southern Kuwait. Throughout the war, AV-8Bs worked in concert with coalition forces to destroy targets, as well as performing armed reconnaissance.[85] During Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, the AV-8B amassed 3,380 flights and 4,083 flight hours,[86] with a mission availability rate of over 90 percent.[87] Five AV-8Bs were lost to enemy surface-to-air missiles, and two Marine pilots were killed. The AV-8B had an attrition rate of 1.5 aircraft for every 1,000 sorties flown. US Army General Norman Schwarzkopf would later name the AV-8B among the seven weapons—along with the F-117 Nighthawk and AH-64 Apache—which played a crucial role during the war.[88][89] In the aftermath of the war, from 27 August 1992 until 2003, USMC AV-8Bs and other aircraft patrolled the sky over Iraq in support of Operation Southern Watch. The AV-8Bs launched from amphibious assault ships in the Persian Gulf, and from forward operating bases such as Ali Al Salem Air Base, Kuwait.[90]
The AV-8B again participated in a major conflict in the 1999, during NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia in Operation Allied Force. Twelve Harriers were split evenly between the 24th and 26th Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU). AV-8Bs of the 24th MEU were introduced into combat on 14 April, and over the next 14 days flew 34 combat air support missions over Kosovo. During their six-month deployment onboard USS Nassau, 24th MEU Harriers averaged a high mission-capable rate of 91.8 percent.[91] On 28 April, the 24th MEU was relieved by the 26th MEU, based on USS Kearsarge. The first combat sorties of the unit's AV-8Bs occurred two days later, with one aircraft lost. The 26th MEU remained in the theater of operations until 28 May, when it was relocated to Brindisi, Italy.[91]
USMC Harrier IIs participated in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan from 2001. The USMC 15th MEU arrived off the coast of Pakistan in October 2001. Operating from the unit's ships, four AV-8Bs began attack missions into Afghanistan on 3 November 2001. The 26th MEU and its AV-8Bs joined 15th MEU later that month. In December 2001, Harrier IIs began moving into Afghanistan to a forward base at Kandahar. More AV-8Bs were deployed with other USMC units to the region in 2002. The VMA-513 squadron deployed six Night Attack Harrier IIs to Bagram in October 2002. These aircraft each carried a LITENING targeting pod to perform reconnaissance missions along with attack and other missions primarily at night.[92]

The aircraft returned to Iraq during the Iraq War in 2003, acting primarily in support of USMC ground units. During the initial action, 60 AV-8Bs were deployed on ships such as the USS Bonhomme Richard and USS Bataan; over a thousand sorties were flown from the sea. When possible, land-based forward arming and refuelling points were set up to enable prompt operations.[93] USMC commander Lieutenant General Earl B. Hailston said that the Harriers were able to provide 24-hour support for ground forces, and noted that "The airplane... became the envy of pilots even from my background... there's an awful lot of things on the Harrier that I've found the Hornet pilots asking me [for]... We couldn't have asked for a better record".[93] Major General James F. Amos later commented on the AV-8B's performance in Iraq, stating: "I simply could not have been more pleased with the reliability of the airplane and its weapons systems... and in the courage and discipline of my AV8 pilots."[94]
Marine Corps sources documented the Harrier as holding an 85 percent aircraft availability record in the Iraq War, and in just under a month of combat, the aircraft had flown over 2,000 sorties. When used, the LITENING II targeting pod achieved greater than 75 percent kill effectiveness on targets.[93] In a single sortie from USS Bonhomme Richard, a wave of Harriers inflicted heavy damage on a Republican Guard tank battalion in advance of a major ground assault on Al Kut.[95] Harriers regularly operated in close support roles for friendly tanks, usually with one carrying a LITENING pod. Despite the Harrier's high marks, the limited amount of time that each aircraft could remain on station, around 15–20 minutes, led to some calls from within the USMC for AC-130 gunships to be procured; the AC-130 could loiter for six hours, and had a heavier close air support capability than the AV-8B.[96] AV-8Bs were later used in combination with artillery to provide constant fire support for ground forces during heavy fighting in 2004 around the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah. The urban environment there required extreme precision for airstrikes.[97]
 
Last edited:
I don't really care about the British use of the Harrier in 1982 because I am more interested in the Marine's claimed needs for a VTOL aircraft today. When $220 million buys ~one~ aircraft it seems cheaper alternatives would be explored.

I see the Harrier was involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom...it's interesting that the aircraft has such a short time-on-station ability. Is that because they were using the VTOL capability, flying inland, or due to a small fuel capacity?
 
I flew it in OIF. It does indeed have a shorter time on station compared to the Hornets. We were launching sorties out of Al Asad Airbase and providing 2 1 hour missions per hop. Granted, we weren't carrying external fuel tanks, which would have extended us an additional twenty minutes to half hour per sortie. During that deployment, it was felt we could support better with more ordnance vice more time on station (if you add external tanks, you lose ordnance). I believe the Hornets were tanked and providing about 1.5 per sortie.

We're a small jet with a humongous engine. Feeding that thing costs time on station. Also, the small wing results in fewer weapons stations (5). We ALWAYS carry a targeting pod, so that takes up a station. If you add two fuel tanks, you're now down to two bombs. Granted, we are normally carrying the gun pack so that straddles the gap a little. The guys on the ground in Afghanistan loved the gun, so that helped when the jets were carrying externals.

Everything comes with a penalty.


Edit to add: the Harrier actually has 7 weapons stations, but I intentionally didn't count the wingtip stations. As of about 4 years ago, we could only carry A/A missiles on these stations, I don't know if that's changed.
 
Last edited:
Please tell me what a Harrier did that actually depended on the jump jet that couldn't have been done equally well by another non VTOL platform.
 
Please tell me what a Harrier did that actually depended on the jump jet that couldn't have been done equally well by another non VTOL platform.
When all you have in the area is an ARG/MEU and there are no other carrier or land based aircraft available. It is pretty damn useful.

What you don't understand is how we cover the globe with a limited number of assets. You can't park a CVN everywhere you might want one. There are also times you need the strike capability, but don't want to draw the attention to your ops like a CVN does. It is sometimes easier to avoid the spotlight when the CVN is not present.
 
When all you have in the area is an ARG/MEU and there are no other carrier or land based aircraft available. It is pretty damn useful.

Then it shouldn't be difficult to come up with a plethora of instances, especially with all our wars in inhospitable places.
 
Then it shouldn't be difficult to come up with a plethora of instances, especially with all our wars in inhospitable places.
Yes, it is called OIF/OEF.

You have neither the clearance nor need to know for the specifics.

That's the difference. The CVN gets the media attention. The ARG/MEU does not.
 
Yes, it is called OIF/OEF.

You have neither the clearance nor need to know for the specifics.

That's the difference. The CVN gets the media attention. The ARG/MEU does not.

That's a load of hogwash. "Oh, I'd answer the question but I'd have to kill you". More to the point, given the physics of the thing I doubt it could land in an unimproved field to provide close support.
 
That's a load of hogwash. "Oh, I'd answer the question but I'd have to kill you". More to the point, given the physics of the thing I doubt it could land in an unimproved field to provide close support.
Didn't say I'd have to kill you. Just said that I can't go into the specifics in a venue such as this. And I can't. It is as simple as that.

But the reality Michael, is that I don't have to prove anything. I know and have seen with my own eyes what both the AV-8B and the F-35B can do. Just because they have limitations does not automatically mean they are useless.

You were the one who made a bunch of completely uninformed BS comments about crap which you know nothing about and have nothing to back up your comments.

If you don't like the JSF because it costs too much money, that is fine. It is a valid point of view. But to base your like or dislike on what you THINK it's capabilities are without having a clue how either airplane is tactically employed shows complete ignorance.
 
Didn't say I'd have to kill you. Just said that I can't go into the specifics in a venue such as this. And I can't. It is as simple as that.

I find it hard to believe that all the operational specifics for an aircraft in service for over 4 decades are classified.

But the reality Michael, is that I don't have to prove anything. I know and have seen with my own eyes what both the AV-8B and the F-35B can do. Just because they have limitations does not automatically mean they are useless.

I never said they were useless, and I've seen what the AV-8B and the F35B can do as well. What I said is I'll bet money that they've never used their VTOL capabilities to land at unimproved airstrips close to combat zones to provide close air support to Marines, which is the mission sold to us civilian types who do little more than pay the bills. I doubt the Harrier could given its propensity for compressor stalls. I doubt they even do the VTOL thing routinely on carriers. I asked you to tell me different (honestly happy to hear I'm wrong, I really am) and all you can do is come up with classified nonsense.

If you don't like the JSF because it costs too much money, that is fine. It is a valid point of view. But to base your like or dislike on what you THINK it's capabilities are without having a clue how either airplane is tactically employed shows complete ignorance.

I don't like it because the ducted fan has widened to fuselage to the point where it may be slower than its most likely opponents. That, and yes its un-Odinly expensive.
 
I find it hard to believe that all the operational specifics for an aircraft in service for over 4 decades are classified.
They aren't. But the operations that I was specifically involved in are. The most recent events are most definitely classified. Additionally, for the ops that I was involved in over two years ago, I honestly don't recall which mission aspects were classified and which were not, and therefore I am not comfortable sharing. If it means that much to you, you can submit the FOIA request yourself.
 
What I said is I'll bet money that they've never used their VTOL capabilities to land at unimproved airstrips close to combat zones to provide close air support to Marines, which is the mission sold to us civilian types who do little more than pay the bills. I doubt the Harrier could given its propensity for compressor stalls. I doubt they even do the VTOL thing routinely on carriers.
Not sure where you are getting your info, but the F-35B was never advertised as a VTOL aircraft.

It was also never a requirement from an acquisition standpoint.

It is a STOVL airplane. (Short Takeoff, Vertical Landing). Not the kind of thing you fly out of unimproved airstrips.
 
I find it hard to believe that all the operational specifics for an aircraft in service for over 4 decades are classified.



I never said they were useless, and I've seen what the AV-8B and the F35B can do as well. What I said is I'll bet money that they've never used their VTOL capabilities to land at unimproved airstrips close to combat zones to provide close air support to Marines, which is the mission sold to us civilian types who do little more than pay the bills. I doubt the Harrier could given its propensity for compressor stalls. I doubt they even do the VTOL thing routinely on carriers. I asked you to tell me different (honestly happy to hear I'm wrong, I really am) and all you can do is come up with classified nonsense.



I don't like it because the ducted fan has widened to fuselage to the point where it may be slower than its most likely opponents. That, and yes its un-Odinly expensive.

Why would they need to use VTOL in land when they are launching from an LHA? You still need VTOL to land back at the ship.

As far as not setting up an unimproved airstrip in the past wars? It hasnt been needed. Why put Marines in harms way setting up aluminum matting when you have a 2 mile long runway at Kandahar or Bagram...with hangers?

Marines still train for the unimproved airstrip scenario. If you look up Ie Shima Island on Wiki you'll see it's used heavily by the Marines. Having worked there myself I assure you that an entire airfield structure can be set up there with C-130s and Harriers in a very short time and operate in all weather conditions. It's capability that's on tap for the Marines and a capability that only the Harrier can pull off.

A lot of talk about the F-35 not being needed for current wars. Sure, after the initial stages you could handle CAS with an A-10s and rotorywing assets. I can tell you first hand that with fratricide and ROE considerations that helo CAS is the most effective, albeit with a much higher loss rate. Problem is the initial stages of OIF the was a significant SAM footprint there. Although the F-16s did an outstanding job in the SEAD role I can only imagine that a low observable aircraft would be more survivable. Is that capability worth 200 million a piece? I don't know.

Also, should we only develope aircraft for current wars or do we look to possible future scenarios where we actually might be up against a significant air force? We shouldn't strive to make an even fight, you want it to be a quick, lopsided victory. From what I've read about the F-22, we currently have that.
 
Marines still train for the unimproved airstrip scenario. If you look up Ie Shima Island on Wiki you'll see it's used heavily by the Marines. Having worked there myself I assure you that an entire airfield structure can be set up there with C-130s and Harriers in a very short time and operate in all weather conditions. It's capability that's on tap for the Marines and a capability that only the Harrier can pull off.

Has it ever been thus used? My guess is no, and my further guess is that the first time they try and do it with a Harrier will be the last. Might be able to do it with the F-35 since the ducted fan doesn't have the inherent problems of the AV-8.
 
They aren't. But the operations that I was specifically involved in are. The most recent events are most definitely classified. Additionally, for the ops that I was involved in over two years ago, I honestly don't recall which mission aspects were classified and which were not, and therefore I am not comfortable sharing. If it means that much to you, you can submit the FOIA request yourself.

and that's one of the problems with debating the pro's and con's of specific platforms and the need for the platform. In the unclassified environment, you simply cannot discuss the specific capabilities, threats, tactics, etc.

People can whine about stuff being classified, but to those people all I can say is, suck it up and deal with it.
 
Pure and simple - waste of money.

Has the F22 even seen combat yet ?
 
Has it ever been thus used? My guess is no, and my further guess is that the first time they try and do it with a Harrier will be the last. Might be able to do it with the F-35 since the ducted fan doesn't have the inherent problems of the AV-8.

I just gave you a perfect example of where it can be used with no engine problems from Harriers (you're thinking old RR engine problems). You can set up an entire airfield on a remote island, at a standoff distance from the enemy and be doing ops day and night in a short period of time. Who cares if that capability hasn't been used yet in combat. That's like saying, well we don't need to train to an NBC threat because it isn't going to happen. We still fly around sweating our butts off with full MOPP gear on for that contingency.

Once again, VTOL/STOL is need to operate off an LHA. LHAs have been used in the last three wars effectively. Are you suggesting we get rid of LHAs that cost a fraction to operate compared to CVNs?
 
Drop the F35, run with the F22, and take the jets away from the marines. The marines don't need a damn jet.


You've never called in an F-18 for fire support have you?:mad2:
 
With the level of integration you can have between forces now I just don't see them really needing a jet given the cost. I don't think they would be a significantly worse off force without them.


And it comes to combat readiness, need boots on the ground now, send the Marines.
 
I just gave you a perfect example of where it can be used with no engine problems from Harriers (you're thinking old RR engine problems). You can set up an entire airfield on a remote island, at a standoff distance from the enemy and be doing ops day and night in a short period of time. Who cares if that capability hasn't been used yet in combat. That's like saying, well we don't need to train to an NBC threat because it isn't going to happen. We still fly around sweating our butts off with full MOPP gear on for that contingency.

Once again, VTOL/STOL is need to operate off an LHA. LHAs have been used in the last three wars effectively. Are you suggesting we get rid of LHAs that cost a fraction to operate compared to CVNs?

Oh for pity sakes, we only have 11 carrier groups! When was the last time one of those couldn't get on station in a timely fashion? Just because you can do a thin doesn't mean you should, especially at that price.
 
Oh for pity sakes, we only have 11 carrier groups! When was the last time one of those couldn't get on station in a timely fashion? Just because you can do a thin doesn't mean you should, especially at that price.

Forget it. Fearless already explained the differences that the MEU provides and that's just scrapping the surface. You just don't want to accept the importance of Marine Aviation or simply don't understand their doctrine.
 
As Henning already said, AF pilots have a tendency to hit friendly forces.

I call BS. That comes from the sensationalism given to the FEW times the AF has bombed friendly forces. In my 1980's era F-16A (old technology compared to anything in the last 20 years) squadron, 3 mils was the norm dropping dumb iron bombs. I'd like to see the stats on number of bombing sorties performed by Marines and Navy and their accuracy compared to the AF. I do not believe the Navy and Marines are more accurate, and I know they don't do anywhere near as much bombing.

Marine pilots routinely drop bombs within 50 feet of friendly forces.

Drop what? BDU-50's? A ground troop can't survive anything that goes boom if he's within 50'.
 
Forget it. Fearless already explained the differences that the MEU provides and that's just scrapping the surface. You just don't want to accept the importance of Marine Aviation or simply don't understand their doctrine.

I understand their doctrine I just think its stupid to the point of absurdity, especially given that it hasn't been used in 4 decades despite numerous wars in decidedly impoverished and inhospitable areas and that its costing us trillions of dollars.
 
The F-35B is an incredible waste of money and its mission can be performed by several cheaper platforms. IIRC the Marines have used the Harrier one time in combat, sorties into Kuwait and Iraq that were performed just to give Marine aviation a participation ribbon. However, the Harrier is good at making noise and burning fuel at airshows.

The Harrier has been used in Afghanistan and Iraq (take two) extensively, check your facts.
 
These expensive single seaters turn the fighter concept on its head...a front line force is intended to overwhelm opponent's airpower. These aircraft are so expensive we can't field more than a few hundred, and in a large scale war scenario operational and combat losses could quickly reduce the fleet to numbers below that required for an effective offensive force.

I guess we should just take our ball and go home then, because without these planes the Chinese could put a hurting on us.
 
The Harrier has been used in Afghanistan and Iraq (take two) extensively, check your facts.

Operated from remote airstrips built on the fly, or operated from conventional runways and aircraft carriers just like the other jets?
 
Operated from remote airstrips built on the fly, or operated from conventional runways and aircraft carriers just like the other jets?

As far as I know from conventional runways, but they don't operate from carriers like other jets, they operate from amphibs.
 
I understand their doctrine I just think its stupid to the point of absurdity, especially given that it hasn't been used in 4 decades despite numerous wars in decidedly impoverished and inhospitable areas and that its costing us trillions of dollars.

1983-Beriut, 1983-Grenada, 1990-Liberia, 1991-Iraq, 1993-Somalia, 1995-Bosnia (Scott O'grady), 1997-West Africa, 1998-Kosovo, 2002-Afghanistan/Dijibouti, 2004-Afghanistan (most succesful campaign in OEF history), 2005-Iraq, 2007-India, 2010-Haiti.

You're right. They haven't done much in the last 4 decades.
 
Last edited:
I understand their doctrine I just think its stupid to the point of absurdity, especially given that it hasn't been used in 4 decades despite numerous wars in decidedly impoverished and inhospitable areas and that its costing us trillions of dollars.

Yeah, that's why the people who make decisions (the people whose opinions actually matter) decided to axe the MEU decades ago... because it's stupid to the point of absurdity.

Oh, wait...

You're right. They haven't done much in the last 4 decades.

Libya as well
 
Last edited:
1983-Beriut, 1983-Grenada, 1990-Liberia, 1991-Iraq, 1993-Somalia, 1995-Bosnia (Scott O'grady), 1997-West Africa, 1998-Kosovo, 2002-Afghanistan/Dijibouti, 2004-Afghanistan (most succesful campaign in OEF history), 2005-Iraq, 2007-India, 2010-Haiti.

You're right. They haven't done much in the last 4 decades.

To my knowledge they've yet to perform a task that could not be performed by a conventional jet fighter. The fact that they got used does not prove the efficacy of the VTOL format.
 
To my knowledge they've yet to perform a task that could not be performed by a conventional jet fighter. The fact that they got used does not prove the efficacy of the VTOL format.

??? The task of landing and departing from an LHA. None of those ops mentioned above could be preformed by anyone other than the MEU and the CAS/CAP support they provide.

As far as what they do for CAS, sure it's just another precision munition platform. Like saying, well the F-16 doesn't provide anything more than F-15E so why have it? It's called redundancy and each airframe has it's own strengths and weaknesses.

In theater it's just another CAS aircraft working a kill box. They do the same job as the F-18s, F-15s, F-16s, B-1s and other coalition aircraft overhead. That's what immediate CAS is and Harriers have been utilized for that just as much as any other airframe. It's more about right time and right place if anything.
 
To my knowledge they've yet to perform a task that could not be performed by a conventional jet fighter. The fact that they got used does not prove the efficacy of the VTOL format.
Again....except that the conventional jets can't operate from an ARG/MEU which tend to not be collocated with the CVN.

There is a reason the Marines have Hornets and AV-8s in their inventory.
 
Back
Top