Hacker News Reader

Comment by ZanyProgrammer | Hacker News Reader

Nope, they are dead wrong. I was in the Army during both Bush maladministrations, and the Marines doing their own thing was one of the proximate causes of the horrible Army ACU (as well as the weird Air Force and Navy blueish camo thingeys). From what I remember the Marines (RAWR, because they are MARINES, TOUGH!) didn't want their camo licensed out to the other branches, so the everyone went their own way. How is this cost effective? It certainly makes getting uniform apparel that much harder on joint bases (where they have to stock everything, like the Presidio of Monterey), or isolated people in Guard/Reserve units, whose nearest active duty installation may not be in their branch.

View on HN

I believe the Marines are also responsible for ruining the F-35 to the tune of $1 trillion over the lifetime of the plane.

> The Pentagon intends to spend roughly $399 billion to develop and buy 2,443 of the planes. However, over the course of the aircrafts' lifetimes, operating costs are expected to exceed $1 trillion. Lockheed has carefully hired suppliers and subcontractors in almost every state to ensure that virtually all senators and members of Congress have a stake in keeping the program -- and the jobs it has created -- in place.

The Marines wanted VTOL and that made the plane worse in every other way.

They probably wanted a V2 harrier - which I am sure BAE would have loved to make but politics got in the way of buying a foreign plane.

Correct. The Marines desired a plane capable of VTOL and when DOD forced the idea of a singular fighter, they said "okay but we need VTOL" (and the other branches had their own operational needs), and thus we have this great-at-nothing-horrible-at-everything F-35.

Exactly. The Marines did not ruin the F-35. The planners and politics that insisted on a single, joint service aircraft ruined the F-35.

The Marines have a mindset that they are SPECIAL. I mean that in a serious way, despite the Marines rarely doing anything that's not also done by the Army. It'd make more sense for Marine air units to fly off of Navy carriers, rather than waste money on a VTOL version of the F-35.

Well when they make themselves such an exclusive club with a difficult test each member feels like they are special.

A Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) is not supported by Navy aircraft carriers (see Marine Expeditionary Unit). A MAGTF is supported by Navy Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) class ships that require VTOL capable aircraft. The AV8-B Harrier is the current aircraft that fits this role, which the F-35 is meant to replace.

+1 correct. A carrier battle group can't be everywhere, and the immense operational options available to a VTOL contingent make the program viable. I'm a former Navy pilot, and agree that VTOL gets the job done in many tight situations.

Yeah, if all 10 super carriers are tied up, I'm sure we'll have plenty of resources to keep those hundred million dollar planes ready to rock.

I realize sarcasm is a poor excuse for humor, but if all ten are unavailable (because of shooting and getting shot at), i think we (the US) would have a pretty rough time getting those planes working.

If their not available because of non-war reasons, it seems like the mission isn't really that big of a deal anyway.

I sort of think the US goes for the Cadillac solution for everything. Perhaps that's my bias because i only hear about the expensive stuff. I'd sort of expect there to be a nice gradient between really super high tech, down to cheap simple and reliable. But whatever, armchair quarterback.

Yes but in what major engagement that we could reasonably expect to face in the next several decades would a USMC task force be sent without a carrier group. If there is a serious need for airpower in a region there's no way we're not going to send in a supercarrier.

It is highly unlikely that a MAGTF would be in-theater without a CVBG in the area. However, the CVBG may not be tasked with supporting the MAGTF, or other tasking may take priority. The MAGTF's squadrons are tasked with direct support of the TF's ground forces before, during, and after the landing. Relying on the CVBG for this either forces the CAG to split its resources and attention (reducing is efficiency) or leaves the Marines with no air cover.

Pretty much every MEU sails without a full-sized carrier in it, and the MEUs have seen a fair amount of deployment on their own since OIF began.

MEUs never have a carrier attached, as carriers only sail in CVBGs. However, there has been at least one CVBG in-theater constantly since OIF began, and I doubt the Navy would ever send an MEU into a theater that did not have a CVBG present.

I know that is the rationale for USMC CAS but I just wonder if the cost of acquiring and flying a STOVL aircraft just for that very specific requirement is justified.

In the case of the JSF program, maybe if that requirement had gotten split off from the rest of the program it could've been done for a cheaper price that would make it worthwhile. But the costs of the F-35 are still not done soaring out of control and at the end of it all I can't imagine that it will be worth the cost for the Marine Corps to have air cover during amphibious landings.

Plus, VTOL aircraft have hover capability which is important for the close air support role Marine aviators specialize in.

The Marines fly F-18s from Navy carriers, and presumably they will continue this with the F-35. The problem is that the whole program, which is the biggest military procurement program ever, to provide the principal combat aircraft for the entire U.S. military, has been totally compromised by this niche requirement of a VTOL version.

If the problem is not enough Marine firepower from the full deck carriers, the Marines should just buy more CTOL aircraft and put them on the carriers. All of the carrier air wings have been downsized since the cold war, and carriers are only going to sea with 65 or so aircraft, when they can hold 90. I'd much rather have 8 fully capable CTOL fighters on the full-deck carrier that is definitely going to be around in any amphibious landing than 8 low-performance (range and payload) VTOL fighters from an LHA/LHD.

Instead, we get a seriously compromised F-35A and C as far as I can tell because of what happened at Guadalcanal 70 years ago.

Well said. Also, its not as if the Marines have been doing a lot of amphibious landings lately. And honestly shouldn't be doing any without carrier or land based cover. Its interesting though, the LHA/LHDs are bigger than most other countries aircraft carriers...

The Marines wanted a new Harrier; they never insisted that the other services use the same airframe.

Isn't the VTOL version basically a different plane with major differences under the skin? I'm not sure how it directly affected the designs of the non VTOL versions of the airplane...

I was confused reading your comment, because I assumed the "they" in your first sentence meant those that wrote the editorial. But based on the rest of your comment, the "they" must be the military bureaucracy, because your comment agrees with the editorial.

You are correct, I read the article early in the morning before coffee, and thought the Economist was taking the side of the Marines, et al. There's a lot of Marine veneration in the media, surprisingly.

Reminds me of the long running fiasco over the new boots in the British army which lead to trench foot in the Falklands war. As the Army Rumour service (Arsepedia) says

"All in all, the saga of British Army boot procurement is pretty pathetic: that we can consistently buy such rubbish, thus inevitably incurring far higher costs than would be necessary in buying one of the many excellent commercial products, is astonishing but symptomatic of British Defence Policy. At a rough estimate, 50% of British soldiers wear boots they have bought for themselves when on operations or exercise. "

I found the ARRSE completely by accident - quite an amusing site (probably NSFW):

http://www.arrse.co.uk/

e.g. "British Military Procurement Mysteries"

http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/British_Military_Procurement_Mys...

I don't see a big problem with each branch doing their own unis. They certainly are large enough. And the design costs are negligible in the scheme of things. Sure, they could share some best practices. Clearly they have different needs.

I think MultiCam variations (incl. Camogrom) are the best "universal" pattern that will suit most envirnoments, it works well in various lighting contitions too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com