A modified F22 for Navy air superiority would be good. A modified A10 for Marine close air support would be great. However, a F35B with its STOVL capabilities would also be great for Marine close air support because it would not require a full size aircraft carrier to operate. Also, the F35B is fast and agile and can hold it’s own in air to air combat when required.
Rex
Jeff - 13 years ago
Absolutely not! The Corps has far more important needs to spend its finite resources on.
Kevin - 13 years ago
The Marine Corps shouldn't buy anything, they should continue the operations of the CH-53D Sea Stallion!
will - 13 years ago
i say talk to marine grunts see wat they would like supporting them in close ground support, an A10 or a super sonic fighter jet.
semper
Al Donahue - 13 years ago
As a former Marine aviator, I think we have gone mad. The F-22 at $150,000,000 each? Are you kidding? We're broke now, and, who will we fight with it? President Eisenhower was right when he warned about the military-industrial complex. It's in full force, building weapons systems that we don't need at enormous cost, when they should be concentrating on combating IED's, RPG's, and fighting small groups of insurgents. This is the warfare of the future - not the Russians pouring thru the Fulda gap or fleets of bombers coming over the North Pole By the way, what does USMC air pride itself on? Answer - Close air support. Helping the Marine on the ground. What better platform than upgraded A-10's at a probably a 10th of the cost. If necessary, hang a tail hook on them - strengthen the landing gear - make the wings fold.
Also VTOL - is it really necessary? Did that capability in the Harrier ever make any difference to Marines in battle? Don't think so. A-10s would seem to be better than VTOL F-35's with all the bells and whistles, and again at 1/10th the cost.
Al Donahue - 13 years ago
As a former Marine aviator, I think we have gone mad. The F-22 at $150,000,000 each? Are you kidding? We're broke now, and, who will we fight with it? President Eisenhower was right when he warned about the military-industrial complex. It's in full force, building weapons systems that we don't need at enormous cost, when they should be concentrating on combating IED's, RPG's, and fighting small groups of insurgents. This is the warfare of the future - not the Russians pouring thru the Fulda gap or fleets of bombers coming over the North Pole By the way, what does USMC air pride itself on? Answer - Close air support. Helping the Marine on the ground. What better platform than upgraded A-10's at a probably a 10th of the cost. If necessary, hang a tail hook on them - strengthen the landing gear - make the wings fold.
Also VTOL - is it really necessary? Did that capability in the Harrier ever make any difference to Marines in battle? Don't think so. A-10s would seem to be better than VTOL F-35's with all the bells and whistles, and again at 1/10th the cost.
RFB - 13 years ago
The Corps needs both the F-35 VSTOL\Carrier Models as well as the A-10 or a beast similar in design. The current F-22 model does not fit well within the mission of the Marine Corps.
Semper Fi!
rick Williamson - 13 years ago
The USAF has a hard enough time getting the F-22's off the groung for routine training in a sterile enviroment. What will happen if the airframe ever got deployed to a foward operating area? Bad idea Leathernecks. USMC and the Warthog is made for eachother.
Brian K. Stewart - 13 years ago
Stay with the 18's, wait for F-35's and hey, maybe the air farce would give up the A10's, now that is an airplane that a Marine could love, Pilots and Mechanics. I was an engine mechanic on one of the oldest airplanes in the military arsenal. The A4F skyhawk. A good jet however it was a bitch to work on. I got to work on an F18 one time and I fell in love with it. The sad thing is that it was a Navy F18. Damn Nav pilots, they teased me and then took it away. MAG-42 det A, Cecil Field, Jacksonville Fla. USMC 1979 to 1983.
As a former Marine, I feel I can strongly assert that, past experiences dictate the Corps needs updated equipment. We were always the last to get anything updated (and seemed to always eat scraps while the Air Force and Navy ate like Kings). This question shouldn't even be posed, have you all seen the latest in Chinese attack ships? America will become a third-rate country if we don't keep our military up-to-date in warfare and equipment. Make no mistake, read Revelations in the bible.. China never said they liked the U.S., but, they will go to any lengths to steal our technology. Don't forget what those traitors in Hewlett-Packard did, when they illegally sold them satellite technology (in past days, they would have been prosecuted and shot).
Al - 13 years ago
If w are talking close air support as the primary mission then there is indeed no need for the F-22 or the F35. A lot of bucks if one of these planes is knocked down by 30mm AA weapons. Eventually it will happen. The A-10 platform is already proven to be a great weapons platform for air to ground atttacks. Prop planes are a new logistics issue not needed on the battle grounds. Marine pilots also fly air to air and for that our F-18s are pretty good. Maybe a couple of saquadrons of F-22s for Air to Air, but never send a 150 million dollar supersonic fighter airplane to slug it out close to the ground. Close air support happens 24/7 we have cheaper plaforms which are proven platforms, cost far less per unit and have an extrodinary record for survivability on the battle field as well as the abiliy to deliever heavy grond attack munitions. A Rolls Royce as a four wheel drive vehicle sounds rather numb to me and a waste of tax payer money that close to the ground.
Bob - 13 years ago
The Corps does not need or want a strategic, all weather, Mach 2+, super cruise aircraft like the F-22. The key feature of the F-22 is its radar and its stealth - something not required by a quick and light force that is down in the mud with the bugs. The AV-8B was the perfect choice because it could stay with a moving force. The Corps is light and fast; it doesn't need a strategic air-dominant fighter which could easilly be pulled from its support function to strategic functions like many of the Corps' F-4s were in Vietnam. The only answer is the F-35B with the same short takeoff and vertical landing capabilities that makes the AV-8B so good.
You must keep in mind, the Corps uses air support far differently than any other service. The air assets of the Corps has the role of instant airborne artillery on demand when traditional artillery is still on the landing ships. It is also a Marine pilot supporting a Marine grunt and is the key to the air-ground team. In Vietnam you could tell when you had Marine air support by the color of the pilot's eyes. When we received USAF air support you could hardly tell what kind of plane it was because it was so high. We want it low and pinpoint to keep moving as fast as possible.
Fred - 13 years ago
The F-22 has no sea going capability. Can't use a fleet carrier, can't use any of the helo platforms like the Harrier or the proposed F-35B.
I was involved with the Marine Corps acceptance of the AV-8 Harrier on the ground side 1n 1971-72. TACP etc. That short runway/verticle capability is crucial.
I would like to see a sea going AV-8/A10 blend. That is what the Corps needs for fixed wing support. Not a F-22.
Remember the mission.
Fred
Semper Fi
Terry - 13 years ago
The F22 would have to be rebuilt as said above in order to reinforce the landing gear for carrier landings. The A10 would not work in a war where we would have to fight for air superiorty. Afg. is fine for the A10 but what would we do when the US Marines have to fight the Chinese communist in say ten years? The AC130 gunship is again fine for Afg., but would not work where we don't have supreme air superiorty. Besides the A10 are getting to be very old.
Semper Fidelis,
Tipy
Jeff Carelson - 13 years ago
The USMC should buy/build a version of the USAF AC-130U Spooky Gunship...
For use in supporting USMC Ground forces there is no better platform.
Let the Navy and AF play up at altitude. Support of Ground Forces has been MC doctrine for as long as I remember... and the AC-130U handles that mission extreamly well.
Specter_prime - 13 years ago
what we need is something that is rugged enough to fly from a carrier, has a huge payload, and can loiter.....and oh yeah provide its own fighter support just like the FA-18.....the F 22 .....landing gear will have to be strengthened, payload increased
As it stands right now, there does need to be some overlap in Aircraft....gets too expensive to have multiple platforms.....back in the mid to late 60's .....the Airforce decided to get the F-4 Phantom II....a Naval/Marine Corps fighter.....the F22 is not the answer
aj-47 - 13 years ago
The F-22 should be used by the navy, in the same roll the F-14 was used before. For the Marins the A-10 will be the best soultion, and not a $100 million aircraft.
ms6 - 13 years ago
better use a credit crd. All of the money is gone.
major.rod - 13 years ago
Poor poll choices. What about the obvious Plan B? The F35C?
Richard - 13 years ago
The Marines don't need the F-35B or the F-22. The Marines need a plane like the A-10, Bronco type, or a mud fighter. Stealth is not needed to protect marines in most battles. These guys need a plane that can deliver weapons on target in a very short amount of time and be able to take damage like an A-10 or other mud fighter could. An F-35 is a wonderful plane but the wrong pick to protect the Marines. In Vietnam when an air strike was called in you would see an F-4 then an A-4 and when the single prop plane Skyraider would circle overhead and dive and deploy airbrakes and drop a bomb on a small target then the enemy was neutralized. Fast is not the weapon needed. The plane needed needs to be able to carry lots of weapons and be able to slow down enough to drop them on target. The F-22 is great for the AF and I wish the US Navy had a version to use. The marines need a different aircraft all together.
Does the Corps really need jets for close air support (Just a question) With
Cobras and prop planes. Personally I think A-10s and close air support should
Be given to the army from the USAF. But high costs f22s?
A modified F22 for Navy air superiority would be good. A modified A10 for Marine close air support would be great. However, a F35B with its STOVL capabilities would also be great for Marine close air support because it would not require a full size aircraft carrier to operate. Also, the F35B is fast and agile and can hold it’s own in air to air combat when required.
Rex
Absolutely not! The Corps has far more important needs to spend its finite resources on.
The Marine Corps shouldn't buy anything, they should continue the operations of the CH-53D Sea Stallion!
i say talk to marine grunts see wat they would like supporting them in close ground support, an A10 or a super sonic fighter jet.
semper
As a former Marine aviator, I think we have gone mad. The F-22 at $150,000,000 each? Are you kidding? We're broke now, and, who will we fight with it? President Eisenhower was right when he warned about the military-industrial complex. It's in full force, building weapons systems that we don't need at enormous cost, when they should be concentrating on combating IED's, RPG's, and fighting small groups of insurgents. This is the warfare of the future - not the Russians pouring thru the Fulda gap or fleets of bombers coming over the North Pole By the way, what does USMC air pride itself on? Answer - Close air support. Helping the Marine on the ground. What better platform than upgraded A-10's at a probably a 10th of the cost. If necessary, hang a tail hook on them - strengthen the landing gear - make the wings fold.
Also VTOL - is it really necessary? Did that capability in the Harrier ever make any difference to Marines in battle? Don't think so. A-10s would seem to be better than VTOL F-35's with all the bells and whistles, and again at 1/10th the cost.
As a former Marine aviator, I think we have gone mad. The F-22 at $150,000,000 each? Are you kidding? We're broke now, and, who will we fight with it? President Eisenhower was right when he warned about the military-industrial complex. It's in full force, building weapons systems that we don't need at enormous cost, when they should be concentrating on combating IED's, RPG's, and fighting small groups of insurgents. This is the warfare of the future - not the Russians pouring thru the Fulda gap or fleets of bombers coming over the North Pole By the way, what does USMC air pride itself on? Answer - Close air support. Helping the Marine on the ground. What better platform than upgraded A-10's at a probably a 10th of the cost. If necessary, hang a tail hook on them - strengthen the landing gear - make the wings fold.
Also VTOL - is it really necessary? Did that capability in the Harrier ever make any difference to Marines in battle? Don't think so. A-10s would seem to be better than VTOL F-35's with all the bells and whistles, and again at 1/10th the cost.
The Corps needs both the F-35 VSTOL\Carrier Models as well as the A-10 or a beast similar in design. The current F-22 model does not fit well within the mission of the Marine Corps.
Semper Fi!
The USAF has a hard enough time getting the F-22's off the groung for routine training in a sterile enviroment. What will happen if the airframe ever got deployed to a foward operating area? Bad idea Leathernecks. USMC and the Warthog is made for eachother.
Stay with the 18's, wait for F-35's and hey, maybe the air farce would give up the A10's, now that is an airplane that a Marine could love, Pilots and Mechanics. I was an engine mechanic on one of the oldest airplanes in the military arsenal. The A4F skyhawk. A good jet however it was a bitch to work on. I got to work on an F18 one time and I fell in love with it. The sad thing is that it was a Navy F18. Damn Nav pilots, they teased me and then took it away. MAG-42 det A, Cecil Field, Jacksonville Fla. USMC 1979 to 1983.
As a former Marine, I feel I can strongly assert that, past experiences dictate the Corps needs updated equipment. We were always the last to get anything updated (and seemed to always eat scraps while the Air Force and Navy ate like Kings). This question shouldn't even be posed, have you all seen the latest in Chinese attack ships? America will become a third-rate country if we don't keep our military up-to-date in warfare and equipment. Make no mistake, read Revelations in the bible.. China never said they liked the U.S., but, they will go to any lengths to steal our technology. Don't forget what those traitors in Hewlett-Packard did, when they illegally sold them satellite technology (in past days, they would have been prosecuted and shot).
If w are talking close air support as the primary mission then there is indeed no need for the F-22 or the F35. A lot of bucks if one of these planes is knocked down by 30mm AA weapons. Eventually it will happen. The A-10 platform is already proven to be a great weapons platform for air to ground atttacks. Prop planes are a new logistics issue not needed on the battle grounds. Marine pilots also fly air to air and for that our F-18s are pretty good. Maybe a couple of saquadrons of F-22s for Air to Air, but never send a 150 million dollar supersonic fighter airplane to slug it out close to the ground. Close air support happens 24/7 we have cheaper plaforms which are proven platforms, cost far less per unit and have an extrodinary record for survivability on the battle field as well as the abiliy to deliever heavy grond attack munitions. A Rolls Royce as a four wheel drive vehicle sounds rather numb to me and a waste of tax payer money that close to the ground.
The Corps does not need or want a strategic, all weather, Mach 2+, super cruise aircraft like the F-22. The key feature of the F-22 is its radar and its stealth - something not required by a quick and light force that is down in the mud with the bugs. The AV-8B was the perfect choice because it could stay with a moving force. The Corps is light and fast; it doesn't need a strategic air-dominant fighter which could easilly be pulled from its support function to strategic functions like many of the Corps' F-4s were in Vietnam. The only answer is the F-35B with the same short takeoff and vertical landing capabilities that makes the AV-8B so good.
You must keep in mind, the Corps uses air support far differently than any other service. The air assets of the Corps has the role of instant airborne artillery on demand when traditional artillery is still on the landing ships. It is also a Marine pilot supporting a Marine grunt and is the key to the air-ground team. In Vietnam you could tell when you had Marine air support by the color of the pilot's eyes. When we received USAF air support you could hardly tell what kind of plane it was because it was so high. We want it low and pinpoint to keep moving as fast as possible.
The F-22 has no sea going capability. Can't use a fleet carrier, can't use any of the helo platforms like the Harrier or the proposed F-35B.
I was involved with the Marine Corps acceptance of the AV-8 Harrier on the ground side 1n 1971-72. TACP etc. That short runway/verticle capability is crucial.
I would like to see a sea going AV-8/A10 blend. That is what the Corps needs for fixed wing support. Not a F-22.
Remember the mission.
Fred
Semper Fi
The F22 would have to be rebuilt as said above in order to reinforce the landing gear for carrier landings. The A10 would not work in a war where we would have to fight for air superiorty. Afg. is fine for the A10 but what would we do when the US Marines have to fight the Chinese communist in say ten years? The AC130 gunship is again fine for Afg., but would not work where we don't have supreme air superiorty. Besides the A10 are getting to be very old.
Semper Fidelis,
Tipy
The USMC should buy/build a version of the USAF AC-130U Spooky Gunship...
For use in supporting USMC Ground forces there is no better platform.
Let the Navy and AF play up at altitude. Support of Ground Forces has been MC doctrine for as long as I remember... and the AC-130U handles that mission extreamly well.
what we need is something that is rugged enough to fly from a carrier, has a huge payload, and can loiter.....and oh yeah provide its own fighter support just like the FA-18.....the F 22 .....landing gear will have to be strengthened, payload increased
As it stands right now, there does need to be some overlap in Aircraft....gets too expensive to have multiple platforms.....back in the mid to late 60's .....the Airforce decided to get the F-4 Phantom II....a Naval/Marine Corps fighter.....the F22 is not the answer
The F-22 should be used by the navy, in the same roll the F-14 was used before. For the Marins the A-10 will be the best soultion, and not a $100 million aircraft.
better use a credit crd. All of the money is gone.
Poor poll choices. What about the obvious Plan B? The F35C?
The Marines don't need the F-35B or the F-22. The Marines need a plane like the A-10, Bronco type, or a mud fighter. Stealth is not needed to protect marines in most battles. These guys need a plane that can deliver weapons on target in a very short amount of time and be able to take damage like an A-10 or other mud fighter could. An F-35 is a wonderful plane but the wrong pick to protect the Marines. In Vietnam when an air strike was called in you would see an F-4 then an A-4 and when the single prop plane Skyraider would circle overhead and dive and deploy airbrakes and drop a bomb on a small target then the enemy was neutralized. Fast is not the weapon needed. The plane needed needs to be able to carry lots of weapons and be able to slow down enough to drop them on target. The F-22 is great for the AF and I wish the US Navy had a version to use. The marines need a different aircraft all together.
Does the Corps really need jets for close air support (Just a question) With
Cobras and prop planes. Personally I think A-10s and close air support should
Be given to the army from the USAF. But high costs f22s?