Op-Ed: Camp Bastion Attack Is Reality Check for F-35B
(Source: Defense-Aerospace.com; published Sept. 18, 2012)

By Giovanni de Briganti
The Taliban attack at Camp Bastion has shown that protecting F-35Bs, or indeed AV-8Bs, when deployed ashore in hostile territory would be well-nigh impossible. (USMC photo)
PARIS --- The rationale for the F-35B fighter took a serious beating last week, when a dozen Taliban attacking Camp Bastion destroyed six US Marine Corps AV-8B Harriers on the tarmac, and seriously damaged two more.

By exposing a glaring hole in its operational doctrine, this attack shows conclusively that, just like the Emperor in Andersen’s fairy tale, the F-35B Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the Joint Strike Fighter has no clothes,

The F-35B – the most complex, overweight and expensive variant of the Joint Strike Fighter – is being developed to provide the US Marine Corps with a successor to the Harrier in the ground attack and fire support role. Marine doctrine envisages the F-35B initially operating from large-deck amphibious ships, and then moving to operating bases ashore once a beachhead has been secured to provide close air support.

In a written Jan. 20, 2012 statement, Marine Corps Commandant General James F. Amos again justified the STOVL F-35B as “the only model capable of operating [both] off of our large deck amphibious warships, and in austere and remote expeditionary land-based operating environments.”

But if perimeter defenses at Camp Bastion, one of the world’s most heavily protected bases, can be breached by a dozen people on foot, how will the F-35B survive in “austere and remote expeditionary and-based environments” when attacked by a conventional enemy with heavy weapons?

The answer, as now demonstrated by the Taliban, is that it cannot. So half of the F-35B’s raison d’être – its capability to deploy ashore along with the troops - has been literally blown away.

It should now be clear to all – as it famously was to former US Defense Secretary Robert Gates – that there is no justification for buying large numbers of STOVL attack aircraft. As Gates noted at the time, the Marines have not stormed a beach since [the Korean War], so it makes little sense to buy the F-35B on the off chance they might have to, sometime in future.

There many reasons why the era of STOVL has passed: the much-improved firepower of modern helicopters; the wide availability of very smart weapons fired at very long stand-off ranges; the wide availability and high accuracy of armed UAVs; and the microscopically low probability of Marines having to land without being supported by US Navy tactical aircraft.

The savings from axing the F-35B would be very considerable, and troops ashore would still be supported – but by the Marines’ large fleet of armed helicopters, including Cobra gunships and armed Hueys, as well as by US Navy fighters.

In a logical world, the Taliban attack at Camp Bastion would have sounded the knell for basing STOVL aircraft ashore for close air support.

In a logical world, the Pentagon would see this, cancel the F-35B and redeploy its funds and engineering talent to speed up development of the two other versions, the F-35A for the air force and F-35C for the navy.

In a logical world….

Story history
-- Mar 18, 2015: corrected error attributed to Secretary Gates: last Marine combat landing took place at Inchon, during the Korean War, and not during World War 2.


prev next

Breaking News from AFP See all

Press releases See all

Official reports See all