Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

You can get by with a slightly outta date tank but given the reliance on air support and lack of significant AA assets you can't afford to have aircraft that can't achieve air superiority (or at least parity).

My reading on the F-35B is that it has decreased the capability of the A and C variants due mainly to the concept of shared or common design principles. The engineering to lift what 20 tons near vertical and then expect STEALTH and supersonic speeds is daunting. The Navy and the Corps do not need a STEALTH supersonic close aircraft.

Conceptually, what is the need for STEALTH close air support and VTOL when the big boat carrier has assets to provide air superiority and STEALTH (needed to penetrate and strike deep). Especially, at 150 mil a piece, why sacrifice the payload capability of the F-35C to achieve VTOL in the B is beyond me, unless you're living in Fort Lauderdale, an employee of Lockheed Martin, or a congressman from that district.

It seems the Navy has an incessant need to put fixed-wing aircraft on assault ships while forgetting the air craft carrier is designed for that species.

This talk of the advanced JSF, the F-35 and in particular the F-35B can drive a teetotaler to reach for the George Dickel.

[Suhiir]

It's NOT "stealth" like the F-117 (or even F-22) it's more like a drastically reduced radar signature.

Aircraft carriers, and their planes, exist primarily to protect the fleet NOT support ground actions. Sure they train for and can do ground support (quite well) but during an amphibious landing their #1 priority is protecting the shipping. Plus the USMC aircraft need to be transported to the landing zone somehow and you sure don't want to have to reduce the complement of the carriers to haul them.

The main reason to sacrifice payload with the "B" model has absolutely nothing to do with ships however. It has everything to do with NOT needing to seize an airport immediately to support the landing. VTOL aircraft can make do with any parking lot or dirt road.

[Suhiir]

I always find it immensely amusing how many so-called "experts" are ignorant of, or flat-out ignore extremely relevant data and/or reasons when they complain about things (specially military hardware).
I guess we should have listened when the experts told us the expense and amount of training needed to use the longbow didn't justify it's adoption over the crossbow.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well I shall gloat just a little here but, I love it when the CORPS (For now anyway.) agrees with my some my projections on a items I've been reporting for a couple of + years now. So here are the highlights for Suhiir a little tighter adjustment is needed to at least get into the 6 month "swag" Don and I normally have worked out on submission dates the last few years. These are taken from the below directly and for whoever has the balls (Baseballs, Basketballs Golf Balls etc. etc. ) to take on this project from 2020-2030 or whatever you might want to hold onto this ref as this is the AVPLAN for the CORPS through 2030..

"The F-35B and F-35C will replace F-18, AV-8B and EA-6B. The Marine Corps will procure a total of 353 F-35Bs and 67 F-35Cs in the following squadron bed down:
• 9 Squadrons x 16 F-35B
• 5 Squadrons x 10 F-35B
• 4 Squadrons x 10 F-35C
• 2 Squadrons x 10 F-35B reserve
• 2 Squadrons x 25 F-35B FRS Marine Corps F-35B IOC is July of 2015 (objective) and December 2015 (threshold). IOC requires the first squadron to have 10 aircraft in the Block 2B configuration capable of executing CAS; limited offensive and defensive counter
-air; air interdiction; air support escort; armed reconnaissance;
and limited suppression of enemy air defenses. Additionally, 6 aircraft need to be capable of executing amphibious carrier operations. The aircraft is currently tracking to reach its full operational capability in Q4 of CY 2017. The full transition from legacy to F-35 will complete with the transition of the second reserve squadron in 2032."

"The TACAIR 2030 Roadmap is a departure from the previous AVPLAN’s TACAIR transition order. The F-35 transition continues per the program of record, while the AV-8B and F/A-18 order of transition has changed.
Transition Plan:

* AV-8B will transition to the F-35B first, with a planned sunset of 2025.

* F/A-18A-D will transition in the out years with a planned sunset of 2029 for the active component and 2030 for the
reserve component.

"The AVPLAN now prioritizes F-35B sourcing to MAGTF (MEUs) in the
PACOM AOR with the first VMA transition (VMA-211) planned to begin FY16. The pace of the AV-8B conversion has been accelerated and F-35B will source 31st MEU requirement beginning 3QFY17."

https://marinecorpsconceptsandprogra...ion%20Plan.pdf

This means the F-35B will be the first operational series and the CORPS is planning for that to happen (Barring any further delays.) in JUL-SEP which is the 4th QTR of FY 2017. Suhiir based on earlier discussions and yes I understand you just changed it, August 2017 based on this document is the best date we've had on any of the F-35 types to date.

All USMC aviation assets, operability and to some degree tactical use is discussed here. Some might find some answers here; for me it's more about validation of my work in this area. Sometimes that's needed especially how the last couple of years have gone.

Happy Hunting!!

I have elections to follow this evening, I hope for whom this applies to, that no matter your affiliation that you voted today.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

As someone knows a tough day at the OPHTHALMOLOGIST today. Just caught the fact the ref/document quoted CY=Calendar Year
vs. what I thought was FY=Fiscal Year (Why'd they do that?) anyway that would move things back further to OCT-DEC 2017 or I would submit now NOV 2017 as the operational/in service date for the F-35B. The rest of the para I stand by. This means with the CORPS getting theirs first the next will definitely fall in no sooner then mid 2018 at best holding to the CORPS timeline in development.

Sorry for the confusion on my part.

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

Nice document bubblehead!
Good find.

[Suhiir]

Nov 2014

The F-35C, naval variant of the F-35 JSF, completed it's initial carrier qualification tests.

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35...rcraft-carrier

[shahadi]

The issue of the F-35B or really any of the variants performing CAS missions is not definitive. Truly, the issue is one of speed, fast or slow, and altitude. Given danger close of say 250m, can a fast moving F-35 deliver the goods on target, including guns, if necessary, close enough without friendly fire casualties is a question that even the "experts" are divided upon.

So, enter the Air Force, pinned to deliver F-35's in CAS missions, now beginning to develop CAS tactics with the F-35 platform. They can't certainly use the A-10 tactics for obvious reasons, it's just "slow and low," while not "fast and high."

Obviously, then, if the Air Force will use CAS, and the Navy too, they will develop the tactics necessary, but if they rely on external stores and not guns, this is similar to the Phantom in Viet Nam: missiles but no guns. Then, where does one find advantage in the F-35B?

Admittedly, I am not an expert, nor do i suppose to be one, and I suspect most of us in this forum are not experts on the F-35 either. However, we are literate, participate in democratic processes while remaining civil even when disagreeing.

Although, the F-35 is brand spanking new technologies, and as such requires maturation, I'm not so certain an amphibious assault ship is the place for it, while the nearby big boat has them, and maybe could have had better versions if not for the principle of shared design.

And the debate goes on: http://intercepts.defensenews.com/20...t/?sf6244571=1.

I'm confident they will get it done, after all that is what we do, just not sold on "fast and high" CAS platforms like the F-35.

Now, where's my drink!

[Suhiir]

The US Air Force has been trying to get rid of the A-10 for years. As an institution they REALLY don't like CAS, that's not to say the actual CAS squadrons and pilots don't see the need/value.
Ever since its' official founding in 1948 the USAF top brass has been convinced the only thing they need is fighters and bombers, "fast and high". And with the development of smart munitions the bomber can finally hit a target smaller then an airfield/small town.

Ground support missions have two major requirements.

1 - Fast response - The tactical situation is extremely fluid, targets come and go rapidly. Using high speed aircraft that require full out airbases to take off/land cannot be as responsive as an A-10 (long loiter times) or AV-8/F-35B (forward basing).

2 - Target Identification - From 15,000 ft you might be able to spot a tank, but who's? Again this is where the A-10 (flying low and slow) can identify it's target and make sure (most of the time) its shooting at the bad guys. USMC and USN aircraft performing CAS missions typically fly at around 500 ft (and frequently lower). They also typically make two passes over the target, the first to identify it and insure their approach/exit doesn't pass over friendly units (in case they hit short/long) and the second pass to actually fire/drop their weapons. The USAF hates to make multiple passes because the first pass alerts the opposition and the second allows them to fire AA weapons. But the USAF very rarely flies below 5000 feet so can't take advantage of terrain to limit opposition AA.

Low, slow, long loiter time, and a large ordnance load is optimal for CAS. But this inevitably means your aircraft ARE going to take damage. The A-10 is a flying tank, and the better CAS aircraft of any type can handle a certain amount of damage and stay airworthy. High speed, high altitude aircraft just cannot be as rugged (usually) because it needs low weight and streamlining.

[shahadi]

At times it is worthy to recall the thoughts of those before us. In this vain, my son offered this quote:

"Aviation is fine as a sport. But as an instrument of war, it is worthless." General Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superiure de Guere, 1911.

Or,

"No aircraft ever took and held ground." US Marine Corps Manual, maybe the Handbook for Marine NCOs, I'm not sure which manual this quote is taken from.