Forum: F-35 Lightning II

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

Gates Accepts Marines' Future Plan
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 2/17/2011 8:23 AM CST

The Marine Corps Force Structure Review Group reported to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday of last week, and Gates endorsed its conclusions, according to Corps assistant commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford.

The review supports the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter and the need for a new amphibious vehicle, ...The Marines are working on "a presumption of success" with the Joint Strike Fighter, Dunford says. "We continue to believe that STOVL is vital." Marine Commandant Gen James Amos "will be the program manager for the B", Dunford says. Smile

Thursday morning, Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley said that he was "in Gen Dunford's camp" on the F-35B issue and that he had "high confidence" that the F-35B will succeed. ....

Perhaps now the door hinges, cooling fans, clutches, driveshafts, etc. will have been speed bumps.

F-16.net Sponsor

Quote below from the report above... Great to see USMC have a good sense of humour...

"The questions raised last summer by deputy Navy Secretary Robert Work and by Gates himself about the Marines' future "created not a little bit of angst," in the Corps, Dunford said.

"Paranoia is one of our core competencies," he added, "but rumors of our demise have been greatly exaggerated."

Nothing like a hint of good news to kill all the drama in the blogoshere. There's not even one comment under Sweetman's ARES posting on this.

All sorts of things get taken out of context. Hell, Obama wanted to axe the F136 engine and people think he canceled the whole damn JSF program. If Gates does question the existence of the USMC, I would ask that he quietly step down from his position as SecDef, turn in his resignation, and slam his head in the office door 12 to 15 times on his way out.

The F-35B has been catching a lot of heat for the past several months because its constant need for modifications necessitates costly redesigns in the other two variants in order to maintain commonality. While this is extremely annoying to those who want to hurry the process along, the fact remains that the STOVL version has more "game changing" potential than the other two.

Back in the 1980s, a supersonic/STOVL fighter was the holy grail of aircraft design because it was assumed that large air bases would be quickly destroyed in the event of war with the USSR. Nowadays, precision weapons have replaced nukes as the chief buggaboo of fixed airbases. Most war game scenarios involving China assume that any airbases close to the mainland will be quickly shut down. The F-35B, short-legged as it is, offers a way around this kind of problem. With a little planning and determination, the F-35B could prove to be the most "ground-survivable" combat plane ever built, a serious consideration for those nations that have to make war plans on the assumption that they won't be able to maintain air superiority.

Additionally, the STOVL JSF will also drastically increase the number of ships capable of supporting missions that were once only possible with 13 carriers in the Russian (1), French (1), and U.S. (11) fleets. This will allow other countries besides the U.S. (those limited to "Harrier carriers") to assume more critical security roles in the future. It will also enable the U.S. to deploy naval aviation assets in a more-dispersed, less-risky fashion when the situation calls for it (eg. 4 F-35B-equipped LHD class ships in the Persian Gulf would be more of a targeting headache for Iran than 1 CVN supercarrier).

My problem is not with the F-35B operating from carriers or assault ships. It's with how it operates in the field. The field being, not a roadway, not a seized airstrip/airbase, but a forest clearing or dirt road. The domain of the helicopter. I think the F-35Bs propulsion setup might represent a unique challenge in avoiding FOD in addition to being reliable/low maintenance. If flying grass, bugs, twigs, birds, and garbage avoids the intake, there's still that lift fan to worry about. Another thing that irks me is that the aircraft still needs an area for short takes when fully laden. Why not operate F-35Cs from an expeditionary airfield (something Marines have used in the past) that use catapults and arresting gear since you're still gonna need a few thousand feet anyways? Overall, If the F-35B can go to the field for a month, hidden in the trees and operate from a grass field without breaking hard, then I would endorse it. I don't see it being able to do that. I really hope I'm wrong.

discofishing wrote:

My problem is not with the F-35B operating from carriers or assault ships. It's with how it operates in the field. The field being, not a roadway, not a seized airstrip/airbase, but a forest clearing or dirt road. The domain of the helicopter. I think the F-35Bs propulsion setup might represent a unique challenge in avoiding FOD in addition to being reliable/low maintenance. If flying grass, bugs, twigs, birds, and garbage avoids the intake, there's still that lift fan to worry about. Another thing that irks me is that the aircraft still needs an area for short takes when fully laden. Why not operate F-35Cs from an expeditionary airfield (something Marines have used in the past) that use catapults and arresting gear since you're still gonna need a few thousand feet anyways? Overall, If the F-35B can go to the field for a month, hidden in the trees and operate from a grass field without breaking hard, then I would endorse it. I don't see it being able to do that. I really hope I'm wrong.

No one's saying that the F-35B can operate off a dirt-patch in the woods, but with a few preparations, it could still have a lot more basing options than a conventional or carrier fighter.

Quote:

No one's saying that the F-35B can operate off a dirt-patch in the woods, but with a few preparations, it could still have a lot more basing options than a conventional or carrier fighter.

I don't know. The Marines expeditionary airfield concept sounds pretty good.

Some info about EAFs: http://www.navair.navy.mil/press_releas ... site_id=15

YIKES! A PDF here (see graphic) about EAFs: http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/C ... onPlan.pdf
______________________

Info about new AM2 matting: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsh ... sp?id=1270 (seems to have disappeared - I'll have to find new loc)

Search results here for 'matting': http://search.dma.mil/search?q=Matting& ... FPW_Global

ONE example: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123090148

ANOTHER: [US] Air Force CIVIL ENGINEER -- Vol.13 - No.3 - 2005
Ramping Up for AM-2’s Replacement (p.10-11)

www.afcesa.af.mil/shared/media/document ... 27-019.pdf (see 2 page excerpt PDF below)

QUOTE: "Although the Air Force is spearheading the initiative to replace AM-2, including funding of the SDD, the project is very much a joint endeavor. The Army and Marines provided great support and are members of the RPRE integrated process team.

The RPRE program is based on years of effort by joint-service laboratories to identify and evaluate promising commercial technologies and materials. Teaming with the Army Engineer Research & Development Center and the Naval Air Engineering Station–Lakehurst, the Air Force Research Laboratory conducted many tests and evaluations of potential solutions. These efforts also supported the Army and Marine requirement for improved expedient helicopter launch and recovery surfaces."
_____________________________

CLASSIC USMC quote: "Commandant maps out future Corps By Gidget Fuentes - Staff writer: Feb 9, 2011
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/20 ... ps-020911/
“...Having a STOVL jet will enable the Marine Corps to support more ground forces because it will be able to operate from more places, he said, noting that “around the globe, there are 10 times as many 3,000-foot runways capable of handling the STOVL (F-35B)” as 8,000-foot runways for conventional jets.”

1st503rdsgt wrote:

Back in the 1980s, a supersonic/STOVL fighter was the holy grail of aircraft design because it was assumed that large air bases would be quickly destroyed in the event of war with the USSR.

Actually, it goes further back to the 1960s, with the Hawker P.1154.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_P.1154

Then continued a number of years later with the FV-12 which was based around a variant of the P&W F100. Supersonic STOVL hasn't had a lack of attempts, but each time reality got in the way. Its not an easy thing to do. Hell, subsonic STOVL isn't easy.

bjr1028 wrote:

Then continued a number of years later with the FV-12 which was based around a variant of the P&W F100. Supersonic STOVL hasn't had a lack of attempts, but each time reality got in the way. Its not an easy thing to do. Hell, subsonic STOVL isn't easy.

Politics killed the P.1154

Technical problems killed the XFV-12, Mirage IIIV, and VAK 191

Lack of funding killed the Yak-141

While I have confidence in the F-35 finally breaking the trend, the political backlash will be felt for years to come.

discofishing wrote:

My problem is not with the F-35B operating from carriers or assault ships. It's with how it operates in the field. The field being, not a roadway, not a seized airstrip/airbase, but a forest clearing or dirt road.

Where do you guys get this nonsense? They're going to use the F-35B the same way they've used Harriers (and Hornets). Easy research on-line -- look at what they did in DS/DS at KAA, and what they're doing right now in Afghanistan at Dwyer.

And will they also be building the stealthy STOVL cargo planes to bring in the tons of fuel, munitions, and spares needed if those F-35Bs happily camping out in cottage country are going to be more than pricey lawn ornaments?

BTW, re: "Classic quote" = red herring. Because many modern fighter-bombers can take off on a 3000' ft strip with as much of a bombload as the F-35B is expected to carry. Esp if they're just behind the FEBA and don't require a heavy fuel load.

I guess the concept of rotating USMC F-35Bs ashore and afloat and back ashore in a different location, has not reached you yet then. Whatever. Name some modern fighter-bombers that can routinely operate with 'same bombload' as an F-35B (whatever that is) on a 3,000 foot runway. Not forgetting same modern fighter bomber that can operate from a convenient runway on a SMALL flat top off shore. OH? A Harrier you say? Cool. Twisted Evil

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

The Marine Corp is still alive!