Forum: F-35 Lightning II

quicksilver wrote:

aaam wrote:

Keep in mind that for the Marines' mission, the B is going to be flying with external ordnance most of the time anyway.

Not necessarily. Unless they need a bomb truck they'll keep 'em mostly clean. The reduction in drag index provides all kinds of benefits.

Actually it would be more heavy CAS than bomb truck. Typical load out would be 8 SDB, but if they want the gun, rocketpods, or anti-armor missiles, they go external.

spazsinbad wrote:

maus92, no argument with anything however if you have been reading the KPPs are relevant and are being met. What could be better than that? More nitpicking about what the B model cannot do compared to the other two versions I suppose. Compare the B model to the Harrier and you will be amazed. OK?

It also replaces the some of the Hornets, so only looking at the Harrier light attack/CAS role from amphibs is disingenuous

spazsinbad wrote:

F-35B 'bring-back' to where though? On an LHA for the moment for the USMC it is likely that only vertical landings will be the go. Ashore a run on RVL will help with any extra bring back weight (depending on available minimum short runway length).

You're not going to see much shorter than 4,500 feet so they can support C-17s to keep the planes supplied with fuel, ordnance, and parts and fly a F-35 or Osprey out should it be damaged. At those distances, the F-35B would be pretty much operating conventionally for max takeoff/bringback and lower maintenance by not using the lift fan and associated moving parts.

F-16.net Sponsor

maus92 wrote:

Naw, the article contains relevant info. Aircraft routinely return with unused weapons. It gets expensive to jett smart weapons - this was supposedly one of the reasons the RN switched models to the -C.

They switched because the RAF's priorities changed. Deep strike is much higher on the food chain than STOVL CAS. When it came clear that neither Labour nor the torries would support a replacement for the Tornado, they exploited the RN's desire to go CATOBAR and go for the variant with the longest range and payload. That being said once ordered, they really don't care if they jets never see those ships and they operate as super LPHs as long they get their Tornado replacements.

bjr1028, do you have a source for your assertions please? Thanks.

bjr1028 wrote:

You're not going to see much shorter than 4,500 feet so they can support C-17s to keep the planes supplied with fuel, ordnance, and parts and fly a F-35 or Osprey out should it be damaged. At those distances, the F-35B would be pretty much operating conventionally for max takeoff/bringback and lower maintenance by not using the lift fan and associated moving parts.

The USMC uses C-130s, not C-17s, and you're forgetting that items can be airdropped, or brought in by rotary wing aircraft too.

bjr1028 wrote:

You're not going to see much shorter than 4,500 feet so they can support C-17s to keep the planes supplied with fuel, ordnance, and parts and fly a F-35 or Osprey out should it be damaged. At those distances, the F-35B would be pretty much operating conventionally for max takeoff/bringback and lower maintenance by not using the lift fan and associated moving parts.

Which is really the issue with the -B and austere / FARP basing: keeping it resupplied when ground forces and lines are advancing rapidly. Didn't work too well in the GW and GWII. It works much better when FOB's are established, and runways are built to handle cargo aircraft (and Hornets.)

Austere & FARPs don't have to move that often as the plane's range and speed makes up for any short-term movement of the front lines.

And everyone forgets the 'sea basing' concept and 'operational maneuver from the sea' way of USMC doing things. Mixing and matching where and when to refuel/rearm - either ashore or afloat in a flexible way - helps a great deal. But keep on with the land-based only way of doing things and it gets tedious to read.

It is still valid to compare AV-8Bs to F-35Bs and Hornets to F-35Cs. USMC will be flying both. So?

bjr1028 wrote:

maus92 wrote:

Naw, the article contains relevant info. Aircraft routinely return with unused weapons. It gets expensive to jett smart weapons - this was supposedly one of the reasons the RN switched models to the -C.

They switched because the RAF's priorities changed. Deep strike is much higher on the food chain than STOVL CAS. When it came clear that neither Labour nor the torries would support a replacement for the Tornado, they exploited the RN's desire to go CATOBAR and go for the variant with the longest range and payload. That being said once ordered, they really don't care if they jets never see those ships and they operate as super LPHs as long they get their Tornado replacements.

Seems to me more a replacement for their Typhoons Trance 1
All 53 Trance 1’s will be out of service in 2019 > 12-16 years flying Trance1’s!!
(In 2018 ready for some multi role!)
50 Tornado’s will be flying some more years (2021)

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

B's internal weapon restriction compared to A & C