Forum: F-35 Lightning II

spazsinbad wrote:

Some Asian Flat Deck Navies and some land based have an interest in development of the F-35B for their use on same flat decks. But I guess that is in the future so nothing to whine about yet.

If they want it, they can finance it. The design is already there in some non-operationally capable form.

F-16.net Sponsor

Last edited by spazsinbad on Jan 09, 2012 - 02:37 AM; edited 1 time in total

Missing the point that the USMC have a requirement for the F-35B since inception of the program. Ignore the USMC at your peril. Very Happy

And ignore how well the testing including shipboard flat deck testing has proceeded this year. Go ahead - make their day.

Last edited by discofishing on Jan 09, 2012 - 12:15 PM; edited 1 time in total

Quote:

If the focus is going to be asia (Which i agree with), Then why do we really need the B. That jet has caused more problems than any other. I would argue that if the marines had just been willing to operate from a carrier (like their hornets) than we would at least have had eglin up and running by now, along with one squadron at Hill. If you cut the B would you get more A's and C's? That seems like a better deal. Im sorry but the marines will not be doing double digit take downs with their B's. I know alot of tremendous effort has gone into the B, but at some point you have to call the baby ugly and realize what the tactical tradeoff is going to be. Put it on the back burner, and than bring it out again when thier is more money for it. To keep it on topic...IMHO cut the B and keep the A's and C's numbers up. That makes the most strategic sense to me.

I agree. Putting the F-35B on the back burner will not halt the Marines ability to fly from forward operating locations as the F-35C still has that capability with it's tougher airframe and landing gear. They've done it with Hornets, Skyhawks, and Phantoms in the past. I am assuming carrier capability translates to rough field capability.

There should be a forum for all the anti-F-35B in USMC I reckon. Where is the problem exactly?

It was just an idea to face fiscal hardships i.e "strategy for cutting military budget". as an aviator, i struggle with the tactical application of the f-35B. Put it this way. If the double/triple digit sams are operational, there is no way the marines are going to throw an MEU ashore, thus why have a stealth fighter who's primary role is CAS? All i see is a bunch of jump jets with reduced fuel and payload. Save the money, get more A's and C's.

realize that I in no way hate the F-35B. The idea of a common fighter across the DOD is great, plus the marines will be able to spare forward when we need more AI missions. Just if you have to make the leathel choice, go with the one that least impacts our air superiority and ability to attack a nations center of gravity.

deadseal, sir, there likely isn't much difference between the 3 variants with respect to similar 'air superiority' capabilities... so that in itself shouldn't be a critical issue in such a hypothetical decision making process.

Actually, I too have also pondered with another poster here sometime back on the plausibility of a single F-35B platform ultimately being shared between the services as a potential cost-cutting measure. Perhaps one difference concerning my concept though, was replacing the the STOVL variant engine kit in the F-35B platform with the standard F-35A's F135 engine + nozzle to suffice for a de facto CTOL version.. A fuel cell could replace the empty Lift-fan cavity to more closely extend the range of the CTOL model vs the standard spec.

As far as the requirement goes regarding ability to 'strike' deep, that could of course also be enabled by the combination of 'buddy-tanking' (which could be done with the base F-35B platform) + next-gen extended-range stand-off munitions. That is, as you were alluding to 'strategic strike' capability, that would require the relevant stand-off strike munition capability and have nothing to do with whether the launch platform had a 500nm or 600nm combat radius. imho.

Besides range, an all-B force would lose the internal gun, the ability to carry 2k bombs internally (1k limit) and on the outer wing pylons (1.5k limit).

Does anybody know when Goon shall sit with all those USMC chaps that are coming to visit his country, so he can tell them how sadly mistaken their faith in the F-35B is? Razz

That would be a sight - include elp on that friendly chat.

Don't forget Kopp.

spazsinbad wrote:

Missing the point that the USMC have a requirement for the F-35B since inception of the program. Ignore the USMC at your peril. Very Happy

And ignore how well the testing including shipboard flat deck testing has proceeded this year. Go ahead - make their day.

They also had a requirement for a high speed landing tractor, using the same rationale as the F-35B - that they had to have it, or else. Very expensive. Adults ensued. They are not getting it. Back to the drawing board.

Adults ensued?

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Panetta to Offer Strategy for Cutting Military Budget