F-35Bs Deploy Plan 2017 Iwakuni Japan - Panetta

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 28404
Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
Location: Australia

by spazsinbad » 19 Dec 2012, 06:17

US Japan Fighter UPDATE1 Kyodo News International, Inc.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 -- (Kyodo) _ (EDS: ADDING INFO)

http://www.equities.com/news/headline-s ... industrial

"Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Tuesday the United States plans to deploy F-35 fighters at the U.S. Air Force's Iwakuni base in Japan's Yamaguchi Prefecture in 2017, the first overseas stationing of the stealth aircraft.

The F-35 is being developed by an international consortium led by U.S. aircraft giant Lockheed Martin Corp. The envisioned deployment is part of U.S. efforts to rebalance its global posture and presence to emphasize the Asia-Pacific region in the face of China's military buildup.

Touching on a plan to enhance the U.S. military presence and capabilities in the region, Panetta said in a speech in Washington that it includes "the first overseas deployment of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to Iwakuni in 2017."

Panetta did not specify the number of stealth fighters it plans to deploy at the base in western Japan...."

MORE at the JUMP.


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 8407
Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
Location: California

by SpudmanWP » 19 Dec 2012, 07:12

Overseas deployment before IOC :) or a more to move IOC up?
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."


Elite 2K
Elite 2K
 
Posts: 2346
Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

by neurotech » 19 Dec 2012, 09:27

SpudmanWP wrote:Overseas deployment before IOC :) or a more to move IOC up?

These are F-35B USMC jets, so IOC is earlier than the USAF F-35s


Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3890
Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

by quicksilver » 19 Dec 2012, 13:50

Marine IOC '15 or '16; USAF '16 or '17


User avatar
Elite 2K
Elite 2K
 
Posts: 2895
Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
Location: Houston

by neptune » 19 Dec 2012, 13:57

http://www.stripes.com/news/panetta-say ... i-1.201222

Panetta says first F-35 overseas deployment planned for Iwakuni

Stars and Stripes
December 19, 2012

Plans call for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to get its first overseas deployment in 2017 to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni in line with the military’s “Pacific pivot,” according to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
...

Panetta’s comments came Tuesday at the National Press Club in Washington during a speech on defense strategy, including the shift of resources to the Pacific.

“We are also enhancing our presence and capabilities in the region,” Panetta said. “That includes reallocating the naval fleet to achieve in these next few years a 60/40 split between the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans — hopefully, we will do that by 2020 — increasing Army and Marine presence in the region after Iraq and Afghanistan, locating our most advanced aircraft in the Pacific, including new deployments of F-22s and the MV-22 Ospreys to Japan, and laying the groundwork for the first overseas deployment of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to Iwakuni in 2017.”

:)


Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 148
Joined: 09 Mar 2012, 20:14
Location: CA

by megasun » 19 Dec 2012, 22:11

Bee variant ??
So, they're preparing for the case when runways' availability suffers from day 1 sudden strike?


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 8407
Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
Location: California

by SpudmanWP » 19 Dec 2012, 22:27

These are deploying with the Marines (who use the B) at their base in Iwakuni.

http://www.mcasiwakuni.marines.mil/
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."


Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3059
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
Location: Singapore

by weasel1962 » 20 Dec 2012, 06:47

Before the announcement, VMFA-242 was one of the sqns designated for F-35B replacement under the west coast plan. I'm guessing that sqn will still be based at Iwakuni instead of Yuma after conversion.

imho, its a logical deployment. Taiwan, Shanghai and southern Japan are just within the 450nm combat radius of Okinawa. Just enough range to provide a stronger defensive response. Not really enough range for the chinese to regard this as a big offensive threat.


Newbie
Newbie
 
Posts: 3
Joined: 27 Dec 2012, 09:39

by gunnerb » 27 Dec 2012, 09:48

242 is down the slate a bit for re-designation. There is only one full up squadron that can meet that timeline, it's currently based in Yuma.


Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 171
Joined: 24 Apr 2009, 01:22
Location: Southern U.S.

by jetnerd » 27 Dec 2012, 15:52

gunnerb wrote:242 is down the slate a bit for re-designation. There is only one full up squadron that can meet that timeline, it's currently based in Yuma.



Are you meaning VMFA-121 since it's currently the only operational squadron getting its jets?


Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 19:40

by arkadyrenko » 28 Dec 2012, 17:46

Three questions about the deployment:

1) Will they upgrade the base facilities with hardened shelters, dispersed facilities, improved SAMs, repair equipment etc? Any serious deployment, for combat not show, needs to have reliable base infrastructure capable of operating under Chinese attack. At that range, it'll probably be ballistic or cruise missile, so hardening will probably be more effective than buying ever more missile interceptors.

2) Will there be a corresponding tanker detachment seconded to the region? F-35B's will need refueling to operate near Okinawa from Iwakuni. Using Bing maps distance calculator, as a rough first pass estimate, it is about 600mi from Iwakuni to Okinawa. Any F-35B squadron will need tanking support to operate near Okinawa. Those tankers, too, will need their air facilities and air defenses. (This point should make everyone realize how inadequate 450 - 550 nm ranges are for the Pacific theater, by the way)

3) Here is the bigger question, I think. Will the F-35B squadron have the actual role of first response / regional air defense? With the STOVL capabilities and stealth, the F-35B could use Iwakuni as a central operating point but in the case of a conflict disperse to regional bases further south and west. STOVL increases the number of permissible facilities and allows F-35Bs to operate even after a runway cratering missile attack. A corollary is if the F-35Bs will have the role of deploying to Okinawa in the case of a shooting conflict. (This may be a bit unlikely)

Or, most likely, it is meant as a gesture of American resolve more than a combat capable unit.


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 28404
Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
Location: Australia

by spazsinbad » 28 Dec 2012, 19:15

Will there be any USN/USMC flat decks in the scenario 'arkadyrenko'? IF these (even a few) are in the area they will be useful for the F-35B for any number of (I hope) obvious reasons.


User avatar
Elite 2K
Elite 2K
 
Posts: 2895
Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
Location: Houston

by neptune » 28 Dec 2012, 19:16

arkadyrenko wrote:... Will there be a corresponding tanker detachment seconded to the region...MCAS Iwakuni; 8,000 ft. runway; KC-130J req. 3,100 ft. with 2,800 nmi. range. ...

..Will the F-35B squadron have the actual role of first response / regional air defense?.. "Bee" 469 nmi range covers most of N.Korea.

Or, most likely, it is meant as a gesture of American resolve more than a combat capable unit... where the B can go, so can the A&C (infrastructures)and/ or F-22....


:)


Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 19:40

by arkadyrenko » 28 Dec 2012, 22:02

spazsinbad - I'd guess there won't be carriers operating between Iwakuni and Okinawa, at the opening phases of a war. Between cruise missile, ballistic missile, and submarine threats, I doubt anyone wants to operate warships in those exposed waters before seeing / degrading the Chinese capabilities. This could be wrong, but remember, USN ships cannot, repeat cannot, reload VLS effectively at sea. That prevents the ships from sustained operations in a high threat environment.

neptune: you mentioned the tankers capability, which is good, but they have to be deployed there for it to make sense. That is the necessary second half of the announcement.

As for North Korea, additional coverage is good, but redundant. South Korea already has sufficient airfields.

Finally, base infrastructure matters and I hope that any F-35 deployment will be met by equivalent infrastructure investment. It would be stupidly embarrassing if the USAF stealth fighter wings were caught in the open by ballistic missiles.


Elite 2K
Elite 2K
 
Posts: 2346
Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

by neurotech » 29 Dec 2012, 04:32

arkadyrenko wrote:As for North Korea, additional coverage is good, but redundant. South Korea already has sufficient airfields.

And they are vulnerable to attack by cruise missiles.
arkadyrenko wrote:Finally, base infrastructure matters and I hope that any F-35 deployment will be met by equivalent infrastructure investment. It would be stupidly embarrassing if the USAF stealth fighter wings were caught in the open by ballistic missiles.

It's more than embarrassing, the results are usually tragic if there are people near those jets. Remember recent AV-8B squadron got attacked, killing several Marines.

As we've discussed before, the small carriers like the USS Wasp are moving targets with enough capability to maintain the jets on them.


Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: kinematics and 19 guests