Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2015, 17:09
by markithere

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2015, 17:17
by spazsinbad
My thoughts? Why start yet another USMC IOC Thread? Here is one long running thread elsewhere:

Judgment Day [VMFA-121 IOC Declaration] CAM Jul 2015 Current end post (not beginning) here:

viewtopic.php?f=59&t=27429&p=297239#p297239

AND anotherie: F-35B Begins New ‘Operational Readiness Inspection’ Beginning post below:

viewtopic.php?f=59&t=27557

'neptune' started another ORI (for IOC) thread here: F-35B ORI viewtopic.php?f=61&t=27602

AND... just to be 'on the ball' (know what that is?) here is the same article that started this thread above HERE below:

viewtopic.php?f=59&t=27429&p=297239&hilit=reuters#p297239

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2015, 17:21
by bring_it_on
spazsinbad wrote:My thoughts? Why start yet another USMC IOC Thread? Here is one long running thread elsewhere:

Judgment Day [VMFA-121 IOC Declaration] CAM Jul 2015 Current end post (not beginning) here:

viewtopic.php?f=59&t=27429&p=297239#p297239


:mrgreen:

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2015, 18:22
by willhan
U.S. Marine Corps Declares the F-35B Operational
The U.S. Marine Corps' F-35B Lightning II aircraft reached initial operational capability today with a squadron of 10 F-35Bs ready for world-wide deployment.

Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 (VMFA-121), based in Yuma, Arizona, is the first squadron in military history to become operational with an F-35 variant, following a five-day Operational Readiness Inspection (ORI), which concluded July 17.

"I am pleased to announce that VMFA-121 has achieved initial operational capability in the F-35B, as defined by requirements outlined in the June 2014 Joint Report to Congressional Defense Committees," said Gen. Joseph Dunford, Commandant of the Marine Corps. "VMFA-121 has ten aircraft in the Block 2B configuration with the requisite performance envelope and weapons clearances, to include the training, sustainment capabilities, and infrastructure to deploy to an austere site or a ship. It is capable of conducting close air support, offensive and defensive counter air, air interdiction, assault support escort and armed reconnaissance as part of a Marine Air Ground Task Force, or in support of the Joint Force."

Dunford stated that he has his full confidence in the F-35B's ability to support Marines in combat, predicated on years of concurrent developmental testing and operational flying.

"Prior to declaring IOC, we have conducted flight operations for seven weeks at sea aboard an L-Class carrier, participated in multiple large force exercises, and executed a recent operational evaluation which included multiple live ordnance sorties," said Dunford. "The F-35B's ability to conduct operations from expeditionary airstrips or sea-based carriers provides our Nation with its first 5th generation strike fighter, which will transform the way we fight and win."

As the future of Marine Corps tactical aviation, the F-35 will eventually replace three legacy platforms: the AV-8B Harrier, the F/A-18 Hornet, and the EA-6B Prowler.

"The success of VMFA-121 is a reflection of the hard work and effort by the Marines in the squadron, those involved in the program over many years, and the support we have received from across the Department of the Navy, the Joint Program Office, our industry partners, and the Under Secretary of Defense. Achieving IOC has truly been a team effort," concluded Dunford.

The U.S. Marine Corps has trained and qualified more than 50 Marine F-35B pilots and certified about 500 maintenance personnel to assume autonomous, organic-level maintenance support for the F-35B.

VMFA-121's transition will be followed by Marine Attack Squadron 211 (VMA-211), an AV-8B squadron, which is scheduled to transition to the F-35B in fiscal year 2016. In 2018, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 122 (VMFA-122), an F-18 Hornet squadron, will conduct its transition.

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/u.s.-ma ... perational

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2015, 18:50
by sferrin
" we have conducted flight operations for seven weeks at sea aboard an L-Class carrier"

Those F-35s were out there for 7 weeks? :?

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2015, 18:58
by SpudmanWP
So.. now that they are IOC (Congrats to all).....

Considering that they are SO close and are Operational, when do you think they will make an appearance at Red Flag or Northern Edge?

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2015, 19:12
by nht
spazsinbad wrote:My thoughts? Why start yet another USMC IOC Thread? Here is one long running thread elsewhere:

Judgment Day [VMFA-121 IOC Declaration] CAM Jul 2015 Current end post (not beginning) here:

viewtopic.php?f=59&t=27429&p=297239#p297239


That is the declaration that the IOC would occur in the future and the first squadron would be VMFA-121.

Not the announcement that IOC happened just now which seems far more appropriately discussed in general since it doesn't necessarily talks about units. If the announcement today stated that IOC would be delayed a year you think that should be discussed in F-35 units rather than F-35 general?

AND anotherie: F-35B Begins New ‘Operational Readiness Inspection’ Beginning post below:

viewtopic.php?f=59&t=27557

'neptune' started another ORI (for IOC) thread here: F-35B ORI viewtopic.php?f=61&t=27602



While passing your ORI is required for declaring IOC those two events are not the same.

AND... just to be 'on the ball' (know what that is?) here is the same article that started this thread above HERE below:

viewtopic.php?f=59&t=27429&p=297239&hilit=reuters#p297239


If there was another post in General about the actual IOC I'd agree that we had pointless thread proliferation. That the IOC information was posted to related topics in other sub forums isn't really compelling. There are 11 sub-forums. I follow maybe three and only occasionally glance at active topics.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2015, 19:18
by SpudmanWP

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2015, 19:26
by geforcerfx
sferrin wrote:" we have conducted flight operations for seven weeks at sea aboard an L-Class carrier"

Those F-35s were out there for 7 weeks? :?

I think hes counting total time spent at sea in the wasp for the couple tests they did.

[quote="SpudmanWP] "So.. now that they are IOC (Congrats to all).....

Considering that they are SO close and are Operational, when do you think they will make an appearance at Red Flag or Northern Edge? :?[/quote]
I would think they would wait for 3F.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2015, 19:27
by nht

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2015, 19:46
by SpudmanWP
Youtube version of Davis Interview


Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2015, 19:51
by spazsinbad
'nht' said above: "... There are 11 sub-forums. I follow maybe three and only occasionally glance at active topics...."

NOT MY PROBLEM.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2015, 20:11
by nht
spazsinbad wrote:'nht' said above: "... There are 11 sub-forums. I follow maybe three and only occasionally glance at active topics...."

NOT MY PROBLEM.


Likewise this supposed post duplication isn't my problem either. IMHO this event (formal declaration of 1st IOC) is important enough to warrant it's own thread in General.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2015, 20:18
by spazsinbad
'nht' granted - you are not 'markithere' - and "your thoughts" are noted. BTW did you miss the part where the same article was posted already earlier? NOT on your reading list here I guess BUT I see you did catch that ball.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2015, 20:52
by spazsinbad
Earlier first part quoted here - however USMC declaration quoted in full below from same article:
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=27429&p=297276&hilit=Eckstein#p297276
Marines Declare Initial Operational Capability on F-35B Joint Strike Fighter
31 Jul 2015 Megan Eckstein

"...The following is the complete statement from the Marine Corps:
"The U.S. Marine Corps’ F-35B Lightning II aircraft reached initial operational capability today with a squadron of 10 F-35Bs ready for world-wide deployment.

Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 (VMFA-121), based in Yuma, Arizona, is the first squadron in military history to become operational with an F-35 variant, following a five-day Operational Readiness Inspection (ORI), which concluded July 17.

“I am pleased to announce that VMFA-121 has achieved initial operational capability in the F-35B, as defined by requirements outlined in the June 2014 Joint Report to Congressional Defense Committees,” said Gen. Joseph Dunford, Commandant of the Marine Corps. “VMFA-121 has ten aircraft in the Block 2B configuration with the requisite performance envelope and weapons clearances, to include the training, sustainment capabilities, and infrastructure to deploy to an austere site or a ship. It is capable of conducting close air support, offensive and defensive counter air, air interdiction, assault support escort and armed reconnaissance as part of a Marine Air Ground Task Force, or in support of the Joint Force.”

Dunford stated that he has his full confidence in the F-35B’s ability to support Marines in combat, predicated on years of concurrent developmental testing and operational flying.

“Prior to declaring IOC, we have conducted flight operations for seven weeks at sea aboard an L-Class carrier, participated in multiple large force exercises, and executed a recent operational evaluation which included multiple live ordnance sorties,” said Dunford. “The F-35B’s ability to conduct operations from expeditionary airstrips or sea-based carriers provides our Nation with its first 5th generation strike fighter, which will transform the way we fight and win.”

As the future of Marine Corps tactical aviation, the F-35 will eventually replace three legacy platforms: the AV-8B Harrier, the F/A-18 Hornet, and the EA-6B Prowler.

“The success of VMFA-121 is a reflection of the hard work and effort by the Marines in the squadron, those involved in the program over many years, and the support we have received from across the Department of the Navy, the Joint Program Office, our industry partners, and the Under Secretary of Defense. Achieving IOC has truly been a team effort,” concluded Dunford.

The U.S. Marine Corps has trained and qualified more than 50 Marine F-35B pilots and certified about 500 maintenance personnel to assume autonomous, organic-level maintenance support for the F-35B.

VMFA-121’s transition will be followed by Marine Attack Squadron 211 (VMA-211), an AV-8B squadron, which is scheduled to transition to the F-35B in fiscal year 2016. In 2018, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 122 (VMFA-122), an F-18 Hornet squadron, will conduct its transition."


Source: http://news.usni.org/2015/07/31/marines ... ke-fighter

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2015, 21:09
by arrow-nautics
Insert hideous, atrocious, revolting, villainous, cruel, fiendish, hellish, vicious, vile, wicked, demoniac, evil, cruel and diabolical laugh here: "________________________________________"!

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2015, 21:12
by spazsinbad
Replicated in full however the URL will be dodgy in future & I'll post the video on Youtube... Oops 'SWP' has it there...
Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan – F-35 PEO Comments on USMC IOC:

"On 31 May 2013, the U.S. Marine Corps sent a letter to Congress saying they would reach F-35B initial operating capability between July and December 2015. For more than two years, the F-35 Joint Program Office, along with industry, has been working hand-in-hand with the Marines to achieve that goal. The fact the Marines reached IOC at the beginning of their six-month window is a testament to the professionalism and dedication of the entire F-35 enterprise.

The U.S. Marine Corps decision to make the F-35B ready for combat is a significant event for the F-35 program. The weapons system is now in the warfighters' hands and can be called upon to do its mission. The F-35 Joint Program Office, our industry partners, and the Marines have worked through a number of challenges as we focused on delivering a stealth fighter that could fly faster than the speed of sound, carry its weapons internally, conduct short take offs and vertical landings, and be deployed from amphibious ships and austere bases. It took an entire team effort to deliver the combat capability of the F-35B, and today we've done it.

Congratulations to the Marine Corps for leading the way. The F-35 government and industry team will continue to deliver on our commitments to field the world's finest combat aircraft for the United States and our allies."

The F-35 Lightning II Program (also known as the Joint Strike Fighter Program) is the Department of Defense's focal point for defining affordable next generation strike aircraft weapon systems for the Navy, Air Force, Marines, and our allies. The F-35 will bring cutting-edge technologies to the battlespace of the future. The JSFs advanced airframe, autonomic logistics, avionics, propulsion systems, stealth, and firepower will ensure that the F-35 is the most affordable, lethal, supportable and survivable aircraft ever to be used by so many warfighters across the globe."

Road to Marine Corps Initial Operational Capability July 2015 VIDEO (very slow download)

http://www.jsf.mil/video/f35test/Road%2 ... IOC-HD.wmv (127Mb)

Source: http://www.jsf.mil/

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2015, 22:34
by spazsinbad
The USMC IOC Declaration reparsed in this article so only the newsy last part excerpted below - maybe it should go to the 'ruderrams' section? But but but... OK I'll put it there: viewtopic.php?f=59&t=25663&p=297285&hilit=Drew#p297285

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2015, 23:42
by arrow-nautics
I don`t want to start a new thread due to one simple question. Does F-35B IOC mean that it can fly in a lightning storm IF absolutely necessary?

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2015, 23:56
by popcorn
markithere wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/u-marines-declare-initial-f-35-squadron-ready-140633831--finance.html

Your thoughts?

:salute: :applause:

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2015, 00:06
by SpudmanWP
arrow-nautics wrote:I don`t want to start a new thread due to one simple question. Does B IOC mean that it can fly in a lightning storm IF absolutely necessary?


No ongoing problems were reported in the latest IOT&E that would affect flying ops.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/ar ... on_on_.pdf

All the flight related OBIGGS issues were resolved as of last year.

------------------UPDATE----------------------

All Good to Go

http://www.standard.net/Military/2015/0 ... -lightning

Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said the formerly unresolved safety risk, which was identified in a report released earlier this year by the Defense Department’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, is no longer impeding the now $1.4 trillion program’s progress.

As proof, Bogdan offered the committee an anecdote about an F-35 being tested two weeks ago at Florida’s Eglin Air Force Base. The plane was hit by lightning, but apparently with no damaging effects.

“It was in clear air and it was struck by lightning and absolutely nothing bad happened to the airplane,” he said. “The pilot landed the airplane (with) no warnings and cautions, no problems. We could see where the lightning went into the right wingtip and came out.”

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2015, 03:47
by steakanddoritos
Where is your god now, David Axe?

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2015, 04:02
by XanderCrews
steakanddoritos wrote:Where is your god now, David Axe?



Loled

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2015, 05:40
by mk82
Congratulations to the USMC and VMFA 121 "Green Knights". Bring it!!!!!!

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2015, 06:17
by yeswepromise
way to go team.

200th center fuselage was also completed this week.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2015, 09:15
by Dragon029
arrow-nautics wrote:I don`t want to start a new thread due to one simple question. Does F-35B IOC mean that it can fly in a lightning storm IF absolutely necessary?


These USMC operational jets are all built to a "Group 1" standard, which is 2B, with the reinforced bulkheads and lightning protection (current / improved OBIGGS).

Reference Spaz's post here.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2015, 15:50
by weasel1962
The F-35B's IOC deserves a bump.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2015, 16:46
by blindpilot
Dragon029 wrote:
arrow-nautics wrote:I don`t want to start a new thread due to one simple question. Does F-35B IOC mean that it can fly in a lightning storm IF absolutely necessary?


These USMC operational jets are all built to a "Group 1" standard, which is 2B, with the reinforced bulkheads and lightning protection (current / improved OBIGGS).

Reference Spaz's post here.


This issue is settled. I went through pilot training at Moody in Valdosta Ga. and I flew more weekly weather time "VFR" near Eglin, than the guys in Arizona ever saw in a year as they tried to get 0.1 hrs real world IFR time by punching a tiny cloud. I landed T-38s in formation, when it was marginally really below minimums, and even did Immelman like takeoffs to avoid the thunderstorm at the end of the runway. That was "VFR student pilot" flying.

News flash! Eglin has weather! In the best of days, it's "partly" cloudy, and you try and get through the hole and above it quickly. Bogdan's comment on the lightning strike doesn't surprise me a bit. The whole issue was never more than hot air from folks who still don't know how to release the airline seat belt after being told by flight attendants for decades.

Prudent caution, as systems develop is not the same as a deficiency. Risk management is simply good procedure. This is yet another example of creating problems that don't exist out of ... well let's say thin air, but that wasn't what I was thinking.

BP

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2015, 14:40
by delvo
Can we at least have that horrible stupid apostrophe edited out of the title? It's stabbing my eyes.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2015, 15:28
by bring_it_on
Any idea about when VMFA-211 gets its F-35B's (schedule) and whether they'll get 3I or not? As I understand all aircraft coming out of production are now standardized around block 3I. Is that correct?

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2015, 15:43
by spazsinbad
Over on previous page 'bring_it_on' asked:
"Any idea about when VMFA-211 gets its F-35B's (schedule) and whether they'll get 3I or not? As I understand all aircraft coming out of production are now standardized around block 3I. Is that correct?"

I was shocked to read earlier that some readers do not read all the posts or sub sections of this forum - 'reading is boring so I read so you don't have to' to parody/paraphrase WiB itself (easy to do huh) and I'm not casting aspersions but....

Go here for some more beer: viewtopic.php?f=59&t=26871&p=297279&hilit=attack#p297279

& from the USMC Aviation Plan 2015: https://marinecorpsconceptsandprograms. ... 20Plan.pdf (16.5Mb)

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2015, 16:02
by bring_it_on
Thanks Spaz, any idea whether the Marines have any 3I aircraft? I seem to vaguely remember something written about the time of OT-1 that some of the jets on the Wasp were Block 3i, while -121's jets were block 2b.

I do know about the info released by the Marines about squadrons transitioning, I just wanted some more specific dates on when they begin getting their jets and what block they are.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2015, 20:42
by SpudmanWP
All but 1 one of LRIP 2-8 Bs are planed to be Block 3F but the end of 2018. All Post-LRIP8 are produced at Block 3i until 3F is released

This is the flow:
2017/2019 - 32 Bs become 3i starting in Q1 2017 (Quarterly plan = 2-4-7-7-3-3-3-2-1)
2018 - 50 (32 from above + 18 produced at 3i) Bs becomes 3F starting in Q2 2018 (Quarterly plan = 16-16-17-0-1)
2019 - The last B Block 3F upgrade is in Q2 2019

(Note: There are 6 Bs that were also planned for conversion to 3F in FY16/17 as part of the SDD & OTE fleets)

http://www.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2016/Navy/P40_0592_BSA-1_BA-5_APP-1506N_PB_2016.pdf

This doc also has the complete Concurrency list.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2015, 21:39
by bring_it_on
Thanks Spud..

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2015, 21:51
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'SWP' - my reading does not usually get to that 'eye-glazing' stuff (not my part of ship) but what a list of concurrency fixes - very interestin'.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 00:46
by quicksilver
Notably, one does not hear anything from the operators about how 2B sucks. Of course, the tin-hatters and others will claim conspiracy and duress, etc etc. They would be, once again, wrong -- and clearly in denial.

Wake up folks. This is an awesome machine, and it's only getting better.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 02:39
by weasel1962
I think doubters do not realise that part of the lower LRIP readiness is probably due to the concurrency retrofits. I would expect readiness to be significantly increased once that is reduced to just software updates like the F-16s.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 06:16
by Corsair1963
VMFA-121 has reached IOC. Yet, are they still flight restrictions on it's F-35B's???

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 06:29
by charlielima223
As the F-35 goes through IOC on to FOC, there will be some minor issues that come up that no engineer or technician could have foreseen. Not saying that the F-35 is a terrible aircraft but I found this picture that brings a smile to my face.

Image

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 06:43
by spazsinbad
Not sure what 'Corsair1963' is asking - are these 'engine not modified' flight restrictions or Block 2B flight restrictions? In any event this is what 2B has in store:
Marine Joint Strike Fighter on Track to Meet 2015 Goal
02 Jun 2014 Dave Majumdar

"...However, with the delivery of Block 2B, the aircraft will be cleared to operate at 550 knot KCAS, Mach 1.2, 50 degrees angle of attack and 5.5G, Van Camp said. However, the F-35B will not be cleared to its full 630 knots KCAS, Mach 1.6, and 7Gs envelope until Block 3F is delivered. Further, with Block 2B, the aircraft’s maximum ceiling will be limited to 40,000ft rather than the full 50,000ft ceiling required for the full Block 3F operational capability...."

Source: http://news.usni.org/2014/06/02/marine- ... -2015-goal

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 07:19
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:Not sure what 'Corsair1963' is asking - are these 'engine not modified' flight restrictions or Block 2B flight restrictions? In any event this is what 2B has in store:
Marine Joint Strike Fighter on Track to Meet 2015 Goal
02 Jun 2014 Dave Majumdar

"...However, with the delivery of Block 2B, the aircraft will be cleared to operate at 550 knot KCAS, Mach 1.2, 50 degrees angle of attack and 5.5G, Van Camp said. However, the F-35B will not be cleared to its full 630 knots KCAS, Mach 1.6, and 7Gs envelope until Block 3F is delivered. Further, with Block 2B, the aircraft’s maximum ceiling will be limited to 40,000ft rather than the full 50,000ft ceiling required for the full Block 3F operational capability...."

Source: http://news.usni.org/2014/06/02/marine- ... -2015-goal



Pretty big restrictions and isn't Block3F not going to be available until the end of 2017???

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 07:31
by spazsinbad
These BLOCK parameters have been known for some time - why complain about it now? The USMC have known about it along with everyone else including whatever else is missing from BLOCK 3F in BLOCK 3B bearing in mind USAF go IOC with BLOCK 3i (which is the same as 2B just with some different hardware to enable it). Shocka.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 07:39
by geogen
Corsair1963 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Not sure what 'Corsair1963' is asking - are these 'engine not modified' flight restrictions or Block 2B flight restrictions? In any event this is what 2B has in store:
Marine Joint Strike Fighter on Track to Meet 2015 Goal
02 Jun 2014 Dave Majumdar

"...However, with the delivery of Block 2B, the aircraft will be cleared to operate at 550 knot KCAS, Mach 1.2, 50 degrees angle of attack and 5.5G, Van Camp said. However, the F-35B will not be cleared to its full 630 knots KCAS, Mach 1.6, and 7Gs envelope until Block 3F is delivered. Further, with Block 2B, the aircraft’s maximum ceiling will be limited to 40,000ft rather than the full 50,000ft ceiling required for the full Block 3F operational capability...."

Source: http://news.usni.org/2014/06/02/marine- ... -2015-goal



Pretty big restrictions and isn't Block3F not going to be available until the end of 2017???


3F Fully operational capability probably won't be achieved until 2020 at the earliest, and perhaps not even until 2021 or 2022.

And more than the performance related issues, it is arguably more the restricted combat capability in not being able to match all the systems and munitions -- which the existing AV-8B II has combat capacity to employ -- which is a bigger issue. e.g., CBU munitions are a considerable deterrence and capability which the Harrier II can employ, as are stand-off Maverick missiles vs high-speed moving targets. Those and other weapons most likely won't be cleared for operational capability on F-35B jets until at least achieving full operational 3F and possibly even block 4.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 07:48
by Corsair1963
geogen wrote:

Pretty big restrictions and isn't Block3F not going to be available until the end of 2017???


3F Fully operational capability probably won't be achieved until 2020 at the earliest, and perhaps not even until 2021 or 2022.

And more than the performance related issues, it is arguably more the restricted combat capability in not being able to match all the systems and munitions -- which the existing AV-8B II has combat capacity to employ -- which is a bigger issue. e.g., CBU munitions are a considerable deterrence and capability which the Harrier II can employ, as are stand-off Maverick missiles vs high-speed moving targets. Those and other weapons most likely won't be cleared for operational capability on F-35B jets until at least achieving full operational 3F and possibly even block 4.
[/quote]

Do you have an official source to support that claim? As 3F is suppose to be ready by fall of 2017!

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 08:11
by SpudmanWP
Corsair1963 wrote:VMFA-121 has reached IOC. Yet, are they still flight restrictions on it's B's???


Only restrictions as they relate to Block 2B, nothing else like previous "stay the hell away from storms" restrictions.


geogen wrote:3F Fully operational capability probably won't be achieved until 2020 at the earliest, and perhaps not even until 2021 or 2022.



Put the crack pipe down and step away from the keyboard :)

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 08:20
by optimist
It wasn't rocket science for the marines. The question was, Does 2b have advantages over Harriers?

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 08:25
by mk82
"3F Fully operational capability probably won't be achieved until 2020 at the earliest, and perhaps not even until 2021 or 2022."

Typical Geogen: FUD, FUD, FUD.....blatant misinformation....

Get your bloody dates right!

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 08:34
by mk82
optimist wrote:It wasn't rocket science for the marines. The question was, Does 2b have advantages over Harriers?


Hint: Try flying a Harrier with minimal EW and Wild Weasal support into an advance and competent IADS... good luck with that!

Look at Lt Gen Dunford's interview...plenty of clues there about the capabilities of the block 2B F35Bs.

Keep in mind that the USMC is planning to phase out the Harrier gradually as more F35Bs become operational. The USMC is not retiring all AV 8Bs tomorrow! At this point in time AV 8B Harrier IIs can carry more types of weapons than the block 2B F35B (nobody is disputing that) and is still useful in a lower threat environment.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 08:54
by weasel1962
Amazing that some people still think having supersonic speed capability, stealth coating and an AESA radar is clearly a step down from a Harrier.... must be the trump effect.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 09:05
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:Amazing that some people still think having supersonic speed capability, stealth coating and an AESA radar is clearly a step down from a Harrier.... must be the trump effect.




Your killing me.... :bang:

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 13:05
by quicksilver
weasel1962 wrote:Amazing that some people still think having supersonic speed capability, stealth coating and an AESA radar is clearly a step down from a Harrier.... must be the trump effect.


Amen...and not just an AESA, the best in the world...and the ASQ-239, and the DAS, and the EOTS, and the helmet, and the CNI suite, and MADL, and fusion.

And some of you "yeah, but..." guys need wake up and smell the coffee.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 13:13
by bring_it_on
I think the most impactful things to come out of the entire press release and the various statements recently was the fact that now the Marines can go in and do first day strike, use the same aircraft as a CAS platform and hang a ton of munition (More than the Hornet) and perform non-stealthy strike..All in a single package and each one of those capabilities is better than what the Harrier or the Hornet can do by themselves..A harrier that has better stealth than the Raptor, significantly longer range than the original harrier, is supersonic and most likely has a larger supersonic radius than the hornet, and carries internal RF, IR and Jamming payloads all in one mission is a GIANT LEAP....

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 13:15
by hornetfinn
quicksilver wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Amazing that some people still think having supersonic speed capability, stealth coating and an AESA radar is clearly a step down from a Harrier.... must be the trump effect.


Amen...and not just an AESA, the best in the world...and the ASQ-239, and the DAS, and the EOTS, and the helmet, and the CNI suite, and MADL, and fusion.

And some of you "yeah, but..." guys need wake up and smell the coffee.


LOL, true. All this reminds me of the Monty Python sketch from Life of Brian movie:

All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Brought peace?

Oh, peace? SHUT UP!

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 13:33
by uclass
hornetfinn wrote:
LOL, true. All this reminds me of the Monty Python sketch from Life of Brian movie:

Debating with them is also becoming a lot like the famous Black Knight sketch from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.


Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 14:03
by bring_it_on
IOC Shows F-35 “On Track
The Marine Corps’ declaring the F-35 operational shows the program is “on track,” Pentagon acquisition, technology, and logistics chief Frank Kendall said in a statement Friday. “This achievement is a testament to the efforts of the F-35 Joint Program Office and industry team,” as well as the Marine Corps, he said. It’s an “affirmation” the program is doing well and a “reminder that we still have work ahead” to deliver all the planned aircraft to all three user services and international partners “while we continue our successful efforts to drive cost out of the program” Kendall said. Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, in his own statement, noted that the Marine Corps declared IOC “at the beginning of the six-month window” that was targeted in May 2013. Bogdan said industry, the SPO, and USMC have been working “hand in hand … to achieve that goal.” The system is now “in the warfighter’s hands and can be called upon to do its mission,” he added. The F-35B is the world’s first operational supersonic, short takeoff/vertical landing stealth fighter able to operate from ships and austere bases, Bogdan said. “It took an entire team effort to deliver the combat capability of the F-35B, and today we’ve done it.”


http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... hows-F-35-“On-Track”.aspx

F-35B “Exceptional” Performance, But Parts Lag
The F-35B turned in “exceptional” performance during a week-long operational readiness inspection last week, but there’s apparently still a parts issue for the jet. Marine Corps air boss Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, in a statement on Friday’s declaration of initial operating capability with the F-35B, said the ORI was a great success and the jet “performed well in all five IOC operational scenarios: close air support, air interdiction, armed reconnaissance, offensive, [and] defensive counterair. This included live ordnance deliveries.” The F-35B, “if required, could respond to a contingency,” said Davis, who is deputy commandant for aviation. However, he also said, “We must remain vigilant in the forging of a sustainment system which supports readiness rates required to train for and conduct sustained combat operations.” He said, “If I have any concern at this point, it is that the spare parts available to extract maximum value from this exceptional warfighting asset will be shy of what we truly need.” A Lockheed Martin spokesman said the company is working with the USMC “every day to alleviate this concern.” Davis also made a pitch to raise the current readiness standards of USMC aviation, which are “between 70 and 75 percent” of full mission capability. “I think we have that wrong, and I want to see if we can do better with this new platform,” he said.


http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... 5/F-35B%20“Exceptional”-Performance,-But-Parts-Lag.aspx

Where Will Lightning Strike Next?

After Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 at MCAS Yuma, Ariz., is fully equipped, the Marine Corps will replace Marine Attack Squadron 211’s AV-8Bs in 2016, and will replace VMFA-122’s F/A-18s in 2018. The F-35B also will replace the EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare jet, but the Marine Corps did not specify when it would start taking over that airplane’s role. In the Air Force, initial operational capability with the F-35A is scheduled for one year from now, in August 2016. USAF must have 12-24 aircraft, plus trained pilots and maintainers, as well as sufficient go-to-war stocks, in order for the head of Air Combat Command to declare IOC. Hill AFB, Utah, activated the first Air Force squadron on July 21, and the F-35A depot, also at Hill, is already performing that mission. The Navy is slotted to declare IOC with the carrier-capable F-35C between August 2018 and February 2019. It will declare with 10 aircraft, plus necessary personnel and parts. The Marine Corps was first to declare IOC with the F-35B for two reasons. First, it faced the most urgent need, as its AV-8B Harriers had been extended well past their planned service lives, and second​, because the short takeoff/vertical landing aspect of the jet proved troublesome early on, and it received the most attention of the three variants. (See also Build Lightning, Then Change.)


http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... -Next.aspx

Contractors Congratulate USMC

Lockheed Martin, builder of the F-35B, said its newly declared operational status with the Marine Corps “represents a quantum leap in air dominance capability.” Aside from being the first operational supersonic, stealthy STOVL jet, the F-35B has “the most powerful and comprehensive integrated sensor package of any fighter aircraft in history, to provide unprecedented lethality and survivability,” and has “ushered in a new era in military aviation.” Engine maker Pratt & Whitney said the on-time IOC declaration is due to “the unyielding commitment and leadership of the marines.” The ability of the F-35B to operate from practically any location represents a “revolutionary capability” for the service, and Pratt said it will continue to work with the marines to prove the “indispensability” of the F-35B “to our nation's​ and allies’ security.”


http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... -USMC.aspx

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 15:07
by uclass
So really the readiness issue is a spares availability issue.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 15:39
by bigjku
uclass wrote:So really the readiness issue is a spares availability issue.



Which is really a money issue which could be solved by I don't know something like retiring a large force of aircraft the services no longer want to free up people and money to spend on the aircraft they do want and need. Just a thought.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 16:22
by spazsinbad
Just one thing for 'bring_it_on': the F-35B at moment cannot do this... [No external weapons possible with 2B/3i Block.]
"...use the same aircraft as a CAS platform and hang a ton of munition (More than the Hornet) and perform non-stealthy strike...."

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 16:41
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:
3F Fully operational capability probably won't be achieved until 2020 at the earliest, and perhaps not even until 2021 or 2022.


Based on what?


And more than the performance related issues, it is arguably more the restricted combat capability in not being able to match all the systems and munitions -- which the existing AV-8B II has combat capacity to employ -- which is a bigger issue. e.g., CBU munitions are a considerable deterrence and capability which the Harrier II can employ, as are stand-off Maverick missiles vs high-speed moving targets. Those and other weapons most likely won't be cleared for operational capability on F-35B jets until at least achieving full operational 3F and possibly even block 4.


The Irony of talking about "performance related issues" while comparing a freaking Harrier to an F-35B is beyond the pale.

Allow me to aware everyone on Geogen. he tried this in another thread as well. Nothing Geogen enjoys more than trying to find things the F-35 can't do (or things he thinks it can't do) and then try and portray it as inferior. This is extremely comical for people in the know, its like watching a virgin describe how he had relations.

Geogen isn't aware that CBUs are extremely out of favor and rarely used these days. He also isn't aware about the Maverick. Watching him try and create FUD from pure ignorance is amazing. In another thread he tried to paint the Marine F-35 not using Harpoons as a huge downgrade from current Marine Harriers. Little did he know that USMC Harriers don't carry harpoons, and he had basically used Wikipedia as a guide that said Harriers use Harpoons, and then tried to use that against the F-35. oopsie daisy. Rather than simply ASK, he decided to take an inaccurate wiki entry and use it. He will use anything he can find, even untrue things, or his own newly invented standards. If the Harrier has superior cockpit air conditioning, he will use that. He won't use the Harrier safety record, or attrition, or heavy maintenance, or extremely unforgiving flight characteristics, or its own performance limits. He isn't going to discuss logical trade offs like an adult. He is actually going to try and convince you that since an F-35 can't carry a Harpoon (yet) that the myriad advantages it enjoys over the Harrier is irrelevant.

He recently accused Lt Gen Davis of violating national security with no basis for doing so; This is typical Geogen, he makes a bold claim and then went confronted on that claim he disappears faster than Houdini flying an F-22. He has claimed there is a fighter Gap (the USAF shows that not to be so) he has claimed a Tomcat would cost less to maintain than an F-35C then provided no evidence when asked, he has made so many claims... He thinks that if he lies politely, then it is acceptable

He is ignorant to point of silliness, and if anyone can spare a few dollars he could desperately use a thesaurus. Please for the good of us all! He uses about the same dozen "buzz words" incessantly, he posts the same things over and over often verbatim. He is arguably the most useless poster on an otherwise very helpful forum full of actual professionals. Arguably.

I refuse to put him on my ignore list, because I can always use a laugh. I wouldn't mind seeing him banned, but I would miss the obnoxious claims and science fiction aircraft.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 16:50
by XanderCrews
uclass wrote:So really the readiness issue is a spares availability issue.


It could also be a software issue. The aircraft may well be flyable but the maint. tracking is showing "false positives" it was very common on the F-22 early on. Park Jet. Jet is code 1. Wake up the next morning jet is "broken"

This is why the context is important.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 17:09
by bring_it_on
spazsinbad wrote:Just one thing for 'bring_it_on': the F-35B at moment cannot do this... [No external weapons possible with 2B/3i Block.]
"...use the same aircraft as a CAS platform and hang a ton of munition (More than the Hornet) and perform non-stealthy strike...."


I was talking about the aircraft in general, not the current state of the block ;)

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 19:07
by SpudmanWP
"Technically" it can carry external stores... It just can't use them :)

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2015, 23:34
by geforcerfx
SpudmanWP wrote:"Technically" it can carry external stores... It just can't use them :)


So ut can still look mean I guess :P

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 00:29
by spazsinbad
Well then one would hope that any external weapons carried today (not for testing - but why?) could be jettisoned for whatever reason? Anyway here is a timeline that we all know and remember - right? - for IOC USMC. Best read at source.
Ready for Battle – The Road to USMC IOC
03 Aug 2015 LM PR

"“This generational leap in technology will enable the Marines to operate a fleet of fighter/attack aircraft from existing runways, unimproved [?] surfaces at austere bases, or the decks of ships. We find that capability extremely valuable.”

These were the words of then-U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) Commandant Gen. James Conway nearly eight years ago when BF-1 rolled off the production line. Since then, more than 13,000 flight hours were flown in the F-35B and the USMC declared Initial Operational Capability (IOC) July 31,2015.

The declaration of IOC represents the Marines’ confidence in the capabilities and maturity of the F-35B to fly it in a wartime scenario...."

Source: https://www.f35.com/news/detail/ready-f ... o-usmc-ioc

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 04:54
by madrat
Wait, does that mean no Sidewinder support currently?

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 05:20
by spazsinbad
Here is the list of weapons for Block 2B from one year ago (I guess I can find earlier references to what is known for 2B):
Marine Joint Strike Fighter on Track to Meet 2015 Goal [VIDEO just for the HECK of it]
02 Jun 2014 Dave Majumdar

"...The Marine Corps intends to declare the F-35B operational with interim Block 2B capabilities in July 2015. The Block 2B configuration includes basic data-fusion capabilities including data-links and a limited suite of weapons including the Raytheon AIM-120 advanced medium range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAM), 500lbs GBU-12 laser-guided bombs, and 1000lbs GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions...."

Source: http://news.usni.org/2014/06/02/marine- ... -2015-goal



Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 05:27
by weasel1962
madrat wrote:Wait, does that mean no Sidewinder support currently?


More like no need for Sidewinder distraction. The missile will receive the same support it has always received, whether or not the aircraft carries it.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 11:53
by charlielima223

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 16:39
by MD
Senator McCain (R-AZ) at it again. Now criticizing the F-35B IOC decision.

McCain is in a tough spot. The F-35A-models of the USAF is the only thing keeping Luke AFB in Phoenix open as it's F-16 mission slowly winds down, otherwise it goes on the BRAC list for closure as it has no other major missions. McCain has been highly supportive of the A-model, yet will come out and be highly critical of the B-model? He must not have any major $$$ coming in or votes coming in from the city of Yuma......

But at least McCain's political hypocrisy is in line with his political record.

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/201 ... ide-cover/

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 16:53
by spazsinbad
:devil: heheh - that artickle is quoting TidyRogerAway [Tyler Rogoway] - then POGO - then the 'johnQpublicBLOG - theys informed eh. :doh: Youse Americans are funny indeed. :mrgreen:

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 17:04
by MD
spazsinbad wrote::devil: heheh - that artickle is quoting TidyRogerAway [Tyler Rogoway] - then POGO - then the 'johnQpublicBLOG - theys informed eh. :doh: Youse Americans are funny indeed. :mrgreen:


Oh I know......Rogoway, we all know of his credentials as a self-proclaimed expert.

Carr, he writes some ok things critical of the USAF, however as a former C-17 pilot, I do think he strays pretty far outside his lane of traffic when he starts talking/criticizing specifics regarding fighter/attack aircraft and associated subjects, of which he has zero experience in.

Good ole McCain. As the senior Senator of my state here, it's always one of those "what's he going to do next?" things.....

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 17:11
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: As long as McCain (you've done it again) is not BREAKING BAD on F-35 then things should be OK for the F-35s eh. :devil:

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 18:16
by XanderCrews
Oh I know......Rogoway, we all know of his credentials as a self-proclaimed expert.


Many of them aren’t even paid! They email me and end up telling me they work for LM or have a brother that works for a sub contractor who is a good guy. It’s maddening. You can’t say a good thing about this program without being a fan boy or a bad thing without being a hater. Not an easy gig telling the truth as you see it. Some guy just commented someone calls me a “basement dweller” on a military aviation enthusiast forum, like I care, it just never ends. This is very personal for people. In the end I make not a dime from a contractor, have no family related to the program or any other, have never worked for big defense or for the military. Can’t get much more unbias than that.

Actual Rogoway quote^

I've seen that logic from illiterate rednecks, you know if you can't read, you can't know. Ignorance is bliss. Tyler is a hotdog vender and photog That is his background

Image



Good ole McCain. As the senior Senator of my state here, it's always one of those "what's he going to do next?" things.....


aint that the truth!! I'm sure next week he will flip back. If you don't like a decision, wait 10 minutes for it to switch

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 18:52
by MD
XanderCrews wrote:This is very personal for people.


What's funny is, the number of people who this is SO personal for, yet who have zero operational stake in what this aircraft can do. Not even remotely

Like many A-10 hardcore fans who have nothing to do with the aircraft, have never flown it or any other military aircraft, and don't have any stake in what the A-10 provides; seeing these people all over A-10 Facebook pages and the like, going hell and highwater angry over the jet being retired. And pontificating about all US troops are now going to instantly die on the battlefield because A-10s won't be around (which doesn't say much for US troops, I'd be offended as one hearing that). Forget the fact that many CAS scenarios were accomplished without A-10s. But these people go so far as to say "screw 5th gen fighters, we need more A-10s!", and go on and on about its capabilities and this and that.

I get one guy telling me all about CAS tactics and about how the gun is so important. To which I responded that the gun isnt the only weapon it has. His response was "you don't drop bombs in a CAS scenario, unless you want friendly fire deaths".

Oh that's funny, I've dropped any number of bombs in CAS scenarios, with and without troops in danger close; a few times with the ground FAC requesting Mk82s even though I was leery of dropping them (my jet was HUD out, all manual mil-crank that day), knowing the proximity of the enemy, understanding that he and his guys will need to seek some serious cover, and passing along the Ground CC's initials as the final approval. It's all dependant on the situation. Sure, there are certain weapons we tend to not use in CAS, but bombs isn't one of them.

Just awesome that after 5 years in the Hog and 2 combat tours in it, some intenet fanboy will proceed to speak as if he's some kind of authority on the specific details of something he knows the square root of jack squat about. :mrgreen:

aint that the truth!! I'm sure next week he will flip back. If you don't like a decision, wait 10 minutes for it to switch


He never ceases to amaze. McCain's military service was honorable, but once he entered politics, the honor seemed to take a back seat. Much like Randall Cunningham.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 19:05
by SpudmanWP
MD wrote: once he entered politics, the honor seemed to take a back seat. Much like ....


[cough] John Kerry [/cough]

Forget the back seat.. it jumped out of the damn car!

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 19:10
by spazsinbad
OH come on youse guys. Randall Cunningham is quite a bit different - compared to Kerry & McCain. Puhleez. Sure the two now serving politicians are in high office and speak out of both sides of their gobs because that is the job. Randy? I don't know if he is still in jail?

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 19:17
by MD
spazsinbad wrote:OH come on youse guys. Randall Cunningham is quite a bit different - compared to Kerry & McCain. Puhleez. Sure the two now serving politicians are in high office and speak out of both sides of their gobs because that is the job. Randy? I don't know if he is still in jail?


Cunningham is a bit different. Maybe he just got caught is all. Though McCain's involvement in the Keating 5 scandal and surrounding Charlie Keating and the Savings & Loan debacle, should've likely landed him in jail too.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 19:30
by spazsinbad
I guess we have to work with what IS - rather than what might have been. Randy strikes me as kinda greedy & dumb - compared to the others.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 20:40
by newmanfrigan
spazsinbad wrote:I guess we have to work with what IS - rather than what might have been. Randy strikes me as kinda greedy & dumb - compared to the others.


I agree with that Spaz.

He got carried away and got caught. The more polished politicians know how to get away with it.

..like MD said, McCain could have done a long stretch for his past dirty deeds.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 21:05
by XanderCrews
MD wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:This is very personal for people.


What's funny is, the number of people who this is SO personal for, yet who have zero operational stake in what this aircraft can do. Not even remotely

Like many A-10 hardcore fans who have nothing to do with the aircraft, have never flown it or any other military aircraft, and don't have any stake in what the A-10 provides; seeing these people all over A-10 Facebook pages and the like, going hell and highwater angry over the jet being retired. And pontificating about all US troops are now going to instantly die on the battlefield because A-10s won't be around (which doesn't say much for US troops, I'd be offended as one hearing that). Forget the fact that many CAS scenarios were accomplished without A-10s. But these people go so far as to say "screw 5th gen fighters, we need more A-10s!", and go on and on about its capabilities and this and that.

I get one guy telling me all about CAS tactics and about how the gun is so important. To which I responded that the gun isnt the only weapon it has. His response was "you don't drop bombs in a CAS scenario, unless you want friendly fire deaths".

Oh that's funny, I've dropped any number of bombs in CAS scenarios, with and without troops in danger close; a few times with the ground FAC requesting Mk82s even though I was leery of dropping them (my jet was HUD out, all manual mil-crank that day), knowing the proximity of the enemy, understanding that he and his guys will need to seek some serious cover, and passing along the Ground CC's initials as the final approval. It's all dependant on the situation. Sure, there are certain weapons we tend to not use in CAS, but bombs isn't one of them.

Just awesome that after 5 years in the Hog and 2 combat tours in it, some intenet fanboy will proceed to speak as if he's some kind of authority on the specific details of something he knows the square root of jack squat about. :mrgreen:




Bolded part= I am. The way people tell it if there is an A-10 nearby (and there always is of course!) being a grunt is just cake.

As for the rest well said and nice work on the old fashioned attack-- fuaark no HUD?

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 22:26
by MD
XanderCrews wrote:Bolded part= I am. The way people tell it if there is an A-10 nearby (and there always is of course!) being a grunt is just cake.


That's the thing. Is an A-10 nice to have? Sure it is. It brings munitions to the fight to support ground troops, with crews whose focus is CAS. That's great.

But where there's no A-10 available, does CAS quality drop to zero, CAS itself come to a screeching halt, and troops start dying by the hundreds? No. Not by a longshot. Like we've discussed many times here, the A-10 is but one item in the overall CAS toolbox, like many other planes which do the job.

Sometimes the "best" CAS platform is the one which is overhead at the time, available, armed with appropriate munitions, trained, and wanting to get in there and help out. Sometimes that's the only choice.

This idea that troops are going be dying left and right ("the blood of dead US troops from the moment the A-10 is retired will be on those who retired the jet :bang: ), is insane. The implication being that somehow US troops are completely and utterly paralyzed and unable to perform their job without CAS overhead, specifically A-10s.

Those people need to ask the NVA/VC how much air support they ever had? Or even arty support. And did the lack of it completely hamper and paralyze their operations?

As for the rest well said and nice work on the old fashioned attack-- fuaark no HUD?


Yeah, a couple of our jets had electrical gremlins on them. This one happened to manifest itself in the HUD about an hour after takeoff on a 4 hour VUL period, with the HUD green crap working, but being fuzzy like a bad TV (looking like the 3rd ID unit patch). Any other jet? Probably an RTB. In the Hog (at the time), most of us prided ourselves on....and trained/qualed to......dropping HUD degraded or HUD out, with just the depressible pipper called up to the appropriate mils for the weapon/dive angle being delivered. We'd gotten called by the RAF E-3 to a small outpost called Lwara, on the Pakistani border, which was under attack by Taliban with mortars, rockets and small arms. This was about the 4th time I'd been to this outpost in 2 weeks for the same thing. Get overhead and the ground FAC goes through his spiel, negating the 9-line and just pointing out everything outside the camp to the north is enemy. He wants bombs, to which I remind him that it's pretty close, but that's what he wants. Normally, manual bombing, you try to negate as many errors as you can, such as bombing head/tailwind only as much as possible to cancel drift corrections, and bombing as steeply as possible to negate bomb range errors (ironically, the most difficult manual delivery.....even computed one..with a dumb bomb, is a level delivery or lay down); since you yourself are the CCIP, so to speak; the jet isn't giving you crap for help. Due to having to run-in perpendicular to the fight between the two forces, I had to accept a crosswind, but a nice 60 degree delivery took care of the ranging error. Our flight went to work and expended the bombs, rockets and most of the gun. Left there with just gun rounds and an AGM-65 remaining onboard.

These days with the C-model A-10, it's nothing more than a slow F-16. Carries the same air-ground ordnance, same guided stuff, has consent to release etc. But the worst part.....manual bombing is now just a familiarization event, not a qualification event. The Hog students see it once or so in FTU transition, and never see it again. That was always the one qualifier we had from other communities. "When the green stuff fails, we head home" was never our mantra. Nowdays, the kids in the Hog currently, no-HUD bombing for real, might be something they wouldn't do.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2015, 23:31
by spazsinbad
'MD' not taking anything away from your skill and experience but I was living the quote...
"...Normally, manual bombing, you try to negate as many errors as you can, such as bombing head/tailwind only as much as possible to cancel drift corrections, and bombing as steeply as possible to negate bomb range errors (ironically, the most difficult manual delivery.....even computed one..with a dumb bomb, is a level delivery or lay down); since you yourself are the CCIP, so to speak; the jet isn't giving you crap for help...."

This was the early 1970s in an A4G with a 'fixed' gunsight - which could be depressed only - oh the joy of the lower dive angle deliveries. We used to have a 45 degree angle but weather was always an issue so nothing above 30 degrees was SOP. [THEN I THINK WE SETTLED ON 20 degrees? rather than 30 degrees but my memory is probably faulty these days.] Next was 10 degree and in my days only slick bombs that went every which way over and under. Similarly strafing at low angles was problematic. Thankfully I did not see any actual combat (unlike my flying training midshipmen who went off to Vietnam in Iroquois with the US Army to distinguish themselves in 1970).

We had trained airborne FACs (using prop Winjeels in those days) along with any available RAAF FACs plus ARMY FACs on ground and I think airborne if qualified. It was a long time ago now. In the late 1970s after my time I believe the RAN FAA had 'retarded' bombs for level or very low angle deliveries - that must have been nice. :roll:

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2015, 00:54
by MD
spazsinbad wrote:'MD' not taking anything away from your skill and experience but I was living the quote...

This was the early 1970s in an A4G with a 'fixed' gunsight - which could be depressed only - oh the joy of the lower dive angle deliveries. We used to have a 45 degree angle but weather was always an issue so nothing above 30 degrees was SOP. Next was 10 degree and in my days only slick bombs that went every which way over and under. Similarly strafing at low angles was problematic. Thankfully I did not see any actual combat (unlike my flying training midshipmen who went off to Vietnam in Iroquois with the US Army to distinguish themselves in 1970).

We had trained airborne FACs (using prop Winjeels in those days) along with any available RAAF FACs plus ARMY FACs on ground and I think airborne if qualified. It was a long time ago now. In the late 1970s after my time I believe the RAN FAA had 'retarded' bombs for level or very low angle deliveries - that must have been nice. :roll:


That's all awesome stuff, and I love reading about the days when it was "the norm". Namely because it's such a seemingly lost art anymore these days. Even for us, referencing your comment on low angle deliveries with low-drag bombs, even when I was flying the Hog, our lowest angle low-drag delivery was a 20 degree. Anything less such as 10/15 pop-up, was all high drag munitions only, with either Snakeye fins or ballute tail kits on the bombs. I couldn't imagine back in the days before high drag munitions, low angle deliveries and the safe escape required to be able to fully avoid any and all frag. But that's how it was done then, as there was no other option. Heck, even look at the videos of the Argentine A-4s in 1982, dropping slicks so low that even though they hit their targets, some of the bombs didn't even have time to arm (but still, if I'm not mistaken, still caused enough damage and fires to render some ships out of action or destroyed). Amazing stuff.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2015, 02:09
by spazsinbad
'MD' rest assured - I'm equally amazed at all the precision ways to deliver munitions these days. For one thing multiple targets for one aircraft on one mission - rather than multiple missions to one target in the olden tymes. :doh:

Yes the Argentine A-4s had some slick bomb extreme low level - level - delivery issues and yes unexploded bombs did sink at least one ship eventually as I recall and otherwise severely damage ships on their entry/exit to the deep.

As we would say the 'under/over' problem for our SOP 10 degree dive deliveries (only done for poor weather/ low cloud base) were a real issue. We practiced pop up deliveries in formation (to get the most aircraft/bombs on target in the shortest time in an effort to avoid AckAck/Missiles). However this was a dangerous maneuver in and of itself as we would go to our 20 degree roll-in height (if possible - to actually do it with a real bomb load was difficult). We lost one VF-805 nugget practicing on our nearby range because apparently he forgot to 'never hit your leader' - ever - but he did and died during the dive - leader managed to recover to Nowra with problems via an arrested landing.

I took a break to try to remember the 10 degree bomb (most likely 250/500 pounders) release parameters but cannot after all this time of NOT doing it. Anyway shrapnel was the concern as pointed out along with ricochets during 10 degree strafing so the safety height was relatively high. This meant that windage was vital. We had a 'sight picture' briefed which could mean nothing in the actual wind at altitude conditions - hence multiple missions to the same target. :mrgreen:

CEP was 75 feet during initial training and we liked to get under 50 feet on VF-805 but during my time the emphasis was on our 'fleet defence' role (with only four A4Gs onboard) so our A to G practice was not ideal. As 'Gums' will attest and from my reading about A-4s in Vietnam - especially USN/USMC ground troop FAC support - with daily practice and local knowledge, then dumb bombing accuracy can increase a lot.

I have a photo of a VC-724 chalkboard briefing for the OFS students (Operational Flying School) from my era in the early 1970s. There are some zoom shots of the 'sight picture' briefed also - as if anyone ever achieved them. :mrgreen:

'MD' you may enjoy this old story about such bombings by Jack Woodul (CrudMaster Jock USN & Youthly Puresome) a very funny guy indeed - his stories can be rib splitting: http://youthlypuresome.com/?p=176 & http://youthlypuresome.com/

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2015, 02:47
by spazsinbad
I notice that LDGP(sim) are briefed. We did not have retards until after my time. :mrgreen: And also note that a level delivery is briefed as a last resort. That is a resort I do not want to spend any time within whatsoever. Yes there are some explanations and the site pictures have been 'enhanced'. The target is the red cross whilst the pipper is placed 'adjacent' by some calculated windage amount and there you have it. Best to click on the picture below and then at least click on it again once opened to zoom in for details. This is c.mid to late 1972 for No.6 OFS with this MISSION being part of their final graduation evaluation sorties. The top three names left are the students with the fourth a supervisory AWI as no.4.

The formation will 'battle' their way down south of Nowra being bounced by bogies to come back up north to the nearby to NAS Nowra Beecroft Armament Range and there to carry out the previously mentioned pop up dive bombing exercise. Usually it is briefed that the bogies stop their activity within the confines of the range because it is just too dangerous otherwise.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2015, 03:13
by spazsinbad
This PDF has great info about Bombing Issues: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/16v5.pdf (4.5Mb)

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2015, 05:34
by spazsinbad
Back on topic with "GREETINGS EARTHLINGS": http://www.yumasun.com/news/vmfa--out-o ... 88a4d.html
"Pre-flight check
A pilot with U.S. Marine Corps Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 (VMFA-121) performs a pre-flight check on an F-35B Lightning II Monday morning at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, before leaving on a training flight. VMFA-121, the "Green Knights," is based at MCAS Yuma and reached initial operational capability Friday."

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews ... .image.jpg

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2015, 09:06
by MD
That's awesome stuff there Spaz! Love the old school bombing triangle, brings back a lot of memories from long ago. Without going too much off topic, that's some good briefing stuff there, and I can still remember all the low work we used to do for under the Wx work, in the days prior to JDAM and such. Pop to acquire, about 3-5 seconds to find the target/DMPI, and either roll in and attack, or roll off and reset. Our most difficult delivery was 10-pop CBU, since the mil setting was 290 mils, and the pipper only depressed to 300 or so. So if you didn't have a tiger error.....steep and/or fast.....and ended up being shallow or slow, you'd never get the pipper tracking across the target before hitting abort altitude. Or worse, if you failed to trim nose-down a few clicks on roll-in, and banana'd the pass as you accelerated down the chute, ending up with an early pipper across the target, a high release, and a short bomb. All great stuff there you posted, thank you for putting it up!

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2015, 09:50
by spazsinbad
The hardest part I reckon with our A-4 Fixed Gunsight - depressed - was that pendulum swing when making small (or trying to make small) corrections. It was unnerving at first. It was one thing to practice with practice bombs but hang a real load on and the A4G struggled to make the benchmarks, however it was all a matter of practice and experience eh.

When the pipper is really depressed it is like a bobweight on the end of a pendulum string. Roll left slightly and that pipper at the end of the pendulum goes way out to the right and then roll back and it comes back - hopefully to where you want it and then let it drift onto the target (one learnt how to control drift after a while) to be at the correct release altitude at the correst KIAS and dive angle and yeah - I'm joking.... :devil:

What was fun was doing single practice bomb passes with a briefed sight picture for the wind at altitude, to find that it was very different. This would happen a lot because the bomb range was right at the coast. Anyway one would have a real helmet fire after six PB passes always adjusting your sight picture to account for the fall of shot, and corrections and blah blah blah. Then one had to do seven 2.75 in rocket passes (either before or after) when every rocket diverged at least a little bit on the way down. After about fourteen 30 degree dives with 4.5G pullouts etc it was time for the wringer. And then because it was OFS it was likely you would do three of these sorties a day - to get your eye in. :mrgreen:

I liked the air to air banner work when the pipper was only depressed a few mils and I could get hits.

TWO graphics below are Zoomed from the earlier Graphic About Release Parameters etc beforehand + Pendulum.... And... the A-4 fixed gunsight aim circles and pipper in the middle (on the A-4 in the graphic).

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2015, 14:16
by MD
spazsinbad wrote:The hardest part I reckon with our A-4 Fixed Gunsight - depressed - was that pendulum swing when making small (or trying to make small) corrections. It was unnerving at first. It was one thing to practice with practice bombs but hang a real load on and the A4G struggled to make the benchmarks, however it was all a matter of practice and experience eh.

When the pipper is really depressed it is like a bobweight on the end of a pendulum string. Roll left slightly and that pipper at the end of the pendulum goes way out to the right and then roll back and it comes back - hopefully to where you want it and then let it drift onto the target (one learnt how to control drift after a while) to be at the correct release altitude at the correst KIAS and dive angle and yeah - I'm joking.... :devil:

What was fun was doing single practice bomb passes with a briefed sight picture for the wind at altitude, to find that it was very different. This would happen a lot because the bomb range was right at the coast. Anyway one would have a real helmet fire after six PB passes always adjusting your sight picture to account for the fall of shot, and corrections and blah blah blah. Then one had to do seven 2.75 in rocket passes (either before or after) when every rocket diverged at least a little bit on the way down. After about fourteen 30 degree dives with 4.5G pullouts etc it was time for the wringer. And then because it was OFS it was likely you would do three of these sorties a day - to get your eye in. :mrgreen:

I liked the air to air banner work when the pipper was only depressed a few mils and I could get hits.

.


All good briefing stuff there. Everything on there is the same today, as it was then, as it was many decades ago. The "D10 R30" is the same thing we know as "Release Aim Point" or RAP. If at all possible, always tried to negate the crosswind, to a head/tailwind, that way the "R or L" correction wasn't needed. From there, it was easy to manage the head/tailwind using HATS, or Headwind: Add, Tailwind: Subtract, the appropriate amount of mils from your computed mils, per knot of known head/tail wind, in order to take it into account for your pipper crossing the target.

Want some real fun? The real high speed guys would try to adjust side to side of the target a few mils, in order to account for "TER kick".....the amount/distance of "kick" the Triple Ejector Rack would give the bomb as it ejected it from either the left or right side of the rack (N/A for the center of the rack obviously). Of course, you had to know your bomb sequencing for this, which bomb you were on with the rack you had selected, etc. Granted, this was the gnat's assing of gnat's assing, and guys truly believed they could adjust a mil or two left/right to take this into account, but with the pipper dot itself only 1 mil in width, and with everything else going on at the time, to be able to seriously take this into account was for nothing more than bombing for quarters, rather than for anything operationally practical :mrgreen:

In the A-10, the gun is boresighted at 41 mils. Great for air-ground work, but for air-air work, against a maneuvering target, where you have to have the three necessary parameters for a gun kill: In plane, in range, and with sufficient lead; the first two were fairly easy to accomplish, but the last one took a good amount of leading of the target to actually get rounds on target. Not that the A-10 is any sort of air-air machine, but for general BFM or defensive work, bringing the gun to bear against a maneuvering fixed-wing target would take a fair bit of work. Later HUDs came with a air-air HUD selection and funnel, which was created by inputting nominal values for a target's length, wingspan, and corner velocity, in order to generate the funnel size depiction. This was the only way to get a funnel size since there was no radar available for ranging.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2015, 17:44
by spazsinbad
'MD' because we were on our Beecroft Armament Range on the north arm of Jervis Bay not far from NAS Nowra with small townships on the northern edge of the range, we had to use a specific dive direction. For practice weapons dropped individually on the 'circles' with fall of shot recorded it was nornoreast or thereabouts. For live weapons things were more problematic depending on size, and if rockets such as Zunis, we had different targets (sometimes a small island just offshore there - off the vertical cliffs) requiring a more easterly course, so windage was compensated as briefed whilst attack direction had to be specific so as to stay within the confines of the small range with weapons live etc. I'll post a map soon. The range is no longer in use these days I think but of course still off limits due to unexploded stuff. The range was also a ship gunnery range. As the crow flies the range is about fourteen NM from NAS Nowra top left of second map whilst the widest east west part of Jervis Bay is about five NM with a scale approx. 7NM near Google Earth Logo btm rt.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2015, 19:22
by MD
spazsinbad wrote:'MD' because we were on our Beecroft Armament Range on the north arm of Jervis Bay not far from NAS Nowra with small townships on the northern edge of the range, we had to use a specific dive direction. For practice weapons dropped individually on the 'circles' with fall of shot recorded it was nornoreast or thereabouts. For live weapons things were more problematic depending on size, and if rockets such as Zunis, we had different targets (sometimes a small island just offshore there - off the vertical cliffs) requiring a more easterly course, so windage was compensated as briefed whilst attack direction had to be specific so as to stay within the confines of the small range with weapons live etc.


That makes sense. Any kind of run-in restrictions, training or real world, could very well leave you with the crosswind puzzle to solve in addition to all others. And having the discipline to be able to keep the pipper tracking right or left of the target and parallel to it, releasing when at the analyzed RAP, took alot to accomplish. Because it's so natural to want to drive the pipper through the target, and being offset from it (or even forcing yourself to drop past the target, if you were shallow/slow in your dive and had to compensate for the artificial-track the pipper traveled due to pilot's error)......even though you know that's where the pipper needs to be on release, it just seems counterintuitive at the moment sometimes. When the Mk76 / BDU33 hits and emits its smoke from the spotting charge, on target; that's pretty satisfying a feeling. All accomplished with no electronic help of any kind. Just you and your experience.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2015, 20:41
by spazsinbad
A 'disused' old airfield (only suitable for purpose described) was the Jervis Bay Airfield seen on the southern arm of Jervis Bay. Here JINDIVIK jet powered target aircraft were launched from a wheeled dolly (left behind) to then be radio controlled from the ground. The Jindiviks would go out into the missile/air to air range a very large wide corridor going south-east from JB (also called the Jervis Bay Missile Range). Every A4G pilot had to fire an AIM-9B at a flare target towed by the Jindies at least once per year. The targets recorded a bunch of stuff acoustically and on film as well as the radio conversations between A4G and ground controllers. Plonking 'shadowers' or Badgers was the main task of the 'Fleet Defence' A4Gs onboard with the capability to carry four underwing AIM-9Bs.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2015, 20:42
by spazsinbad
AFAIK this is the last reference to 'lightning strikes' viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27661&p=297372&hilit=Lightning+Strike#p297372 so this is why this little ditty is posted here. The three page PDF attachment has the story. Lightning strikes can cause a lot of mayhem and not just on the aircraft but to the aircrew.
BLAMMO!
Nov-Dec 2012 LCdr. Zachary Kirby APPROACH USN Flight Safety Magazine

“...Lightning can seriously damage an aircraft, especially sensitive electronic systems on Prowlers [EA-6B]. We are continually at risk; even the most mundane flights can become exciting or even catastrophic. I wasn’t prepared to be hit by lightning, and although I now know what it entails, I’m not sure I could ever be prepared....”

Source: http://www.public.navy.mil/comnavsafece ... ov-Dec.pdf (2.8Mb)

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2015, 02:10
by geogen
XanderCrews wrote:
geogen wrote:
3F Fully operational capability probably won't be achieved until 2020 at the earliest, and perhaps not even until 2021 or 2022.


Based on what?


And more than the performance related issues, it is arguably more the restricted combat capability in not being able to match all the systems and munitions -- which the existing AV-8B II has combat capacity to employ -- which is a bigger issue. e.g., CBU munitions are a considerable deterrence and capability which the Harrier II can employ, as are stand-off Maverick missiles vs high-speed moving targets. Those and other weapons most likely won't be cleared for operational capability on F-35B jets until at least achieving full operational 3F and possibly even block 4.


The Irony of talking about "performance related issues" while comparing a freaking Harrier to an F-35B is beyond the pale.

Allow me to aware everyone on Geogen. he tried this in another thread as well. Nothing Geogen enjoys more than trying to find things the F-35 can't do (or things he thinks it can't do) and then try and portray it as inferior. This is extremely comical for people in the know, its like watching a virgin describe how he had relations.

Geogen isn't aware that CBUs are extremely out of favor and rarely used these days. He also isn't aware about the Maverick. Watching him try and create FUD from pure ignorance is amazing. In another thread he tried to paint the Marine F-35 not using Harpoons as a huge downgrade from current Marine Harriers. Little did he know that USMC Harriers don't carry harpoons, and he had basically used Wikipedia as a guide that said Harriers use Harpoons, and then tried to use that against the F-35. oopsie daisy. Rather than simply ASK, he decided to take an inaccurate wiki entry and use it. He will use anything he can find, even untrue things, or his own newly invented standards. If the Harrier has superior cockpit air conditioning, he will use that. He won't use the Harrier safety record, or attrition, or heavy maintenance, or extremely unforgiving flight characteristics, or its own performance limits. He isn't going to discuss logical trade offs like an adult. He is actually going to try and convince you that since an F-35 can't carry a Harpoon (yet) that the myriad advantages it enjoys over the Harrier is irrelevant.

He recently accused Lt Gen Davis of violating national security with no basis for doing so; This is typical Geogen, he makes a bold claim and then went confronted on that claim he disappears faster than Houdini flying an F-22. He has claimed there is a fighter Gap (the USAF shows that not to be so) he has claimed a Tomcat would cost less to maintain than an F-35C then provided no evidence when asked, he has made so many claims... He thinks that if he lies politely, then it is acceptable

He is ignorant to point of silliness, and if anyone can spare a few dollars he could desperately use a thesaurus. Please for the good of us all! He uses about the same dozen "buzz words" incessantly, he posts the same things over and over often verbatim. He is arguably the most useless poster on an otherwise very helpful forum full of actual professionals. Arguably.

I refuse to put him on my ignore list, because I can always use a laugh. I wouldn't mind seeing him banned, but I would miss the obnoxious claims and science fiction aircraft.



Please sir, this is a place for debate. I'm not impressed with your style.

Regardless, are you arguing that a Harrier with Maverick AGM is not a credible capability still today? In either anti-ground, or anti-surface?

Also, I would disagree with you and suggest CBU and derivatives are still an essential and critical deterrence and capability today -- even if not used much (not sure) in current actions vs extremist groups.

And btw, I was using Military dot com site as a reference and yes, you are correct, I conceded the point that possibly the site was incorrect - not knowing the data intimately - in implying that USMC Harrier's could indeed have the capability to additionally employ HARM and the Harpoon. Thanks for the discussion and have a good one.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2015, 03:11
by thepointblank
geogen wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
geogen wrote:
3F Fully operational capability probably won't be achieved until 2020 at the earliest, and perhaps not even until 2021 or 2022.


Based on what?


And more than the performance related issues, it is arguably more the restricted combat capability in not being able to match all the systems and munitions -- which the existing AV-8B II has combat capacity to employ -- which is a bigger issue. e.g., CBU munitions are a considerable deterrence and capability which the Harrier II can employ, as are stand-off Maverick missiles vs high-speed moving targets. Those and other weapons most likely won't be cleared for operational capability on F-35B jets until at least achieving full operational 3F and possibly even block 4.


The Irony of talking about "performance related issues" while comparing a freaking Harrier to an F-35B is beyond the pale.

Allow me to aware everyone on Geogen. he tried this in another thread as well. Nothing Geogen enjoys more than trying to find things the F-35 can't do (or things he thinks it can't do) and then try and portray it as inferior. This is extremely comical for people in the know, its like watching a virgin describe how he had relations.

Geogen isn't aware that CBUs are extremely out of favor and rarely used these days. He also isn't aware about the Maverick. Watching him try and create FUD from pure ignorance is amazing. In another thread he tried to paint the Marine F-35 not using Harpoons as a huge downgrade from current Marine Harriers. Little did he know that USMC Harriers don't carry harpoons, and he had basically used Wikipedia as a guide that said Harriers use Harpoons, and then tried to use that against the F-35. oopsie daisy. Rather than simply ASK, he decided to take an inaccurate wiki entry and use it. He will use anything he can find, even untrue things, or his own newly invented standards. If the Harrier has superior cockpit air conditioning, he will use that. He won't use the Harrier safety record, or attrition, or heavy maintenance, or extremely unforgiving flight characteristics, or its own performance limits. He isn't going to discuss logical trade offs like an adult. He is actually going to try and convince you that since an F-35 can't carry a Harpoon (yet) that the myriad advantages it enjoys over the Harrier is irrelevant.

He recently accused Lt Gen Davis of violating national security with no basis for doing so; This is typical Geogen, he makes a bold claim and then went confronted on that claim he disappears faster than Houdini flying an F-22. He has claimed there is a fighter Gap (the USAF shows that not to be so) he has claimed a Tomcat would cost less to maintain than an F-35C then provided no evidence when asked, he has made so many claims... He thinks that if he lies politely, then it is acceptable

He is ignorant to point of silliness, and if anyone can spare a few dollars he could desperately use a thesaurus. Please for the good of us all! He uses about the same dozen "buzz words" incessantly, he posts the same things over and over often verbatim. He is arguably the most useless poster on an otherwise very helpful forum full of actual professionals. Arguably.

I refuse to put him on my ignore list, because I can always use a laugh. I wouldn't mind seeing him banned, but I would miss the obnoxious claims and science fiction aircraft.



Please sir, this is a place for debate. I'm not impressed with your style.

Regardless, are you arguing that a Harrier with Maverick AGM is not a credible capability still today? In either anti-ground, or anti-surface?

Also, I would disagree with you and suggest CBU and derivatives are still an essential and critical deterrence and capability today -- even if not used much (not sure) in current actions vs extremist groups.

And btw, I was using Military dot com site as a reference and yes, you are correct, I conceded the point that possibly the site was incorrect - not knowing the data intimately - in implying that USMC Harrier's could indeed have the capability to additionally employ HARM and the Harpoon. Thanks for the discussion and have a good one.



The Maverick missile is incredibly dated right now; there hasn't been a new Maverick missile purchase by the US military for years; practically every contract for the past decade has been about converting one type of missile for another type, or seeker replacements.

CBU usage; there is major concerns with using cluster bombs in coalition missions with allies that have signed the Ottawa Treaty and/or the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM). Practically every US ally is a party to either the Ottawa Treaty, or the CCM. As such, using such weapons within coalition missions is a political minefield for the US.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2015, 03:28
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:
Please sir, this is a place for debate.



Everytime someone tries to "debate" you disappear. Your version of debate is making decisive claims about things you don't understand, and when challenged simply leaving. We are still waiting for you in several threads in fact. This has been your MO for years.

I want an answer to my question BTW.


I'm not impressed with your style.


I'm not impressed with people who accuse others of violating national security with zero evidence. Where is that in the "debate" sir? too late to pull that card.


Regardless, are you arguing that a Harrier with Maverick AGM is not a credible capability still today? In either anti-ground, or anti-surface?


Not what I said and not going to waste my time with an explanation to you either.

Also, I would disagree with you and suggest CBU and derivatives are still an essential and critical deterrence and capability today -- even if not used much (not sure) in current actions vs extremist groups.


Disagree all you want, they are practically last resort for all the trouble they cause. They have to be treated like Landmines, there are still areas where they were dropped decades ago that are off limits. Not surprisingly area weapons have fallen out of favor for precision. There are also treaty implications.

And btw, I was using Military dot com site as a reference and yes, you are correct, I conceded the point that possibly the site was incorrect - not knowing the data intimately - in implying that USMC Harrier's could indeed have the capability to additionally employ HARM and the Harpoon. Thanks for the discussion and have a good one.


I'm glad you concede the point, but this a bad habit you constantly repeat on this forum. If I want fiction I will look elsewhere. Moreover the issue isn't a bad site its your attitude. You took this piece of what turned out to be false info and threw it like a rock. You essentially take anything, including measurements you actually invented yourself (strategic ferry range?) and use it to try and make the F-35 come up short.

Its over. the JSF won.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2015, 05:47
by MD
XanderCrews wrote:Disagree all you want, they are practically last resort for all the trouble they cause. They have to be treated like Landmines, there are still areas where they were dropped decades ago that are off limits. Not surprisingly area weapons have fallen out of favor for precision. There are also treaty implications.


CBU is a great weapon, but you're absolutely correct that it has some serious limitations in a number of ways. Granted, the SUU-65 based munitions (-87) have a lower dud rate than the older SUU-30 based CBUs (52/58), but they are indeed still a minefield for any force that has to move through an area they were dropped in. Excellent weapon for something like CSAR support for taking out troops and AAA, where there's a singular objective. And that is all part and parcel from the treaty problems you mention, that have some serious political implications.

The AGM-65 is nice, but I agree that it's dated. The latest and greatest when I was leaving was the H/K, but now even those are dated, and they're pretty much limited to hard targets and vehicles/armor. That was for the EO/IR ones, which we never used for CAS; I don't know the employment ROE for the laser Mavericks due to how they guide.

Harrier is a good bird. Has its limitations in VTOL just like the B-model F-35 will have similar, but probably improved upon from what's been learned from the Harrier. But VTOL will always be limited when used. Since Harriers have been employed in a conventional aircraft sense in their use, the F-35 will carry either similar or possibly more munitions.

Time will tell.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2015, 08:55
by geforcerfx
MD wrote:
Harrier is a good bird. Has its limitations in VTOL just like the B-model F-35 will have similar, but probably improved upon from what's been learned from the Harrier. But VTOL will always be limited when used. Since Harriers have been employed in a conventional aircraft sense in their use, the F-35 will carry either similar or possibly more munitions.

Time will tell.


I was under the impression the marines always used the Harrier in STOVL for operations and that the F-35B would be used the same. From what we know about the vertical thrust both aircraft are capable of you VTOl with limited fuel or weapons, in the F-35's are its like 5,000lbs of fuel and a internal combat load is all it could prob manage.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2015, 09:14
by spazsinbad
'MD' STOVL is the word - SHAR pilots (Brit/RN Harriers) bristle if VTOL is used.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2015, 09:30
by MD
geforcerfx wrote:I was under the impression the marines always used the Harrier in STOVL for operations and that the F-35B would be used the same. From what we know about the vertical thrust both aircraft are capable of you VTOl with limited fuel or weapons, in the F-35's are its like 5,000lbs of fuel and a internal combat load is all it could prob manage.


Every time I've seen the Harrier in theatre, they've seemingly been used almost as a conventional aircraft....or more STO, and normal landing. Haven't seen any pure STOVL, but that doesn't mean it's not used. But then again, the Marines haven't been operating their birds in a true FARP-type environment; all Harrier land based Harrier operations have been from established airfields with runways, in our recent wars. Of course, ship based, that's another story and more of the STOVL world.

spazsinbad wrote:'MD' STOVL is the word - SHAR pilots (Brit/RN Harriers) bristle if VTOL is used.


That makes sense. I'll utilize the correct nomenclature then. :)

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2015, 09:35
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: 'MD' I wuz WHACKED via e-mail at the start of my many discussions with ex-A4G pilots who went to the SHAR [Sea Harrier RN FAA] (after our fixed wing folded in 1984) when I used the incorrect term VTOL (sadly still used today by journos). Also our exchange program of A4G pilots before that time included Oz pilots going to USMC Harriers with USMC pilots flying our A4Gs in VF-805 onboard.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2015, 10:07
by MD
spazsinbad wrote::mrgreen: 'MD' I wuz WHACKED via e-mail at the start of my many discussions with ex-A4G pilots who went to the SHAR [Sea Harrier RN FAA] (after our fixed wing folded in 1984) when I used the incorrect term VTOL (sadly still used today by journos). Also our exchange program of A4G pilots before that time included Oz pilots going to USMC Harriers with USMC pilots flying our A4Gs in VF-805 onboard.


Did you guys (or even the Aussies) have any of your pilots do exchange tours over to USN/USMC A-4 VA/VMA squadrons back then?

I guess the USMC had an exchange with the Argie's A-4s at the time the Falklands started, but I believe they were non-combatants...or maybe even removed back to the USA quickly. :)

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2015, 10:34
by spazsinbad
My A4G instructor (who had been SNO Senior Naval Officer at RAAF Pearce in 1968 as senior RAN FAA [Fleet Air Arm] instructor of two - had himself been a Gannet pilot earlier) was the first exchange pilot over in USA on East Coast (I can look up the details to be sure) with TA-4Js. This pilot did the second A4G OFS beginning 1969 as I arrived at NAS Nowra from RAAF Pearce (basic / advanced pilot training). He was then A4G instructor for the third OFS (I was the most junior pilot on this Operational Flying School course) beginning of 1970. This instructor then went over to USN instructing on exchange c.1971 for one year or so. He flew the A-7 also because the USN fleet Skyhawk squadrons were winding down then. He also trained as an LSO just for the heck of it and later after returning to Nowra became first the CO of VC-724 then CO VF-805 (a few years later).

Otherwise the exchange pilots from RAN FAA side rotated with USN pilots at first (who often were operational other type pilots but trained on Skyhawk earlier) and then USMC as noted in the later years. For a brief time it was planned that the A4G would be replaced by SHARs and HMAS Melbourne with HMS Invincible (but the Falklands War put paid to that idea) because the Brits no longer wanted to sell us the through deck cruiser after that and we relinquished our claim on her.

That is the first I have heard of USN Skyhawk pilots on exchange with Argentine Skyhawk pilots. I guess google might clear that up - but I do not know. An Argentine Admiral visited VF-805 at NAS Nowra when I was in the squadron. He wanted to know about our A4G ops on similar carrier to their own but only our CO was allowed to speak to him (late 1971).

In the late 1970s because Skyhawks and Trackers were no longer available for LSO training in the USofA, Argentine Navy LSOs were trained at NAS Nowra I'm told but I know very little of this (out of the RAN by mid 1975). Our Tracker LSOs would familiarise themselves in our TA4G before going to USA to train as LSOs in the Skyhawk (Trackers not available then in USN). So all this stuff becomes very complicated very quickly. To this day our RAN FAA Helo pilots are trained in basic/advanced fixed wing flying in the RAAF then they get transitioned to helos at NAS Nowra. These days NAS Nowra will become the helo training facility for RAN and ARMY helo pilots (RAAF had to give their helos to ARMY back in the early 1980s I think) because they will fly a common helo the MRH-90 from our LHDs. So it goes.

Again later exchange pilots/LSOs under training flew the A-7 but none of our pilots were in operational squadrons. And our jet instructor pilots were trained by the RAAF as Qualified Flying Instructors (some went on to be Instructors of QFIs) which is different to the USN way of pilot instruction (RAN FAA / RAAF more like the RN FAA / RAF model).

The first USN exchange pilot was a Vietnam Skyhawk veteran from HANCOCK days. Earlier the first USN pilot (not exchange) was USN Vietnam Skyhawk experienced also - he helped set up the A4G with the first OFS (on then 805 Squadron in 1968) and then the two RAN instructors (trained on A-4s in USofA) came over to be CO/XO (SP Senior Pilot) of VC-724 and this USN pilot trained the no.2 OFS as described. Then the exchanges started. We had two civilian engine/ electrical contractors helping out also until about mid 1969 or so. It was a hectic few years for various reasons - a small number of aircraft tasked to do a lot and initial bad spares support from USN (because their system could not cope with our small requests) plus add in the Vietnam War taking up vital Skyhawk spares (whether we liked it or not). After the war finished and A-4s were on the way out of operational USN service then we got heaps of stuff for free (150 gallon drop tanks was a classic example).

We always had our AWIs (Air Warfare Instructors) trained in UK with the RN FAA at Lossiemouth until that training commenced at NAS Nowra in 1974. A lot of ex-RN FAA jet pilots transferred to the RAN FAA in the early 1970s because the RN FAA was being wound down (a long story indeed). A lot of these pilots were AWIs and had experience on several RN jet types including Phantom F-4Ks, Sea Vixens and Buccaneers etc. Towards the end of the 1970s early 1980s there was an RN exchange jet pilot from SHARs who started the A4G OFS but then went back to UK for the Falklands War. At the same time the RAN exchange pilot on SHARs was told that he was not going to the Falklands but of course was able to provide a lot of info about Skyhawks (I am guessing) to RN FAA at that time. Later still just before it all stopped (fixed wing) there was a RAAF exchange jet pilot on OFS which he also did not complete - going back to the RAAF (because it was all coming to an end). Meanwhile the very junior RAN A4G pilot on exchange with the Miracles (RAAF Mirage IIIO) went on to transfer to the RAAF and then - today - he is the CDF (Chief Defence Force) AM Binskin ('Binnie' to all and sundry).

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 02:59
by MD
That is exceptionally interesting and very informative Spaz, thank you for taking the time to write that. I love reading about that kind of history, especially with allied Air Forces and Navies sharing the same type of aircraft and how they interacted. Very interesting too the history behind the RN carrier fleets prior to the SHAR days, and how that seemingly disappeared from their fleets. Seems to be somewhat the same with the RAN. What a shame.

I know the USN began phasing out the A-4 in the early 70s from frontline VA squadrons. The USMC held on to a few in their VMA squadrons into the '80s if I remember right, with the last reserve A-4 VMA squadron holding out to the early '90s. So what a nice run for a great aircraft.

I would love to find, but can find little on the subject of, Kuwaiti AF A-4 Skyhawk operations in the first Gulf War. I can remember being at Al Jaber airbase in the late '90s in support of Southern Watch, and right next to our A-10 parking area were hangars containing retired Kuwaiti A-4's, being held for sale to Brazil I believe is what our maintenance folks told us (Kuwait was flying F/A-18s at the time).

I'm guessing there was no exchange with them or with Israel.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 03:40
by spazsinbad
Ah the joys of having eventually 20 Skyhawks total (16 A4Gs and four TA4Gs) and then to end of with 10 with 10 lost via various ways and means. The TEN (8 A4Gs and 2 TA4Gs) were sold to the RNZAF which upgraded them from c.1989-90 to the KAHU standard (a mini version of the F-16 of the day I'm told - with air to air radar). Most of these aircraft survived their RNZAF service and are now flying with DRAKEN. Most of the surviving A4Gs were original manufacture (not ex-USN A-4Fs modified to A4G standard (downgraded).

Some RAN FAA A4G History with the OneDrive and GoogleDrive SpazSinbad sites having the most up to date 'history': [see the links at the bottom of my posts]

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=25618

The ex-Kuwait Skyhawks were sold to Brazil and they are now upgrading them. Go here for more info:

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=27365

As for exchanges we had none other than what have been described briefly on previous page. We had no Kiwi RNZAF exchanges at all; which always surprised me. At the beginning they had USN exchange (for obvious reasons) then they had only USAF and the odd RAF exchange. Their training squadron (made possible when the A4Gs sold to New Zealand) came over to operate from NAS Nowra for a decade from 1991 to 2000 - strange days indeed. They provided 'Fleet Support' (being targets or attacking our ships) when otherwise not training new pilots - under two five year contracts. And then their Fast Jets were canned and yet to be revived.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 06:30
by geogen
MD wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Disagree all you want, they are practically last resort for all the trouble they cause. They have to be treated like Landmines, there are still areas where they were dropped decades ago that are off limits. Not surprisingly area weapons have fallen out of favor for precision. There are also treaty implications.


CBU is a great weapon... they are indeed still a minefield for any force that has to move through an area they were dropped in. Excellent weapon for something like CSAR support for taking out troops and AAA, where there's a singular objective..


Fair points. Especially the latest wind corrected versions. If anything, it could be argued of a legitimate requirement for redeveloping the ER type, even for USMC employment.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2015, 04:37
by spazsinbad
VIDEO is for 'MD' - it shows near the end the Beecroft Range with an A4G ripple rocket firing on a non-practice bomb target there (although we see apparently a 'shack' blown up that is probably staged for the fillum). :mrgreen:


Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2015, 06:25
by MD
spazsinbad wrote:VIDEO is for 'MD' - it shows near the end the Beecroft Range with an A4G ripple rocket firing on a non-practice bomb target there (although we see apparently a 'shack' blown up that is probably staged for the fillum). :mrgreen:


That's pretty cool that such a small jet can carry nearly it's own weight in ordnance. Combined with the fact that it was (I believe) the only carrier jet that didn't require wing folding due to its small size. Some of the older head USMC guys who would do our simulator training for us in my current job with USBP, were A-4 pilots, and for them it was a CAS machine. Quick and nimble, able to easily operate off of expeditionary airfields with PSP runways, they carried nearly twice as much as their sister VMA squadrons which were flying AV-8A/C model Harriers, as the B-model Harrier was coming online to replace both airframes.

Referring to what the video talks about with regards to maneuverability, I remember the Mongoose versions of the A-4 that VF-126 used to have at Miramar, and apparently those stripped down birds had some serious power and maneuverability.

Speaking of the Aussies, I think it's interesting the little known fact that they flew F-4 Phantoms for a short time.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2015, 07:44
by spazsinbad
Yes the prolonged development/buy of RAAF F-111s necessitated lease of some USAF Phantoms for a couple of years. Some range / adversary A-4 stuff here: viewtopic.php?f=46&t=25618

Why I keep stressing the 'fleet defence' for the RAN FAA is due to the general view that the A-4 'was only a mud mover'. Anyhoo it could do that and needed to carry a lot of weight to make up for the lack of accuracy (compared to today).

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2015, 08:38
by jessmo111
spazsinbad wrote:Yes the prolonged development/buy of RAAF F-111s necessitated lease of some USAF Phantoms for a couple of years. Some range / adversary A-4 stuff here: viewtopic.php?f=46&t=25618

Why I keep stressing the 'fleet defence' for the RAN FAA is due to the general view that the A-4 'was only a mud mover'. Anyhoo it could do that and needed to carry a lot of weight to make up for the lack of accuracy (compared to today).


Spaz is the dream of a pheonix like rebirth of the Aussie carrier, dead? What happened to that white papre that surfaced last year? What happened to the dream of F-35B equipped LHds?

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2015, 08:47
by spazsinbad
Read backwards from here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&p=297929#p297929

The White Paper 2015 is due any day now which should explain with some detail why no F-35Bs on LHDs will be countenanced. However the idea will not die because it all depends on what happens up north and how the RAAF demonstrate FLEET DEFENCE when required (during exercises). The whole topic has been done to death on the thread above so I'll stop now.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2015, 14:38
by spazsinbad
Meant to post a link to the RAAF PHANTOM story earlier - here it is now:
THE RAAF PHANTOM STORY
16 Mar 2015 MarkThePhantom

"PHANTOM'S DOWN UNDER
In October 1963 the Australian government announced the purchase of the then untested General Dynamics F-111. The aircraft ordered were due for delivery in 1968 to replace the RAAF's fleet of Government Aircraft Factory built English Electric Canberra bombers. However by 1969 continuing problems with the F-111 programme and a possible delivery date of 1974, if at all, meant an interim type was required as the Canberra's were running out of airframe hours. Air Vice Marshal C F Read led a team to the United States to examine proposals for a interim strike aircraft in May 1970. To the delight of many senior RAAF officers and aircrew, Read recommended the Mc Donnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II ahead of the Grumman A-6 Intruder and the British Blackburn Buccaneer.

In June 1970 the Australian government announced the unusual step of leasing twenty four Mc Donnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II's at a cost of US$34 Million over a two year period inclusive of spares and training. A little known feature of the agreement was that under U.S law, leased equipment could be demanded on the basis of...."extraordinary contractual actions to facilitate the national defense"....the U.S could demand the return of the Phantom's at any time! The agreement also contained an option for Australia to buy the F-4's at US$12 Million each, should the F-111 program be cancelled...."

Source: http://www.angelfire.com/extreme/raafph ... AAFF4E.htm

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2015, 17:07
by geforcerfx
spazsinbad wrote:Read backwards from here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&p=297929#p297929

The White Paper 2015 is due any day now which should explain with some detail why no F-35Bs on LHDs will be countenanced. However the idea will not die because it all depends on what happens up north and how the RAAF demonstrate FLEET DEFENCE when required (during exercises). The whole topic has been done to death on the thread above so I'll stop now.


Would it be somewhat safe to say any major issues in the pacific would have US involvement at least naval wise? I could see the Aussie fleet being thrown into USN groups or USN aircraft helping to perform RAN fleet defense if it was needed. I think the F-35B on the LHDs is still a brilliant idea. I bet even the Japanese throw it out there in the next 5-10 years for the Hyūga & Izumo if China's air craft carrier building picks up at any substantial rate or if the new islands become a larger issue. It gives you a huge leg up offensive capability wise in the Pacific and as the old saying goes the best defense is a good offense.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2015, 19:02
by MD
spazsinbad wrote:Yes the prolonged development/buy of RAAF F-111s necessitated lease of some USAF Phantoms for a couple of years. Some range / adversary A-4 stuff here: viewtopic.php?f=46&t=25618

Why I keep stressing the 'fleet defence' for the RAN FAA is due to the general view that the A-4 'was only a mud mover'. Anyhoo it could do that and needed to carry a lot of weight to make up for the lack of accuracy (compared to today).


If I'm not mistaken, the USN did the same with their smaller ASW carriers such as Intrepid, Bennington, Hornet, etc. Having embarked A-4 Skyhawks as both light attack as well as air defense. Pretty cool stuff.

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2015, 23:18
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: 'MD' nope you're mistaken is not. :mrgreen: When Indonesian 'konfrontasi' was on the boil our RAN decided to NOT convert HMAS Melbourne from a Gannet/Sea Venom/Wessex ASW carrier to an all Wessex ASW Helo carrier due by early-mid 1960s but to all of a sudden do a Uturn back to emulate the USN ASW carrier model as you have outlined current in the early to mid-late 1960s (but changed when the USN carriers converted to Attack Carriers due to Vietnam War). A great read about the USN model 'fleet defence for USN ASW carriers' is here:

The VSF Story Part one of 2 [VSF = (Fixed Wing) Anti-Submarine Warfare Fighter Squadron One] ASWFitRon
http://www.ebdir.net/vsf1/boom_powell_part_1.html
&
http://www.ebdir.net/vsf1/boom_powell_part_2.html
“...Once in WestPac, although Intrepid picked up a VFP-63 Photo-Crusader detachment and YF-111 provided three F-8Cs and pilots to fly photo escort, VSF-3 was considered the resident fighter squadron. The squadron color was red, Ready Room 1# (nearest the flight deck) was assigned – to be shared with the 'Sader pilots – and flight deck alerts during ship transits were stood by an A-4B with a centerline fuel tank and a pair of AIM-9 Sidewinders.... [A4Gs were specially modified to carry AIM-9s X 4 (one on each wing station) and a centreline tank if required] http://www.ebdir.net/vsf1/boom_powell_part_2.html


http://a4skyhawk.org/3e/vsf3/vsf3.htm & http://a4skyhawk.org/3e/vsf76/vsf76.htm & http://a4skyhawk.org/3e/vsf86/vsf86.htm & http://a4skyhawk.org/2e/navy.htm

http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backiss ... /jun70.pdf

http://thanlont.blogspot.com.au/2014/04 ... fense.html

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2015, 00:16
by spazsinbad
A 40 Mb PDF of 44 pages describes some aspects of the 'poor man Fleet Defence' of ASW specialised aircraft carriers in the last century. Microsoft OneDrive has undergone many changes over the recent years and now with Win10 it seems to have become unfathomable - to me anyway. It used to be easy to know which files were downloadable for viewing on your computer (please do not left click on a file to allow the Microsoft PDF Viewer to see them online because it usually will end in tears before teatime). Anyway please let me know if this recently uploaded PDF is not accessible. Nowadays any potential viewer/downloader has to register (for free easily) with Microsoft - otherwise all the material is free etc.

Fleet Defence ASW Carriers USN-RAN A-4 Skyhawk 1960s-1970s pp44.pdf (40Mb)

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=cbcd63d6 ... =822839791 [scroll down the SpazSinbad page to see this PDF]

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2015, 15:35
by bring_it_on
Davis: F-35B External Weapons Give Marines 4th, 5th Generation Capabilities in One Plane

The Marine Corps’ Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will have the stealth of a fifth-generation fighter and a weapons payload surpassing a fourth-generation fighter by the time a software upgrade is ready for fielding in 2017, the Marines’ top aviator said this week.

The aircraft’s ability to alternate between accessing contested areas and deliverying heavy fire power based on the needs of any given sortie “I think for our adversaries will be quite worrisome, for us should be a source of great comfort,” Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for Aviation Lt. Gen. Jon Davis said Wednesday at an event cohosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the U.S. Naval Institute.

“No other airplane can go from fifth to fourth and back to fifth again. I’m buying pylons for the airplane. I get the pylons in 3F software, which comes in 2017. [With the pylons] I can load up an F-35B with about 3,000 pounds more ordnance than I can put on an F-18 right now,” Davis said.
“So I can have an airplane that does fifth-generation stuff for the opening salvo of the fight. When I have to go to level of effort, I can load the pylons on, load ordnance on there, do level of effort, come back, sail to another part of the world, take the pylons off and go do the fifth-generation thing again. … It offers us tremendous capability for the Marine Corps that’s going to have one type/model/series aircraft that can go fourth and fifth gen, give us that fighter capability, give us that attack capability that we need in the out years.”

F-35 Lightning II Program Office spokesman Joe DellaVedova told USNI News that the F-35 was designed to be relevant both on Day 1 of a fight and Day 365 of a fight. To that end, the services needed to leverage the stealth capability that the Air Force already had in its Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor fighter and Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit bomber, as well as the fire power Marines needed to support their Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF).

The low-observable design of the F-35B, when left unaltered, would allow the Marines to sneak into anti-access/area-denial airspace, take out the integrated air defense system and other high-value targets with its 4,000 pounds of ordnance in the internal weapons bay, and leave. Once the pylons are ready in 2017 to be affixed to the exterior of the plane, “after you dismantle the enemy’s air defense system…then that F-35 can be loaded up like a traditional legacy fighter and become an 18,000 bomb truck, when you don’t have to rely on the low-observability any more,” DellaVedova said. The pylons optimize the F-35B for close-air support, anti-air missions and more.

DellaVedova said testing for the pylons and development of the rest of the 3F software upgrade package is ongoing. The Marines’ current 2B software allows them to carry two air-to-ground weapons and one air-to-air weapon internally: the 1,000-pound GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), the 500-pound GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb and the AIM-120C Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).

The 3F software upgrade will bring the external weapons pylons, 4.1 or 4.2 will bring the all-weather Small Diameter Bomb, and in the future the Marine Corps will look to adapt foreign weapons used by partners in the international JSF project, Davis told USNI News last month.

Davis made clear at Wednesday’s event that the F-35B with its current 2B software configuration can handle challenging threat environments today.

“Bottom line, [Marine Fighter Attack Squadron] VMFA 121 just did an Operational Readiness Inspection to get them ready to convince us that they were actually indeed ready to go be declared initial operational capable, and they did a fantastic job in the interdiction mission we had them do, and the defensive counter air, the offensive counter air, the close air support and the armed reconnaissance,” Davis said
“The armed reconnaissance one was the most interesting one. We gave them a really high-end threat environment to go against, and normally to go do close air support and armed reconnaissance you want to be able to get into a kind of low-threat environment to go out there and look for targets. … We gave them difficult targets to find, and we also gave them a difficult threat that in my world, as [former executive officer and commanding officer of Marine Aviation Weapons & Tactics Squadron One (MAWTS-1)], would be a prohibitive threat. They went out there, they found those targets, they dealt with that, and they came back.”

Now that VMFA 121 passed the ORI and Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford declared initial operational capability for the platform, the Marines will begin the slow process of standing down squadrons of F/A-18 Hornets, EA-6B Prowlers and AV-8B Harriers, and standing up squadrons of JSFs. All active-duty squadrons will be stood up by 2031, with the Marines buying 353 F-35Bs and 67 F-35Cs.

The Marines “intend to extract maximum value and service life out of our Harriers, Hornets and Prowlers,” Davis said in a statement, but the four remaining Prowler squadrons will be short-lived, with the Marine Corps retiring one a year beginning next year. Though a final decision on Harriers and Hornets won’t be made until 2019, the service expects that the Harrier squadrons will transition by 2026 and the Hornets by 2030.


Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2015, 15:42
by spazsinbad

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2015, 01:19
by MD
That is some way cool history there Spaz regarding the VSF squadrons. You sir, have given me all kinds of nice reading and research to cover all night of my graveyard shift tonight, since I'm a standby flyer. Thank you! :D

Re: Marine's declare IOC

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2015, 13:21
by spazsinbad
Support teams at NAWCWD celebrate F-35 battle-ready declaration
19 Aug 2015 Kimberly Brown NAWCWD Public Affairs

"...The F-35B Lightning Joint Strike Fighter was given initial operational capability (IOC) status after the baseline requirement of 10 aircraft was considered ready on July 31. The following week, the F-35 team at NAWCWD took what Capt. Dana Dewey, director of program control for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Program Office, called a “much-deserved moment” to reflect.

“It’s a huge milestone for a program that’s been in development for more than two decades,” Dewey said. “That we now have the first baseline warfighting capability in the hands of the warfighter is a big deal.”...

...The window for delivery was set for some time between July and December 2015, Dewey said.

“The fact the team was able to deliver that capability at the front end of that window, essentially meeting our objective five months prior to that end date is huge,” he added. “It’s pretty tremendous accomplishment, and you should be proud of your work.”

Mark Haase, F-35 program site director for NAWCWD, praised the team and noted that they had played a significant role in mission and weapons systems development on the engineering side. NAWCWD also supported numerous systems and flight tests on its three ranges.

“Then there’s the reprogramming team, which includes a Navy team at Eglin Air Force Base,” Haase said. “There has been great cooperation between the Air Force and the Navy to put that effort together.”

Dewey and Haase, with help from Andrew Chen, lead for the F-35 Reprogramming Center West at Point Mugu, held cake cuttings at Point Mugu and China Lake to celebrate the IOC declaration.

“The team has been running at full speed for a long time,” Haase said. “It’s great to be able to look back and take a breather.”

Source: http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=6032