F-35B in the ME for first time

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 01 Oct 2018, 16:47

What a terrific USMC documented history (haven't read all yet but will) - thanks. USN/USAF can take notes for themselves.

squirrelshoes · by **squirrelshoes** » 02 Oct 2018, 01:55

weasel1962 wrote:That's why the AV-8s would likely have to lug 2 x 300 gal tanks which would add ~4000lbs of fuel.

The context of the stated 300 mile combat radius for AV-8B was including the fuel tanks.

kimjongnumbaun wrote:The S-200 fires missiles that travel at mach 8 and carry a 478lb warhead. If you honestly believe that the F-35 was hit by this and survived to land back in Israel, then it can take a hit better than an M1 Abrams.

I don't believe an Israeli F-35 was hit by an S-200, but it is entirely possible for an aircraft to be damaged by an S-200 and return to base since we're not talking about a kinetic strike. It's a proximity fuse blast frag so not quite so black and white as did the missile hit or not hit the aircraft more like how close was it when it exploded, which direction were they flying relative to each other, etc. It could explode at a distance such that some fragments hit the target but the majority did not.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 02 Oct 2018, 02:53

squirrelshoes wrote:The context of the stated 300 mile combat radius for AV-8B was including the fuel tanks.

imho, probably can eke out a bit more than that (hi alt, 300kts) but no arguments... add "aerial refuel" somewhere in the context of the Arabian sea-Afghanistan AV-8B ops for good measure which is not required for F-35B ops.

knowan · by **knowan** » 02 Oct 2018, 08:23

squirrelshoes wrote:I don't believe an Israeli F-35 was hit by an S-200, but it is entirely possible for an aircraft to be damaged by an S-200 and return to base since we're not talking about a kinetic strike. It's a proximity fuse blast frag so not quite so black and white as did the missile hit or not hit the aircraft more like how close was it when it exploded, which direction were they flying relative to each other, etc. It could explode at a distance such that some fragments hit the target but the majority did not.

S-200 proximity fuse is semi-active in nature, working off illumination reflections produced by the ground based guidance radar.

Against a LO aircraft like the F-35, the problems with such a fuse are obvious.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 02 Oct 2018, 09:51

Took the trouble to read the link provided by quicksilver. Noted that the harrier ops from the Arabian sea were generally 1 way, with time on station before landing at Bagram. Otherwise as mentioned were deployed from bagram.

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 02 Oct 2018, 10:59

omg...

It wasn’t one-way with a ground turn. There wasn’t anyone on the ground in-country (apart from the spec ops guys) until the MEU took their stuff and established the FOB. Kandahar, which they started using in December after they established ops there, is not Bagram. The range quote is to give the reader a reference for how far inland they were operating. Look at the map. How did they do it? External tanks and tankers; everybody (except the B-52s) used/uses tanking assets for both range and TOS.

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 02 Oct 2018, 13:13

quicksilver wrote:
sferrin wrote:
quicksilver wrote:some/many continue to reference Harrier as some kind of comparative baseline for F-35B performance or capability,

Why wouldn't it be? The F-35B is replacing the Harrier, it's only natural to compare the two. Nobody is saying the Harrier is a piece of $hit.

It is also replacing the F/A-18...

In the USMC. The USN is replacing it with the F-35C. In the former case the F/A-18 can't operate from gators like the Harrier and F-35B so it's not really an apples-to-apple comparison.

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 02 Oct 2018, 13:24

sferrin wrote:In the USMC. The USN is replacing it with the F-35C. In the former case the F/A-18 can't operate from gators like the Harrier and F-35B so it's not really an apples-to-apple comparison.

And the USMC is also buying the F-35C, right?

Here:
https://www.aviation.marines.mil/Portal ... 20PLAN.pdf

So even the USMC's "direct replacement" for their F/A-18s should be the F-35C (more than the F-35B), no?

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 02 Oct 2018, 14:03

ricnunes wrote:
sferrin wrote:In the USMC. The USN is replacing it with the F-35C. In the former case the F/A-18 can't operate from gators like the Harrier and F-35B so it's not really an apples-to-apple comparison.

And the USMC is also buying the F-35C, right?

Here:
https://www.aviation.marines.mil/Portal ... 20PLAN.pdf

So even the USMC's "direct replacement" for their F/A-18s should be the F-35C (more than the F-35B), no?

I wasn't sure about the USMC buying F-35Cs and didn't feel like looking it up.

https://news.usni.org/2015/01/28/marine ... irst-f-35c

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 02 Oct 2018, 14:44

“...so it's not really an apples-to-apple comparison.”

Which is really the larger point.

First, the F-35 didn’t do anything that a vastly inferior aircraft did 17 years ago. Second, I sure bleeping hope that after the time and effort spent developing and testing it, the F-35B is something more than a Harrier. It is, and so much so that it isn’t a worthy comparison. Therefore, imnsho, people should stop making it.

As it currently stands, the preponderance of the USMC tacair force structure will be replaced by F-35B. F-35C buy numbers currently stand around 65-70ish (am sure someone has a reference but I’m in a coffee shop and don’t want my coffee to cool looking for it).

firebase99 · by **firebase99** » 02 Oct 2018, 23:58

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/marines ... irst-f-35c

https://news.usni.org/2015/01/28/marine ... irst-f-35c

U.S. Marine Lt. Col. J.T. “Tank” Ryan, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 501 detachment commander and F-35 pilot, delivered the new F-35C to Strike Fighter Squadron 101, the Navy’s only F-35 fleet replacement squadron. This aircraft is the first of five Marine Corps F-35Cs that will be delivered to VFA-101 on Eglin. ......

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 03 Oct 2018, 00:19

s on the ground in AStan

The Aviationist
@TheAviationist
Here's an interesting detail about the first U.S. Marine Corps air strike in Afghanistan last week. The two aircraft involved in the combat mission made a stop at Kandahar AF before returning to USS Essex. In this shot you can see 00 and 01 about to take off from KAF.

https://twitter.com/TheAviationist/stat ... 6238648321

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 03 Oct 2018, 03:09

firebase99 wrote:https://www.f35.com/news/detail/marines-receive-first-f-35c

https://news.usni.org/2015/01/28/marine ... irst-f-35c

U.S. Marine Lt. Col. J.T. “Tank” Ryan, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 501 detachment commander and F-35 pilot, delivered the new F-35C to Strike Fighter Squadron 101, the Navy’s only F-35 fleet replacement squadron. This aircraft is the first of five Marine Corps F-35Cs that will be delivered to VFA-101 on Eglin. ......

NOT VERY OLD NEWS eh. :devil:

WHO WANTS TO KNOW HOW MANY F-35Cs will be mangled by GYRENIES? 67

firebase99 · by **firebase99** » 03 Oct 2018, 03:54

spazsinbad wrote:
firebase99 wrote:https://www.f35.com/news/detail/marines-receive-first-f-35c

https://news.usni.org/2015/01/28/marine ... irst-f-35c

U.S. Marine Lt. Col. J.T. “Tank” Ryan, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 501 detachment commander and F-35 pilot, delivered the new F-35C to Strike Fighter Squadron 101, the Navy’s only F-35 fleet replacement squadron. This aircraft is the first of five Marine Corps F-35Cs that will be delivered to VFA-101 on Eglin. ......

NOT VERY OLD NEWS eh. WHO WANTS TO KNOW HOW MANY F-35Cs will be mangled by GYRENIES? 67

I didnt even know the Marines were getting any C's!! lol.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 03 Oct 2018, 04:54

Back in 2010 when the B was in doubt, the USMC may have had to go only C. As a result an inter-services MOU was agreed for a split of 260 - 80 in terms of the F-35C. Thereafter USMC still went ahead with its original plan of 353-67 split for the B-C buy which created the 13 shortage on the C column. Now that that's been reverted, is it still 67?