F-35B in the ME for first time

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22956
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 05:57

Please. The number is 67. There have been several discussions about this number recently by sundries. Which source do you believe? USMC Aviation Plan would be a good one - at least for me anyways. For you I don't know. It seems this forum is stuck in a time warp for 'dogfighting' and minutiae of every aircraft EXCEPT the F-35. This forum is about the F-35. RAVE. OVER :roll: The 2018 USMC AvPlan on quick viewing does not seem to have F-35B/C numbers however earlier PLANs do have them so I'll have to refer to those. Meanwhile (and it will be reposted to a more appropriate thread later):

https://www.aviation.marines.mil/Portal ... 0FINAL.pdf (11.6Mb) [quote below on page 20 this pdf]

Pardon me - here it is already: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=53762
"F‐35B AND F‐35C LIGHTNING II PLAN ORGANIZATION
The F‐35B and F‐35C will replace F/A‐18, AV‐8B, and EA‐6B. The Marine Corps will procure a total of 420 F‐35s (353 F‐35Bs and 67 F‐35Cs) in the following squadron configurations:

1) 9 Squadrons x 16 F‐35B
2) 5 Squadrons x 10 F‐35B
3) 4 Squadrons x 10 F‐35C
4) 2 Squadrons x 10 F‐35B reserve
5) 2 Squadrons x 25 F‐35B Fleet Readiness Squadron (FRS)…"
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3250
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 14:44

quicksilver wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
quicksilver wrote:Oh c'mon. Do you think I just fell off the turnip truck? We're talking about what F-35B DID do on these sorties, not what the jets CAN do, or WILL do sometime in the future.:

"Sensors" is not just EOTS, but also SAR, EODAS, ESM, and datalinked info from other F-35s. Combine that with much better target ID techniques, HMDS, and better cockpit displays gives the F-35 the clear advantage.

Besides, I was just surmising as the mission details on range and target prosecution are classified.


"Surmising..." Rectal extrapolation; got it.

The poster claimed F-35 hit targets that Harrier could neither range nor discern. From what experience or reference did he derive that claim? He has remained silent. You seem to have picked up the ball, but similarly ignore the fundamental question. What did F-35 do that a Harrier could not have similarly performed. Tell us. We wait with bated breath...

Of course, the real issue is that some/many continue to reference Harrier as some kind of comparative baseline for F-35B performance or capability, which is dreadful and completely ignorant of 1) how good Harrier is at the stuff that US forces have been doing for the last 15+ years; and, 2) how intergalactically better F-35B is at so many other things.


I didn't remain silent, I acknowledged your point. Your clear agenda of "wishing the US gets a bloody nose" is showing. You're not Russian? So what. Nobody cares. It must really suck watching your hero's field 4th gen jets while our 5th gens roll off the assembly line.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2580
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 15:03

“I didn't remain silent, I acknowledged your point.”

You did. I see that I just missed it the first time around. Gomenasai.

“Your clear agenda of "wishing the US gets a bloody nose" is showing.”

Thank-you; I needed some comic relief this morning. But really, based on what? That’s certainly not what my DD-214 might suggest.

:cool:
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8349
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 15:24

weasel1962 wrote:Back in 2010 when the B was in doubt, the USMC may have had to go only C.

That was not how it happened. The USMC only wanted to go with the F-35B and the USN forced them to take some Cs as the USN refused to let the USMC use the F-35B on CVNs.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2580
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 15:24

SpudmanWP wrote: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.


Image

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


Excellent find...virtually unreported.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3250
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 18:48

quicksilver wrote:“I didn't remain silent, I acknowledged your point.”

You did. I see that I just missed it the first time around. Gomenasai.

“Your clear agenda of "wishing the US gets a bloody nose" is showing.”

Thank-you; I needed some comic relief this morning. But really, based on what? That’s certainly not what my DD-214 might suggest.

:cool:


You're right, it was "awesome", not you. I apologize..
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5293
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 18:58

quicksilver wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote: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.


Image

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


Excellent find...virtually unreported.


The aerostat in the background is interesting as well. JLENS or related? :?:
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2017
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 20:02

quicksilver wrote: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).


I would dare to say that the 67 F-35Cs that the USMC is acquiring (courtesy from spazsinbad) will do way more than the 270-ish F/A-18s that (if I'm not mistaken) the USMC currently operates.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1175
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 20:11

So how will that work, do the Marines have to rent a CVN or something ? ;)
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8349
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 20:22

IIRC, per Congressional mandate, the USMC has to maintain a fighter wing aboard each CVN.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22956
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 21:27

SpudmanWP wrote:IIRC, per Congressional mandate, the USMC has to maintain a fighter wing aboard each CVN.

Tru Dat.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22956
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 21:47

ricnunes wrote:
quicksilver wrote: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).


I would dare to say that the 67 F-35Cs that the USMC is acquiring (courtesy from spazsinbad) will do way more than the 270-ish F/A-18s that (if I'm not mistaken) the USMC currently operates.

TEH Gyrenes say (which may be out of date this day): [from 2018 USMC Aviation Plan page 28]
"...The USMC fleet will have 10 active squadrons and one reserve squadron in 2018."

TEHN on page 32 is a table reproduced below where Hornet Totals in FY 2018 = 179
Attachments
FA-18A-D HORNET (VFMA) PLAN USMC 2018.gif
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2580
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 22:03

The Congress didnt have much to do with it -- the CNO, CMC and SECNAV more so in response to the DPG of the day (also IIRC). There is a substantial history on the matter since roughly 2001 that one can search using "Navy/Marine Corps TACAIR Integration" or just "TACAIR Integration."

When Gordon England was SECNAV, he used the idea (TAI) to reduce DON F-35 procurement objectives from ~1000ish Bs and Cs to the ~680ish DON total that they're at now. It has varied a few +/- from time to time as the services tweaked their procurement outlook.

Here's a fair link -- http://congressionalresearch.com/RS2148 ... r+Congress
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3250
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post04 Oct 2018, 14:21

SpudmanWP wrote:IIRC, per Congressional mandate, the USMC has to maintain a fighter wing aboard each CVN.


That seems sort of silly, doesn't it?

If I'm not missing anything, they could have just bought more B's and deployed from smaller helicopter type carriers/forward air strips. Yes, I realize the B costs more than the C but wouldn't buying all B's be cheaper (due to the volume increase) than buying C's as well?
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2580
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post04 Oct 2018, 14:49

Here's a fair paper on the background dating from 2001.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a420633.pdf

Gordon England memo circa 2004 (iirc) is mostly behind firewalls.

TAI agreement later revised in 2011. Link here -- https://www.navy.mil/Submit/display.asp?story_id=59083
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests