Lockheed develops rack to make F-35A/C a six-shooter

F-35 Armament, fuel tanks, internal and external hardpoints, loadouts, and other stores.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post02 May 2019, 22:38

loke wrote:
blain wrote:The only case the F-15EX can make is that it is slightly cheaper to operate. If that's the criteria then why doesn't the AF purchase F-16s?


Because one important driver for ordering F-15EX is to keep Boing in the game -- in an alternate reality where F-16 had been produced by Boing not LockMart, my guess is that they would have ordered F-16 instead -- oops, sorry, I mean F-21... ;)


Boeing needs to kept in the game so they can compete for the PCA with that version of the X-32.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8396
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post02 May 2019, 22:46

blain wrote:1. Do the Marines really need to 340 F-35Bs for large deck amphibs?

No, they want them for austere basing. In fact, they wanted an ALL F-35B force in the event of a war where ALL of them could be used for austere basing. Remember that reaction time and sortie rate is highest for the B due to austere basing.

uVGJhnI[1].jpg
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 769
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post02 May 2019, 22:50

So when will F-35A get the six-shooter rolled out to customers?
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8396
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post02 May 2019, 23:04

Block 4 (don't know which one)
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post02 May 2019, 23:35

SpudmanWP wrote:
blain wrote:1. Do the Marines really need to 340 F-35Bs for large deck amphibs?

No, they want them for austere basing. In fact, they wanted an ALL F-35B force in the event of a war where ALL of them could be used for austere basing. Remember that reaction time and sortie rate is highest for the B due to austere basing.

uVGJhnI[1].jpg


If you want a high sortie generation rate you do not go the austere basing route.

Why?
Less aircraft
Difficult to support logistically with fuel, parts, and munitions
You maybe a lot closer to the enemy. The enemy is a lot closer to you.

Or you could be based at larger air field farther away which is easier to defend or a carrier.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2734
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post03 May 2019, 00:13

Blain, you are at least a decade late to the “fight.” Go argue w HQMC (which, unlike their US partners has been very consistent in their position).

You should also do a little study/search on how procurement objective numbers are calculated. If you already know, then stop playing stoopid for effect.
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1353
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post03 May 2019, 00:19

Less aircraft

Sortie rate per aircraft is what's being talked about; the idea with austere airstrips is to have a more distributed force.
Difficult to support logistically with fuel, parts, and munitions

Correct, but it's assumed that there's an LHD or whatever nearby supplying those; it's also generally assumed that the max surge rates being talked about are for a short period where you can probably build up a stockpile of weapons, fuel, etc for a few days before executing (have them start arriving while you're still laying down AM-2 matting, etc).
You maybe a lot closer to the enemy. The enemy is a lot closer to you.

That increases sortie rate (so long as your base isn't overrun), because it means you reach your enemy faster and can perform shorter sorties.
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post03 May 2019, 00:45

quicksilver wrote:Blain, you are at least a decade late to the “fight.” Go argue w HQMC (which, unlike their US partners has been very consistent in their position).

You should also do a little study/search on how procurement objective numbers are calculated. If you already know, then stop playing stoopid for effect.


I wasn't aware that this forum had any impact on HQMC? We are also a decade too late with addressing the long range penetrating strike strike. It seems the Navy got that wrong, along with the Zumwalts and the Littoral Combat Ships.

Maybe the Marines got the mix on the F-35 wrong too. Maybe its more important for Marines to do things the way they want to do them because they have alway done it that way. Isn't that how they went down the wrong road with the EFV? The cost of the program made them reevaluate the threat and whether the concept was a good idea. The requirement disappeared over night. Now they are only going to assault lightly defended beaches with the ACV and do vertical envelopment?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23485
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 May 2019, 01:48

For a start there is no longer any thought of the USMC 'frontal assaulting beaches'. There is lots of info in this forum about USMC thinking including Distributed STOVL Ops DSO and getting ashore where the defenders are not or light on. To me it seems the USMC are 'light on their feet' thinking of new ways to use the F-35B compared to even LAST YEAR let alone LAST DECADE or even LAST CENTURY. And good on 'em. They are NOT a second land army (as categoriesed for years in desert).

BUT a good 'thread hijack' considering it is about weapons and the F-35A/C 'six shooter' SIDEKICK. Plenty of forum threads otherwise to argue your case that the USMC are numnuts for going ALMOST all out with the F-35B for near peer conflicts.

Basic instincts: Resetting USMC core operational mindset viewtopic.php?f=61&t=54445

F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same" viewtopic.php?f=61&t=52650

Plus Marine Aviation Plan threads also in the sub-forum: F-35 Variants and Missions
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

doge

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 323
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 16:07

Unread post03 May 2019, 08:15

(I reduce greed...) 8) I think that [Meteor x4 + AMRAAM x2] or [Meteor x2 + AMRAAM x4] is also good. (My mediocre idea.)
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2843
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post03 May 2019, 11:47

Sidekick... The name for the new rack should've been SIX-PACK... :P
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 442
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post03 May 2019, 13:27

SpudmanWP wrote:Block 4 (don't know which one)


bevor 2025 would be nice. :)
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3491
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post03 May 2019, 13:33

spazsinbad wrote:For a start there is no longer any thought of the USMC 'frontal assaulting beaches'. There is lots of info in this forum about USMC thinking including Distributed STOVL Ops DSO and getting ashore where the defenders are not or light on. To me it seems the USMC are 'light on their feet' thinking of new ways to use the F-35B compared to even LAST YEAR let alone LAST DECADE or even LAST CENTURY. And good on 'em. They are NOT a second land army (as categoriesed for years in desert).

BUT a good 'thread hijack' considering it is about weapons and the F-35A/C 'six shooter' SIDEKICK. Plenty of forum threads otherwise to argue your case that the USMC are numnuts for going ALMOST all out with the F-35B for near peer conflicts.

Basic instincts: Resetting USMC core operational mindset viewtopic.php?f=61&t=54445

F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same" viewtopic.php?f=61&t=52650

Plus Marine Aviation Plan threads also in the sub-forum: F-35 Variants and Missions


Never understood the Marines fondness for STOVL birds. I get the concept - be close to the grunts to help. But in practice? How many allied airfields have been so pulverized we couldn't get conventional CTOL aircraft in and out of them? In recent memory anyway, can't think of 1.

But then again they're Marines and know what they need. I just never saw the Harrier (in US service) being indispensable, at least for reasons of forward basing. The Marines may be thinking worst case scenario though, China taking out our airfields with hypersonics in the SCS.

They're either going to look like hacks or geniuses by procuring so many B's. But I'm happy to hear about 6 AMRAAM's for everyone :)
Offline

hkultala

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 08:02

Unread post03 May 2019, 13:47

mixelflick wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Never understood the Marines fondness for STOVL birds. I get the concept - be close to the grunts to help. But in practice? How many allied airfields have been so pulverized we couldn't get conventional CTOL aircraft in and out of them? In recent memory anyway, can't think of 1.


When the fighting was active at Guadalcanal, Henderson Field would have been unable to operate most jet planes, but it might have been able to operate F-35B.

Also, when the marines are approaching an enemy shore before the invasion, there might not be any allied land bases in range of any fighter or CAS planes.

Ability to use same plane from CVAs and land bases is also very practical.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2206
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post03 May 2019, 15:42

If it wasn’t for the USMC and their penchant/fondness/requirement for STOVL... there wouldn’t be an F-35. Have a beer and be happy.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests