F-16.net

swiss wrote:

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

bevor 2025 would be nice.

Given that it does not require bay mods, that is doable.. if someone wants to pay for it.

"Adding extra firepower to the F-35 shows how loudly Lockheed hears the footsteps of Boeing's F-15X approaching.

Someone obviously has NOT been following the program since.. ever. 3-Per bay was been in the works for MANY years, long before the F-15EX or F-15SE were even a glint in Boeing's eye.

That’s another retarded article by Mr. Clark. He’s working hard to give Majumbles a run for his money...

AGREE. BrakeDaFence does not have a grasp of 'nuances' of the F-35, except when OTHERs write for them, stop Clark now.
Also I blame the 'go to guy' nitwit for comment: "I'm about to fool ya" Aboulafia - STOP IT NOW!

They write some decent articles from time to time, but yes; they could definitely hire better writers and analysts from time to time. The worse thing about Breakingthefence is their comment section. Its over run by Russian trolls and other fanboy chest thumpers.

LM has been working on Sidekick for many years (like 10ish) because it was a desirement of the international participants. IIRC, no one would throw any money at it so maturation of the design has jogged along slowly on internal funds.

So, while I would say Lockheed IS “feeling the pressure”, the Sidekick announcement is, IMHO, coincidental. Probably has as much to do with opportunities to move Block 4 things to the left (and save costs) as it does anything else.

charlielima223 wrote:They write some decent articles from time to time, but yes; they could definitely hire better writers and analysts from time to time. The worse thing about Breakingthefence is their comment section. Its over run by Russian trolls and other fanboy chest thumpers.

X2

blain wrote:Too bad Marines.

no thanks, we're very happy.

one of the reasons we have different services is to avoid duplication of effort. If you want it done like the Navy go to the Navy, want it done like the USAF, go the USAF

As I have been saying you guys are buying too many Bs.

We don't care what you think, Even if you knew what you were talking about.

Instead of a lift fan you could be carrying more fuel, payload, and AMRAAMs.

Golly, you'd almost get the impression the Marines think other things are more important...

up until very recently, US Harriers didn't even have AMRAAMS at all.

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

No we need even more than that but we had to buy some C's

If you assume that there are 10. A few could not deploy in the short term because they are in overhaul. If there is a war in the Pacific more will carry MEUs with a traditional ACE that only includes 6 F-35Bs than will be outfitted as light carriers. The maximum number of F-35Bs an LHA/LHD can carry is 20. If you are able to deploy ALL the large decks amphibs not in overhaul you are looking at less than 100 Bs.

A war in the pacific is going to be "all in" we aren't just going to be sending just 100 of anything. It would only be the largest war in human history after all

Add on to that austere locations - which are difficult to support and defend. The also B has less range than the C or A and will be dependent on AR.

No.

in 1991 Harriers being able to be based close actually relieved hard press Aerial refueling units as Harriers didn't require them, freeing them up to take care of the airplanes you think are more important and effective.

Win-win.

because Even though the F-35B is the "shortest range F-35" its still got a pretty damn impressive range comparatively. Its light years ahead of anything else we've ever had its (very loosely,) a Hornet that can STOVL with a Prowler packed into. it might also be the only option when known airfields get plastered, and the USN gets too antsy in situations where it won't risk the fleet (not that that has ever happened before in the pacific...)

You might not even need to operate off of a highway or small air field but are you really going to have another 100 Bs operating from these locations?

Yes.

An Air University study by an F-22 pilot identified over 250 air fields capable of supporting FARPs for F-22s between the first and second island chains.

Are these FARPS "hard to defend and difficult to supply" and more "vulnerable" or does that only happen when the planes say "Marines" on the side with their wacky ideas and backwards thinking?

No worry about not having enough AMRAAM though! Welcome aboard F-22

2. Carriers have excess deck capacity as CVWs are smaller than in the past. You will need to augment CVWs with non deployed squadrons but at some point you are going to have attrition if the war goes long.

You sure will!

Marine air can both add capacity and act as a reserve.

its not going to be reserve, that was the point of the F-35B.

What's going to be more important in a near peer conflict?
Large carriers or light carriers?

both or Whatever is left/on hand I'm betting.

By this logic, why does the navy even bother with L-class, Marines, or the Gator Navy at all?

Youre looking at it backwards. L-class ships aren't going anywhere, The Gator navy is still going to be required especially in the pacific. So if youre going to have them there anyway, why not augment them with something more than helicopters, while increasing net firepower for the entire fleet and having unbeatable support during amphibious landings??

Is the Navy not going to bring its L-class ships, and Gator Navy Against China? Im pretty sure the MEU(SOC) has been a verified and successful tool Hasn't it?

3. Where are the Marine Cs going to operate from? As mentioned, carriers. But the same place where they operated from in Vietnam and the wars in the Middle East. From land bases. Which platforms dropped more payload and conduct more sorties in the ME? Intruders/Hornets or Harriers?

Harriers in 91 were doing 6- 8 sorties a day IIRC correctly.

Hornets going to Afghanistan had a helluva long trip and had to tank 4-6 times. Iraq in 2007 was 4 tanker hits I know.

Operation Desert Storm in 1991 was highlighted by expeditionary air operations performed by the AV-8B. The Harrier II was the first Marine Corps tactical strike platform to arrive in theater, and subsequently operated from various basing postures. Three squadrons, totaling 60 aircraft, and one six-aircraft detachment operated ashore from an expeditionary airfield, while one squadron of 20 aircraft operated from a sea platform. During the ground war, AV-8Bs were based as close as 35 nautical miles (40.22 miles) from the Kuwait border, making them the most forward deployed tactical strike aircraft in theater. The AV-8B flew 3,380 sorties for a total of 4,083 flight hours while maintaining a mission capable rate in excess of 90%. Average turnaround time during the ground war surge rate flight operations was 23 minutes.

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

OUCH Now thats funny.

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

False

Why?
Less aircraft
Difficult to support logistically with fuel, parts, and munitions

And yet those thickheaded Marines manage to do it even now. Spellbinding. They should be studied.

I guess its proof that if you train enough with something you can teach a monkey to do anything

You maybe a lot closer to the enemy. The enemy is a lot closer to you.

That the whole idea, champ

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

[/quote]

You mean the Chinese Bullseyes?

I don't mean to be terse, but frankly youre not the first person to complain about this. I think its only been covered again and again since about roughly the start of the JSF program. Even before that if you want to include the entire notion of the Harrier pre and post falklands. So basically over 40 years. As long as we have been using STOVL/VSTOL in an expeditionary capacity. (in other words, other than defensive counter air over Europe)


I'm wiling to play this game, but please don't complain we are too close to the action while also complaining we will need AR (I thought we were super close?) Or that we will be harder to supply while also complaining that the F-35B actually has less weapons, fuel, etc. (Should be easier to supply then no?) or that the F-22 can play the improvisation game with no danger or consequence, or wargaming big scenarios while thinking no one else is going to take big hits. (You think Kadina or Okinawa are yokota are going to be operating at full capacity and sortie generation 72 hours in? China just "forgot" to waste every airbase in the region?) "safety" is going to be very relative. Difficult to sustain and support is going to be everyone.


Its late and I'm tired, but I actually have some Deja vu? have we talked about this before in another thread? I know somewhere on this forum I've gone on at length about it, because again everyone accuses the USMC of "ruining" the JSF program and has questioned its need from the beginning.

The F-35B is lightyears ahead of what its going to be replacing. Youre complaining about "problems" we've never had the joy of having before. We didn't worry about not having enough AMRAAMs, because we didn't have any --so 4 is very nice. We didn't worry about payload-- because the harrier had less, and often had to dump it in order to land back on the boat. The B is "slower" on the back end, and yet is fastest at the start and goes mach 1.6 (harriers couldn't break mach 1) We aren't as worried about supply because we have more in common now with USN and USAF F-35s which will be around. We are actually in that "we need a new matress because this one is has too much money stuffed in it" happy problem phase. Its not that there aren't challenges, and its not like bad things won't happen. But this is the method in which Marines make war. F-35B fits that method better.

How many aircraft do you consider superior to a harrier? (might have to take your shoes off to count) How many are superior to an F-35B? (shouldn't need more than 1 hand, F-22 and then its trading places depending on metrics with the other 2 F-35 variants)

For as bad and problematic as harriers are, for all the trade offs and compromises theres nothing else that can do what it can. The Hornet was never able to. And we operate both, for decades now in a lotta wars.

There is about zero things I can think of that the F-35B doesn't make vastly better compared to what we were using. Does it come up 3rd place in a lot of things the C and A do better? absolutely However the other aircraft have trade offs too, and of course can't do things the F-35B can do.

What Marines want is available firepower to seize and defend advanced naval bases and in amphibious operations. Theyre more concerned about an F-35B being close to the action to support ground forces (flying artillery, think A-10) and dropping dozens of bombs a day very quickly on a rapidly changing battlefield, Rathn than having more fuel and AMRAAMS and hours away.

The mission and the need isn't going away. The USMC could switch to all F-35C tomorrow and just leave a massive gaping hole when the Harrier retires, and theres no amount of F-35C that can fill it.

Jeepers, IF this is what you can argue when you are tired PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE hang around when you are NOT!

blain wrote:
I wasn't aware that this forum had any impact on HQMC?

Nobody does.

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 their wrong on CVNs and F-35C too? I can play this game all day.

We walked away from the F-14. No one seems to be regretting that. We all know the F-14 blew a lot of Hornet capabilities out of the water, Range, speed, firepower. Marines decided it was better to be stronger in other areas. And that was controversial. People forget the Hornet was slower than the Phantom and didn't have the range of the A-7. It was yet another maligned bastard child. And those dumb gyrenes picked it over the mighty Tomcat and Aim-54...

"The Blueberry camo crew botched this up, so the Marines by extension maybe got this wrong too."

There is nothing the navy can't screw up. even camouflage. I'm still amazed when I see a sailor's girl pregnant. "how did he not screw that up?" and then I realize babies can happen from screw ups too

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.

Maybe the Marines saw the navy screwing things up and wanted even less to do with them.

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.

It was perfectly fine idea, Fast over the horizon, attacking deep, Albeit an expensive one.

It wasn't amphibious assaults that killed that program, its that it wasn't ideal for rolling around waiting to get blowed up by an IED or EFP in countries we may or may not be still not winning 10 years down the road. That was the final nail in the coffin

Vehicles meant to get blowed up were all the rage in the late 2000s.

We kicked the can down the road. Well now we are back at the can, and realizing we lost 10 years.

Hell people have said many times that IRaqistan killed the F-22. MRAPs baby. MRAPS got the nod. And here we are 10 years later in this very thread talking about needing F-15EX, which is because we got MRAPs instead of F-22.

Gap didn't leave. mission didn't disappear. People then as now said "youre gonna regret this" well they were right.

We put aside systems we had spent many years and lots of money developing that would secure the future in that area for decades to come. At the time people who had some brains were pointing out that "RPG and IEDs" wouldn't last forever, and systems like F-22 that were going to secure air dominance into the 2050s would be more important. it was short term gains in a losing effort vs short term loss in a winning effort.

but at least we won in well... would anyone like to buy some used MRAPs?

The requirement disappeared over night.

NO. but lets pretend that it did. F-35B is even more crucial to service targets quickly on hostile beaches with more exposed and vulnerable ACVs under threat.

Now they are only going to assault lightly defended beaches with the ACV and do vertical envelopment?

The ACV is still badly in need of replacement. Luckily for us the V-22 can still get Marines and things from ship to shore very quickly, which is the only reason its not a huge terrible, crippling problem.

The purpose of the EFV wasn't just beach assault either, it was so you could move inland in something with some armor, speed and firepower and that also wasn't the size of a barn and vulnerable out of the water:



Maneuver warfare embraces hurling strength at enemy weakness, "hit em where they aint" Hopefully most beach landings are uncontested, then you drive up behind them and shoot them in the back.

Like F-22, EFV was an expensive concept that wasn't made for Iraqistans, it was made for wars that have real consequences and thus was basically going to be cut. The CMC probably should have resigned over it honestly. It wouldn't have changed anything, but oh well. Credit to the USAF Leadership which impaled itself trying to get more F-22s.

Is there any other service in the entire world right now, that has both the experience of operating fighter aircraft off US Navy Super Carriers and Also L-Class ships? Is there any other service in the world that could better evaluate the operational and every other trade off of the differences between those two operating systems and see the effects they have tactically than the US Marines?

This was NOT "well lets do it this way because thats the way its always been done" It was "everything we know about operating from both types of ships all over the world for decades including combat says this is the way to go, so we pick a STOVL airplane we think makes the best method even better." The Marines are not the Borg. You will find Marines who think the tradeoffs of STOVL are not worth the squeeze, or that the ratios should be different tilting toward CVN. You'll find Marines who thin Super Hornet is the way to go. or even A-1 skyraiders. But again i don't think big picture there is a more experienced bunch you could ask to evaluate and make this decision based on what they need. Marines do both and are thus uniquely positioned to evaluate the best decision regarding operations.

Good news I guess, but I'm not really fond of it because it tends to feed relapses of "ownship firepower" paradigm when we still haven't fully gotten everyone to the idea of organic networked combat.

Okay so what if the F-35 carried 2 more shots? You can have as many shots as you want when every other aircraft in the area is just as much part of your own weapon store as your ownship. In fact, if I was a sneaky snot, I'd always prefer to hand off the shooting to someone else such that, as they say, let the cold foods stay cold and hot foods stay hot. Less glory, more profit.

There's more to it than that though. While it's easy to appreciate the concept that "more missiles offers more saturation", that's only the commencement of the art. When you want to overwhelm the enemy, you need to think about overloading them from every possible vector, and that includes attack doctrine. When you limit yourself to one single doctrine, your "optimal" doctrine suddenly becomes one-dimensional. The enemy only needs to focus their efforts in countering your one doctrine. The more avenues of attack you create though, the more you force the enemy to split their efforts, and when you know you have better capability to manage it than the enemy, then you know you've already won.

And that's how the F-35 is a magnificent implement of war. It allows 3 (actually more than that but let's keep it simple) different avenues of attack so the enemy must outlay costs in order to cover them all: it must foot costs for sufficient power projection capabilities to attack fixed Airforce airbases, it must foot costs for ISR capabilities sufficient to pin down Navy carriers, and it must pay for agile response capability to deal with the Marines' insurgent maneuvering. Many countries have the budget (laying aside the far more critical human capital of expertise and experience) to pay to be good at one or even two of those, but to be good at all three -- and then toss in having to be good at EW -- suddenly you are confronting a type of overwhelming force of far greater magnitude than simply "more missiles". Beyond even just the ability to mesh these varied capabilities into a coherent response, adversaries finally have to contend with the ultimate question of the logistical cost of doing so. And there's where the F-35 really makes its coup; the initiative acquired from being the first common platform multiservice aircraft allows it to force everyone else's counterresponse designs in disparate, inefficient directions such that they are unable to create a similarly common platform and achieve parity in costs. The F-35 is already as optimal as any nation around is able to make a multiservice multirole, so if an adversary wants to overmatch each different F-35 flavor at their respective jobs, good luck, because they're going to have to design and pay for 3 different wunderwaffe and suffer the costs for doing so. If they run themselves into the red trying to overmatch, you just sit back and wait for them to choke out, and then it's 1989 all over again.

Compared to such tapping into the fundamental powers of economy, what are two extra piddling missile rails?
Think big, guys.

quicksilver wrote:LM has been working on Sidekick for many years (like 10ish) because it was a desirement of the international participants. IIRC, no one would throw any money at it so maturation of the design has jogged along slowly on internal funds.

So, while I would say Lockheed IS “feeling the pressure”, the Sidekick announcement is, IMHO, coincidental. Probably has as much to do with opportunities to move Block 4 things to the left (and save costs) as it does anything else.

Yup

The F-35 is awesome and for sure it seems to me that the USMC know what they are doing.

However I disagree with this one:

XanderCrews wrote:A war in the pacific is going to be "all in" we aren't just going to be sending just 100 of anything. It would only be the largest war in human history after all

A war in the pacific will most likely be either very contained, or it will go nuclear. If it goes nuclear nobody will be sending much of anything. Because there will be not much to send, and there will be nowhere to send it.

There could still be pretty big and nasty wars in that region of course; as China is starting to increase their reach and influence and US is losing their influence. No doubt future US presidents will be very happy to have the USCM with a large number of F-35B. Although the price tag is quite hefty.

I have not read much about the USMC and how they operate; how would they protect a forward airbase against a near-peer? The Chinese is rapidly developing and fielding quite a lot of potent stuff.

'loke' said: "...I have not read much about the USMC and how they operate; how would they protect a forward airbase against a near-peer? The Chinese is rapidly developing and fielding quite a lot of potent stuff."

On previous page there is a post with links 'for reading': viewtopic.php?f=54&t=55440&p=418295&hilit=frontal#p418295

Then there is: 2019 Pentagon Report to Congress on Chinese Military Development

https://news.usni.org/2019/05/03/2019-p ... evelopment
&/OR:
https://news.usni.org/2019/05/03/report ... -on-taiwan

PDF of report: https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... REPORT.pdf (17.6Mb)

Another precis: https://seapowermagazine.org/report-cit ... nese-navy/

& anotherie: https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2019 ... ns/156726/

Zumwalts were castrated, not bad initial designs. Same for LCS. They offered huge bang for the buck if they actually followed through.