Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2014, 00:47
by spazsinbad
MARINE AVIATION PLAN 2015 F-35B/C Excerpts only attached:

LtGen Jon “Dog” Davis - Deputy Commandant for Aviation
"...As leaders did before me, I will lean forward in the straps to get us the future systems we need to ensure that we’re ready. For example, I will look for ways to procure more F-35s faster. The jets we buy today will arrive in a combat-ready configuration, with a robust suite of precision air-to-ground and air-to-air weapons, 3F software and no need for post-production modifications. Currently the factory can produce more of our jets than we are scheduled to procure. They can produce 24 F-35Bs and 20 F-35Cs per year. Given our inventory shortfalls and our increasing OPTEMPO, I consider it a strategic imperative that we produce and procure as many fifth-generation F-35s as we possibly can.

As the nation’s force in readiness—for an unknown future fight that might be high end or low – we must prepare for the worst case. By investing and recapitalizing on platforms that can project USMC power from amphibious carriers or FARPs ashore, with leap-ahead technologies such as tiltrotor aircraft and fifth-generation STOVL strike fighters, we ensure that qualitative advantage for our MAGTFs.

We are on exactly the right track. My mission is to press the attack and get new gear in the hands of our Marines as quickly as we possibly can – while extracting every ounce of capability possible from our legacy gear. These efforts will collectively ensure that Marine Aviation and the United States Marine Corps is most ready when the nation is least ready."

Source: https://marinecorpsconceptsandprograms. ... 20Plan.pdf (16.5Mb)

Re: MARINE AVIATION PLAN 2015

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2014, 05:53
by weasel1962
Thanks for the post.

Pg 7 - LM can produce 24B + 20C per year now (lot 9 order = 13B, 2 C)
Pg 32 (2.3.2) - MC - 353 F-35B & 67 F-35C - which means more B than Cs in total.
9 sqn x 16B, 7 sqn x 10B (2 reserve), 4 sqn x 10C, 2 sqn x 25B FRS
Q3/4 2015 - IOC
Q4 2017 - FOC
Pg 33 2.3.3 - very detailed definition of IOC
Pg 34 2.3.4 - basing plan
Pg 35 2.3.5 - list of all sqns. Confirms VMFA-121 as Japan sqn. Also indicates the delivery and sqn set up sequence. Interesting to note no basing in Okinawa (yet)
Pg 37 2.3.7 - possible basing on coalition carriers e.g. QE CV! <- first official acknowledgement of the possibility that I've read. Also reflected in pg 136. Concept of ops described for FARP ops.
Pg 42 2.4.4 - Timeline showing Sqn & a/c totals
Pg 134 2.13.2 - JSOW C-1 will IOC with F-35B in FY23. SDB II will IOC in FY21.
Pg 135 2.13.3 - Aviation road map includes Harpoon 1C & LJDAM-ER as future standoff weapons.

Re: MARINE AVIATION PLAN 2015

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2014, 07:29
by weasel1962
USMC F-35 unit listing by future basing based on the doc.

Iwakuni, Japan (1 sqn 16 F-35B)
Unit / current a/c / F-35 / timeframe / current base
VMFA-121 / F/A-18D / 16 x F-35B / FY14 / Yuma (previously Miramar)

Yuma, West coast (5 sqn 70 F-35B)
Unit / current a/c / F-35 / timeframe / current base
VMX-22 / F-35B / 6 x F-35B / FY14 / Yuma
VMA-211 / AV-8B / 16 x F-35B / FY16 / Yuma
VMA-214 / AV-8B / 16 x F-35B / FY18 / Yuma
VMA-311 / AV-8B / 16 x F-35B / FY20 / Yuma
VMFA(AW)-533 / F/A-18D / 16 x F-35B / FY22 / Yuma

Miramar, West coast (6 sqn 60 F-35 - 4 x 10B, 2 x 10C)
Unit / current a/c / F-35 / timeframe / current base
VMFA(AW)-224 / F/A-18D / 10 x F-35C / FY23 / Beaufort
VMFA-323 / F/A-18C / 10 x F-35C / FY24 / Miramar
VMFA-251 / F/A-18C / 10 x F-35B / FY25 / Miramar
VMFA-232 / F/A-18C / 10 x F-35B / FY28 / Miramar
VMFA(AW)-225 / F/A-18D / 16 x F-35B / FY30 / Miramar
VMFA-134 (reserve cadre status) / F/A-18C / 10 x F-35B (reserve) / FY31 / Miramar

Beaufort, East coast (4 sqn 70 F-35 - 2 x 25B, 2 x 10 C)
Unit / current a/c / F-35 / timeframe / current base
VMFAT-501 (former VMFA-451) / F-35B / 25 x F-35B / FY14 / Eglin
VMFA-115 / F/A-18A / 10 x F-35C / FY19 / Beaufort
VMFA-122 / F/A-18C / 10 x F-35C / FY21 / Beaufort
VMFAT-101 / F/A-18A/B / 25 x F-35B / FY?? / Eglin

Cherry Point, East coast (6 sqn 94 F-35 - 4 x 16B, 3 x 10B)
Unit / current a/c / F-35 / timeframe / current base
VMA-223 / AV-8B / 16 x F-35B / FY23 / Cherry Point
VMA-542 / AV-8B / 16 x F-35B / FY23 / Cherry Point
VMFA-312 / F/A-18C / 16 x F-35B / FY24 / Cherry Point
VMFA-242 (currently cadre status) / F/A-18D / 10 x F-35B / FY28 / Miramar
VMFA-314 / F/A-18C / 10 x F-35B / FY29 / Miramar
VMFA-112 (reserve cadre status) / F/A-18A / 10 x F-35B (reserve) / FY31 / Fort Worth

Re: MARINE AVIATION PLAN 2015

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2014, 08:01
by geogen
One critical assessment and viewpoint with respect to LtGen Jon "Dog" Davis's comments, however, could be that leaders before him, e.g., from 2010, were indeed themselves warning and declaring publicly that USMC TACAIR inventory was in so many words becoming 'geriatric' and broken and in desperate need of being replaced ASAP!

Well, 5 yrs later, the vociferous commentary coming from top USMC leadership is seemingly only further emphasizing the issue of the ever increasing inventory/capability 'gap' in Marine tactical combat aviation and imploring the apparent need to close it, ASAP.

OK, all agreed on the given assessment that USMC tactical aviation is increasingly in need of a 'reliable' and cost-effective (sustainable) modern/advanced 'multi-mission' Tactical aviation acquisition Process...ASAP! (as in yesterday).

But some valid disagreements would of course be and remain in the actual prudent and 'Strategic' (alternative) track - including mix of advanced tactical assets - being acquired as the solution/process to filling gaps in the interim.

That is, these initial operational F-35B squadrons being activated and surely 'replacing' broken, geriatric tactical aviation inventory being noted, will apparently NOT be able to fulfill some of the current roles (Marine requirements) and capabilities being replaced; such as the legacy Harpoon and Maverick and HARM (SEAD)-equipped capability. The argument being too: that if so much USMC budget is being allocated towards acquisition of highly expensive platforms such as the F-35B (and C model)... will there be sufficient budgets to acquire credible asymmetrical inventory of the actual game-changing capability (and accelerated upgrades), etc, such as via actual weapons, self-protection and next-gen AEA system enhancement, etc?

Re: MARINE AVIATION PLAN 2015

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2014, 13:10
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:One critical assessment and viewpoint with respect to LtGen Jon "Dog" Davis's comments, however, could be that leaders before him, e.g., from 2010, were indeed themselves warning and declaring publicly that USMC TACAIR inventory was in so many words becoming 'geriatric' and broken and in desperate need of being replaced ASAP!

Well, 5 yrs later, the vociferous commentary coming from top USMC leadership is seemingly only further emphasizing the issue of the ever increasing inventory/capability 'gap' in Marine tactical combat aviation and imploring the apparent need to close it, ASAP.

OK, all agreed on the given assessment that USMC tactical aviation is increasingly in need of a 'reliable' and cost-effective (sustainable) modern/advanced 'multi-mission' Tactical aviation acquisition Process...ASAP! (as in yesterday).

But some valid disagreements would of course be and remain in the actual prudent and 'Strategic' (alternative) track - including mix of advanced tactical assets - being acquired as the solution/process to filling gaps in the interim.

That is, these initial operational F-35B squadrons being activated and surely 'replacing' broken, geriatric tactical aviation inventory being noted, will apparently NOT be able to fulfill some of the current roles (Marine requirements) and capabilities being replaced; such as the legacy Harpoon and Maverick and HARM (SEAD)-equipped capability. The argument being too: that if so much USMC budget is being allocated towards acquisition of highly expensive platforms such as the F-35B (and C model)... will there be sufficient budgets to acquire credible asymmetrical inventory of the actual game-changing capability (and accelerated upgrades), etc, such as via actual weapons, self-protection and next-gen AEA system enhancement, etc?


You really have no clue what you are talking about, as always good for a laugh though :D Thanks!

which you mind clarifying any of this so it makes some sense? do you think you could simply ask some questions for clarification and spare us the broad, winding paragraphs complete with rhetorical soul searching?

Re: MARINE AVIATION PLAN 2015

Unread postPosted: 05 Dec 2014, 02:00
by spazsinbad
billybobboysweetiepie has discovered what has been explicated here on this forum by the GYRENES for years now. WOW.
Marines Shift F-35 Deployment Plans
04 Dec 2014 Bill Sweetman

"The US Marine Corps is changing the way it plans to use its Lockheed Martin F-35B short take-off, vertical landing fighters. Briefly, the new concept of operations envisages the use of mobile forward arming and refueling points (M-Farps) to support groups of F-35Bs, which would return to U.S. Navy amphbious warfare ships, allied carriers (special mention to the British Queen Elizabeth class) or even regional land bases for routine maintenance.

The new Conops addresses problems with earlier plans, which envisaged conducting sustained combat operations from both LHA/LHD-class ships and forward operating bases (FOBs) on land. Any naval force operating within 150 nm of a hostile coast would be within range of an increasing number of lethal and elusive ground-mobile guided missile systems, and would be hard put to avoid tracking by small unmanned air vehicles. That would make it very vulnerable, absent support from a carrier with its long-range airborne early warning coverage - and one of the major arguments for the F-35B is that it provides air power independent of the big carrier. The new Conops allows the ships to stand off outside coastal missile range because they support operations rather than launching airstrikes.

Meanwhile, large FOBs on land were considered by some (including deputy defense secretary Bob Work, in his days as deputy Navy secretary) as being vulnerable to guided missiles and rockets. The idea of the new Conops is to blunt this threat by making M-Farps much smaller and more nimble than FOBs (because most aircraft maintenance happens elsewhere). They will relocate every 24-48 hours, which is estimated to be inside an enemy's targeting cycle.

However, the new Conops looks remarkably like the way that the Royal Air Force planned to operate Harriers in the last few years of the Cold War. After experiencing great difficulty in operating Harriers in the often-soggy North German countryside, the RAF dispatched survey teams in civilian clothes, who covertly looked for sites that would provide parking, cover and storage for equipment and people, and a length of road long enough for STOVL operations. The actual war locations or Warlocs were highly secret and never used for training. (More details in this fascinating history, document 35A.) [Satellites will make this 'effort' irrelevant these days]

Lt Gen John Davis, deputy commandant for aviation, unveiled the new Conops at a conference in London. That meeting was followed by reports that Marine F-35Bs could be filling deck spots on the carrier Queen Elizabeth while the UK builds up its own force, suggesting that the Marines are already working to get the U.K. onboard with its plans. Davis also addressed some of the detail concerns: although some M-Farps could be resupplied with weapons by vertical lift, either surface transport or KC-130Js would be needed to deliver fuel.

The M-Farp concept would also be stressed in any kind of hybrid war scenario where the adversary has insurgent forces or sympathizers in the area where the forward bases are located. That could make the targeting cycle much shorter or expose the F-35s to direct threat from manportable air defense systems - particularly on landing, any Stovl jet is a hot and non-maneuverable target. It would also complicate resupply by land. Whether the new Marine Conops will work better than the RAF's old Warlocs remains to be seen."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/blog/marines-sh ... ment-plans

Re: MARINE AVIATION PLAN 2015

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2014, 22:07
by spazsinbad
A telling turn of phrase: [BEST to READ all the PHRASES at the URL below - only somesuch posted here]

PDF of entire artickle here: http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... -the-F.pdf (0.465Kb) BEST to READ the ENTIRE artickle at the URL below BECUZ not all the text (the many end paragraphs) is in the PDF (for some odd reason?). Dunno.
"...And there is a clear sense of excitement seen by the F-35 launch cadre, which is missed by those not part of the process...."

Lieutenant General Davis on the USMC and the F-35: Preparing for 2015
14 Dec 2014 Robbin Laird

"The F-35 is entering service at a critical juncture when air and ground dynamics are being linked in new ways.

A 360 degree sensing aircraft which can do close air support and other air superiority missions in new ways, the F-35 will become a staple of the next round of ground-to-air and air-to-ground revolution which is ongoing.

The F-35 is entering service at an interesting time—a time when digital warfare is simultaneously seeing significant evolution.

The US and Allied fleet of F-35s will also add an “electronic warfare” component to the fight, an “E” for electronic.

It is not necessary to designate the F-35 as the F/A/E-35—although that might be more accurate.

In other words, the IOC of the F-35 is not simply about the introduction of a replacement aircraft but the next phase in the revolution of airpower as inextricably intertwined with doing air combat differently....

...The USMC is the lead service launching the F-35 global fleet and as such has become a key global player as the partners and other services watch the USMC roll out the F-35B.

In this interview, Lieutenant General Davis, the Deputy Commandant for Aviation, discusses the approach the Marine Corps is taking to fielding the aircraft....

...As a part of getting ready to declare IOC, we will conduct operational test with fleet aircraft aboard our amphibious carriers this spring.

The event will be a joint effort between VMFA-121 and VMX-22 to do the testing aboard USS Wasp
....


...Question: Recently, I talked with the RAF officer responsible for IOC for their F-35s and he commented that there is a significant gap between those who are commenting on the aircraft and the warriors figuring out how to use the aircraft. How do you explain this gap?... [b/s from BS (out of the loop - we know) would be one way] :mrgreen: :devil:

...The F-35B will mirror the MV-22’s assault support revolution across three key functions of Marine Aviation: anti-air warfare, offensive air support and electronic warfare.

A 5th Generation aircraft will enable our MAGTFs (MEUs, MEBs and MEFs) to fight any adversary, anywhere, from small deck amphibious carriers or expeditionary forward operating bases ashore.

Question: What will be the role of VMX-22 in rolling out the F-35?

Lieutenant General Davis: VMX-22 will play an important role in F-35 development.

The F-35 detachment is standing up out at Edwards Air Force Base with handpicked, top notch pilots and maintainers. VMX-22 is not only looking at new equipment, but also exploring and experimenting with new ways to fight and share information more effectively, continuously seeking new answers to the question:

“How do we best employ the F-35 to meet the current and emerging requirements of the MAGTF?”...

...In 2018, they’ll move to Yuma with 6 aircraft, adding much needed mass to the equation which will allow us to integrate and experiment while conducting operational testing, alongside our weapons school....

...How do you view the F-35 in relationship with the strategic direction of the USMC overall?

Lieutenant General Davis The Marine Corps is the Nation’s expeditionary force in readiness—a force that is most ready when our nation is least ready–and we need to operate against any and all comers for initial operations.

The F-35 provides that essential capability bundle for the period ahead: low observable, high end and multi-mission–all in one package.

We intend to transition to an all F-35 fleet as rapidly as possible to ensure that we can bring a very high capability to the first day of any fight.

The Marine Corps requires—and the Nation demands—operational flexibility from the beginning of any contingency throughout the world....

...The beauty of the F-35 is once the full capability needed in an anti-access area denial scenario is no longer required, we can very quickly transition the airplane appropriate to the mission.

If close air support (CAS) becomes the primary mission, and it’s a low threat environment like we have been dealing with in Iraq and Afghanistan we can load significant external ordnance and deliver precision all-weather fires. If electronic warfare is required, we can function as an EW truck or whatever we need that airplane to be.

Concurrently, this aircraft is always going to be an information and command enabler for any operation....

...Lieutenant General Davis: We must be prepared to go aboard a ship, forward deploy with that ship and then flow those sea base-able assets ashore to operate in an expeditionary location against a powerful first rate adversary.

We will need to move – back and forth from our sea base to expeditionary bases ashore.

We will do this to maximize our combat power and ability to support Marine forces ashore – and support them in a fight against and foe in any threat condition....

...We must protect our seabase, we must protect our Marines.

That’s what the Marine Corps is going to do with our aviation assets—not just F-35, but with everything we own...."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/lieutenant-gener ... -for-2015/

Re: MARINE AVIATION PLAN 2015

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2014, 00:26
by popcorn
http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/ ... 53k-party/

Setting up, operating and then relocating a M-FARP within a 24-48 hour window as dictated by the new CONOPs will be a neat trick to pull off. CH-53K will be complement F-35 and MV-22 nicely.

Re: MARINE AVIATION PLAN 2015

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2014, 00:54
by spazsinbad
YOWSER! from above URL:
"...The CH-53K is touted as the largest, most powerful helicopter ever designed and built by Sikorsky, and perpetuates the line of H-53s in production since the 1960s. The huge helo is designed to meet a US Marine Corps requirement for a vertical lift aircraft able to deliver an externally-slung load of 13 1/2 tons a distance of 110 nautical miles, hover for 30 minutes, then return to base – at sea or on land.

Sikorsky claims no other helicopter in service today can match that feat, pointing out that current CH-53E Super Stallions carry 4 tons under similar conditions.

The King Stallion features new General Electric Aviation T408 engines, providing 57 percent more power than CH-53E engines with about 20 percent lower specific fuel consumption. New all-composite main rotor blades, new transmission design, and a powerful tail rotor assembly that provides more thrust than a S-76 helicopter’s main blades are also features of the King Stallion...."

Re: MARINE AVIATION PLAN 2015

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2014, 01:09
by sferrin
The CH-53K actually has as much HP as an Mi-26 Halo.

Re: MARINE AVIATION PLAN 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 02:16
by archeman
spazsinbad wrote:YOWSER! from above URL:
"...The CH-53K is touted as the largest, most powerful helicopter ever designed and built by Sikorsky, and perpetuates the line of H-53s in production since the 1960s. The huge helo is designed to meet a US Marine Corps requirement for a vertical lift aircraft able to deliver an externally-slung load of 13 1/2 tons a distance of 110 nautical miles, hover for 30 minutes, then return to base – at sea or on land.

Sikorsky claims no other helicopter in service today can match that feat, pointing out that current CH-53E Super Stallions carry 4 tons under similar conditions.

The King Stallion features new General Electric Aviation T408 engines, providing 57 percent more power than CH-53E engines with about 20 percent lower specific fuel consumption. New all-composite main rotor blades, new transmission design, and a powerful tail rotor assembly that provides more thrust than a S-76 helicopter’s main blades are also features of the King Stallion...."


Currently held up by gearbox issues. Ah the gearbox.... Always the Achilles Heel of helicopters since their birth.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 02:57
by popcorn

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 05:14
by spazsinbad
From above URL this quote looks familiar:
"...“All issues discovered to this point have a technical solution and are typical of developmental programs - this is why we do this testing,” she says. “These tests, their data, and their schedule all drive the timeframe for first flight and discoveries are typical during this phase of testing.”...

...The USMC originally had plans for the King Stallion to enter service in 2015, but developmental delays have caused initial operational capability to slide at least until 2018."

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 05:34
by jayastout
I'm worried that it's going to bankrupt and ruin USMC fixed wing aviation

A Poorly Considered Jackass of a Bad Idea
Thursday, 11 December 2014 13:23
By Jay A. Stout, SpeakOut | Op-Ed

"A man who has committed a mistake and does not correct it is committing another mistake." -Confucius

Half a trillion dollars. With that kind of money we could buy Facebook, Scandinavia, General Motors (again), the Chinese Politburo and all the good bits of the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. And, with luck, Taylor Swift. Instead, we’re getting a trouble-plagued new fighter jet that is running $163 billion over budget and close to a decade behind schedule. Worse, by the time it is finally put into service, it is quite possible that it will not be able to perform the missions for which it was intended. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the King-of-All-Jackass-Defense-Programs, the F-35 Lightning II.

What happened? Quite simply, about twenty years ago the idiot leadership of my beloved Marine Corps convinced the idiot leaderships of the Air Force and the Navy to design their next fighter jets around the corrupt concept of Short Takeoff Vertical Landing—or STOVL. It was a horrible idea for about half-a-trillion reasons, but chief among them was agreeing to an essentially common airframe that could accommodate a STOVL concept. It was a basic design that was heavier and more complex than what the Air Force and Navy needed. In the aerospace world, heavier and more complex are very bad words.

In so doing they inflicted upon the nation—and our allies—a grotesquerie the likes of which our adversaries could only dream of matching.

And the salt in the wound is the fact that the Marine Corps does not need, nor has it ever needed, a Short Takeoff Vertical Landing capability. STOVL disciples (remember my idiot Marine Corps leadership?) mistakenly embrace the notion of high performance jets climbing skyward from small jungle clearings or other similarly unprepared locations. Once airborne, these aircraft dash to the battlefield, visit high-tech destruction on the enemy, and then return to their ad hoc lairs where they are readied for more action.

The concept is a fantasy that has been operationally demonstrated as little more than a stunt. Firstly, modern combat aircraft must be serviced by comprehensively trained maintenance men. These men must work out of the weather with specialized tools and equipment. Too, they must be regularly supplied with repair parts and materials as well as fuel which the aircraft consume at the rate of a thousand or more gallons per sortie. And of course, the aircraft are of little value whatsoever unless they are loaded with bombs and other weapons that are not only heavy and balky but also very sensitive to rough handling and harsh environments. All of this—the men, the shelters, the tools and material, the fuel, the bombs and more—must be supported by a transportation infrastructure of the type not normally found in austere locations.

Of course the aircraft are flown by pilots who must be connected to various operations centers so that they know which missions to fly, when to fly them, and how they are to be flown. The pilots, just like the maintenance men, must be fed, sheltered, rested and otherwise kept healthy. All of this—the aircraft, the men, the infrastructure and the various supplies—must be protected by more men.

So, it quickly becomes apparent that a site that can handle such an operation looks a great deal like…get ready for it…an airbase! It is implicit that airbases are ideal for conducting combat operations—we’ve proved it during several wars over nearly a century. And we have lots of them. In the event that we don’t have them where we need them, we can build, borrow or take them. We’ve done it before.

There are those who might argue that a STOVL aircraft is needed to operate from the Navy’s amphibious ships such as the new America -class LHAs which cannot handle conventionally launched and recovered aircraft. They are wrong. Success in any campaign has never hinged on STOVL-type aircraft based on Navy amphibious combatants. If our forces are ever going to engage a serious adversary against whom tactical jets are a requirement, they are going to come to the fight with more than what the Navy’s amphibious ships can embark. Indeed, for most amphibious missions the AH-1Z attack helicopter and the UH-1Y utility helicopter can provide adequate firepower.

But it’s not just that the Marine Corps does not need a STOVL capability. The Marine Corps also cannot afford a STOVL capability. The STOVL version of the F-35, the F-35B, is not only approximately thirty percent more pricey than the Air Force and Navy variants (the F-35A and F-35C respectively); it also does not perform as well This is because all the fancy STOVL bits add weight and take up space. The F-35B is also much more complex than the other two variants. And complexity translates to mechanical failures and mechanical failures cost money and operational capability.

For the technically-minded, the F-35B’s STOVL capability is provided by a high-risk, shaft-driven, two-stage, counter-rotating lift fan, in combination with a large swiveling duct and unique doors on the top and bottom of the fuselage. In layman’s terms, this means that there’s a lot of expensive stuff that will break. Indeed, components will fail in the coming decades in ways that aren’t even being considered. This is a lesson that the Marine Corps failed to learn with its current STOVL aircraft, the AV-8B Harrier. The Harrier has been a maintenance and operational nightmare that has killed too many of its own pilots and delivered too little utility. Anyone who says differently is ignorant or a liar. And in terms of complexity, the Harrier is a latch bolt compared to the F-35B as a Swiss watch.

So, what should be done? The Marine Corps should ditch the STOVL F-35B and follow the Navy’s lead. The Navy might continue with the more traditional, non-STOVL, F-35C, or it might get out of the F-35 business entirely and continue with its F/A-18 Super Hornets until something better is built. This approach—a common Marine Corps and Navy aircraft—will yield economies of scale as well as the sorts of operational efficiencies that come from using the same aircraft. There is no arguing the fact that many billions of dollars in STOVL development, testing and procurement costs will be lost. But those losses will pale compared to the losses—fiscal and operational—that will be incurred if the Marine Corps follows its present course.

The Air Force and Navy should subsequently identify all the penalties with which their designs are burdened by an airframe intended to accommodate STOVL. To the maximum extent possible, those penalties should be eliminated or mitigated on the production line to ensure better and more affordable operational aircraft.

Ultimately, the Marine Corps, for all it touts itself as a pioneer in warfighting concepts and technologies, cannot afford to procure the F-35B. As much as the service's leadership might hope or believe otherwise, the risks attendant to the aircraft's STOVL characteristics stand a very good chance of bankrupting its tactical aviation arm. Admitting its mistake and leaving the F-35B behind will take guts, but guts are perhaps the only resource the Marine Corps has never lacked.

"Every great mistake has a halfway moment, a split second when it can be recalled and perhaps remedied." -Pearl Buck
Lieutenant Colonel Stout (retired) is a fighter pilot who flew 37 missions during Operation Desert Storm. His writing has been read on the floor of the US Senate, and he has been widely hosted as an aviation and military expert on various television and radio news shows including Fox, NPR, and Al Jazeera. He is the author of several award-winning books. Penguin Random House is publishing his next book, Hell’s Angels: The True Story of the 303rd Bomb Group in World War II.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 06:20
by spazsinbad
Heheh. Substitute 'Air Base' with SEABASE and you have it. The USMC have been saying this for a long time - and not from their jungle clearings - jungle drums say.... They are MARINES and NOT a second land army - leave that to ARMY (to get beaten by NAVY - again!).

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 06:41
by popcorn
@jaystout - what is your proposed alternative?

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 07:44
by Corsair1963
jayastout wrote:I'm worried that it's going to bankrupt and ruin USMC fixed wing aviation


A Poorly Considered Jackass of a Bad Idea
Thursday, 11 December 2014 13:23
By Jay A. Stout, SpeakOut | Op-Ed

"A man who has committed a mistake and does not correct it is committing another mistake." -Confucius

Half a trillion dollars. With that kind of money we could buy Facebook, Scandinavia, General Motors (again), the Chinese Politburo and all the good bits of the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. And, with luck, Taylor Swift. Instead, we’re getting a trouble-plagued new fighter jet that is running $163 billion over budget and close to a decade behind schedule. Worse, by the time it is finally put into service, it is quite possible that it will not be able to perform the missions for which it was intended. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the King-of-All-Jackass-Defense-Programs, the F-35 Lightning II.

What happened? Quite simply, about twenty years ago the idiot leadership of my beloved Marine Corps convinced the idiot leaderships of the Air Force and the Navy to design their next fighter jets around the corrupt concept of Short Takeoff Vertical Landing—or STOVL. It was a horrible idea for about half-a-trillion reasons, but chief among them was agreeing to an essentially common airframe that could accommodate a STOVL concept. It was a basic design that was heavier and more complex than what the Air Force and Navy needed. In the aerospace world, heavier and more complex are very bad words.

In so doing they inflicted upon the nation—and our allies—a grotesquerie the likes of which our adversaries could only dream of matching.

And the salt in the wound is the fact that the Marine Corps does not need, nor has it ever needed, a Short Takeoff Vertical Landing capability. STOVL disciples (remember my idiot Marine Corps leadership?) mistakenly embrace the notion of high performance jets climbing skyward from small jungle clearings or other similarly unprepared locations. Once airborne, these aircraft dash to the battlefield, visit high-tech destruction on the enemy, and then return to their ad hoc lairs where they are readied for more action.

The concept is a fantasy that has been operationally demonstrated as little more than a stunt. Firstly, modern combat aircraft must be serviced by comprehensively trained maintenance men. These men must work out of the weather with specialized tools and equipment. Too, they must be regularly supplied with repair parts and materials as well as fuel which the aircraft consume at the rate of a thousand or more gallons per sortie. And of course, the aircraft are of little value whatsoever unless they are loaded with bombs and other weapons that are not only heavy and balky but also very sensitive to rough handling and harsh environments. All of this—the men, the shelters, the tools and material, the fuel, the bombs and more—must be supported by a transportation infrastructure of the type not normally found in austere locations.

Of course the aircraft are flown by pilots who must be connected to various operations centers so that they know which missions to fly, when to fly them, and how they are to be flown. The pilots, just like the maintenance men, must be fed, sheltered, rested and otherwise kept healthy. All of this—the aircraft, the men, the infrastructure and the various supplies—must be protected by more men.

So, it quickly becomes apparent that a site that can handle such an operation looks a great deal like…get ready for it…an airbase! It is implicit that airbases are ideal for conducting combat operations—we’ve proved it during several wars over nearly a century. And we have lots of them. In the event that we don’t have them where we need them, we can build, borrow or take them. We’ve done it before.

There are those who might argue that a STOVL aircraft is needed to operate from the Navy’s amphibious ships such as the new America -class LHAs which cannot handle conventionally launched and recovered aircraft. They are wrong. Success in any campaign has never hinged on STOVL-type aircraft based on Navy amphibious combatants. If our forces are ever going to engage a serious adversary against whom tactical jets are a requirement, they are going to come to the fight with more than what the Navy’s amphibious ships can embark. Indeed, for most amphibious missions the AH-1Z attack helicopter and the UH-1Y utility helicopter can provide adequate firepower.

But it’s not just that the Marine Corps does not need a STOVL capability. The Marine Corps also cannot afford a STOVL capability. The STOVL version of the F-35, the F-35B, is not only approximately thirty percent more pricey than the Air Force and Navy variants (the F-35A and F-35C respectively); it also does not perform as well This is because all the fancy STOVL bits add weight and take up space. The F-35B is also much more complex than the other two variants. And complexity translates to mechanical failures and mechanical failures cost money and operational capability.

For the technically-minded, the F-35B’s STOVL capability is provided by a high-risk, shaft-driven, two-stage, counter-rotating lift fan, in combination with a large swiveling duct and unique doors on the top and bottom of the fuselage. In layman’s terms, this means that there’s a lot of expensive stuff that will break. Indeed, components will fail in the coming decades in ways that aren’t even being considered. This is a lesson that the Marine Corps failed to learn with its current STOVL aircraft, the AV-8B Harrier. The Harrier has been a maintenance and operational nightmare that has killed too many of its own pilots and delivered too little utility. Anyone who says differently is ignorant or a liar. And in terms of complexity, the Harrier is a latch bolt compared to the F-35B as a Swiss watch.

So, what should be done? The Marine Corps should ditch the STOVL F-35B and follow the Navy’s lead. The Navy might continue with the more traditional, non-STOVL, F-35C, or it might get out of the F-35 business entirely and continue with its F/A-18 Super Hornets until something better is built. This approach—a common Marine Corps and Navy aircraft—will yield economies of scale as well as the sorts of operational efficiencies that come from using the same aircraft. There is no arguing the fact that many billions of dollars in STOVL development, testing and procurement costs will be lost. But those losses will pale compared to the losses—fiscal and operational—that will be incurred if the Marine Corps follows its present course.

The Air Force and Navy should subsequently identify all the penalties with which their designs are burdened by an airframe intended to accommodate STOVL. To the maximum extent possible, those penalties should be eliminated or mitigated on the production line to ensure better and more affordable operational aircraft.

Ultimately, the Marine Corps, for all it touts itself as a pioneer in warfighting concepts and technologies, cannot afford to procure the F-35B. As much as the service's leadership might hope or believe otherwise, the risks attendant to the aircraft's STOVL characteristics stand a very good chance of bankrupting its tactical aviation arm. Admitting its mistake and leaving the F-35B behind will take guts, but guts are perhaps the only resource the Marine Corps has never lacked.

"Every great mistake has a halfway moment, a split second when it can be recalled and perhaps remedied." -Pearl Buck
Lieutenant Colonel Stout (retired) is a fighter pilot who flew 37 missions during Operation Desert Storm. His writing has been read on the floor of the US Senate, and he has been widely hosted as an aviation and military expert on various television and radio news shows including Fox, NPR, and Al Jazeera. He is the author of several award-winning books. Penguin Random House is publishing his next book, Hell’s Angels: The True Story of the 303rd Bomb Group in World War II.


Poor argument in my opinion.....Plus, what is the UK, Italy, and Spain going to do with there Aircraft Carriers??? As they won't have a New Fighters to fly from them??? :doh:

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 09:54
by quicksilver
jayastout wrote:I'm worried that it's going to bankrupt and ruin USMC fixed wing aviation


A Poorly Considered Jackass of a Bad Idea
Thursday, 11 December 2014 13:23
By Jay A. Stout, SpeakOut | Op-Ed

"A man who has committed a mistake and does not correct it is committing another mistake." -Confucius

Half a trillion dollars. With that kind of money we could buy Facebook, Scandinavia, General Motors (again), the Chinese Politburo and all the good bits of the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. And, with luck, Taylor Swift. Instead, we’re getting a trouble-plagued new fighter jet that is running $163 billion over budget and close to a decade behind schedule. Worse, by the time it is finally put into service, it is quite possible that it will not be able to perform the missions for which it was intended. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the King-of-All-Jackass-Defense-Programs, the F-35 Lightning II.

What happened? Quite simply, about twenty years ago the idiot leadership of my beloved Marine Corps convinced the idiot leaderships of the Air Force and the Navy to design their next fighter jets around the corrupt concept of Short Takeoff Vertical Landing—or STOVL. It was a horrible idea for about half-a-trillion reasons, but chief among them was agreeing to an essentially common airframe that could accommodate a STOVL concept. It was a basic design that was heavier and more complex than what the Air Force and Navy needed. In the aerospace world, heavier and more complex are very bad words.

In so doing they inflicted upon the nation—and our allies—a grotesquerie the likes of which our adversaries could only dream of matching.

And the salt in the wound is the fact that the Marine Corps does not need, nor has it ever needed, a Short Takeoff Vertical Landing capability. STOVL disciples (remember my idiot Marine Corps leadership?) mistakenly embrace the notion of high performance jets climbing skyward from small jungle clearings or other similarly unprepared locations. Once airborne, these aircraft dash to the battlefield, visit high-tech destruction on the enemy, and then return to their ad hoc lairs where they are readied for more action.

The concept is a fantasy that has been operationally demonstrated as little more than a stunt. Firstly, modern combat aircraft must be serviced by comprehensively trained maintenance men. These men must work out of the weather with specialized tools and equipment. Too, they must be regularly supplied with repair parts and materials as well as fuel which the aircraft consume at the rate of a thousand or more gallons per sortie. And of course, the aircraft are of little value whatsoever unless they are loaded with bombs and other weapons that are not only heavy and balky but also very sensitive to rough handling and harsh environments. All of this—the men, the shelters, the tools and material, the fuel, the bombs and more—must be supported by a transportation infrastructure of the type not normally found in austere locations.

Of course the aircraft are flown by pilots who must be connected to various operations centers so that they know which missions to fly, when to fly them, and how they are to be flown. The pilots, just like the maintenance men, must be fed, sheltered, rested and otherwise kept healthy. All of this—the aircraft, the men, the infrastructure and the various supplies—must be protected by more men.

So, it quickly becomes apparent that a site that can handle such an operation looks a great deal like…get ready for it…an airbase! It is implicit that airbases are ideal for conducting combat operations—we’ve proved it during several wars over nearly a century. And we have lots of them. In the event that we don’t have them where we need them, we can build, borrow or take them. We’ve done it before.

There are those who might argue that a STOVL aircraft is needed to operate from the Navy’s amphibious ships such as the new America -class LHAs which cannot handle conventionally launched and recovered aircraft. They are wrong. Success in any campaign has never hinged on STOVL-type aircraft based on Navy amphibious combatants. If our forces are ever going to engage a serious adversary against whom tactical jets are a requirement, they are going to come to the fight with more than what the Navy’s amphibious ships can embark. Indeed, for most amphibious missions the AH-1Z attack helicopter and the UH-1Y utility helicopter can provide adequate firepower.

But it’s not just that the Marine Corps does not need a STOVL capability. The Marine Corps also cannot afford a STOVL capability. The STOVL version of the F-35, the F-35B, is not only approximately thirty percent more pricey than the Air Force and Navy variants (the F-35A and F-35C respectively); it also does not perform as well This is because all the fancy STOVL bits add weight and take up space. The F-35B is also much more complex than the other two variants. And complexity translates to mechanical failures and mechanical failures cost money and operational capability.

For the technically-minded, the F-35B’s STOVL capability is provided by a high-risk, shaft-driven, two-stage, counter-rotating lift fan, in combination with a large swiveling duct and unique doors on the top and bottom of the fuselage. In layman’s terms, this means that there’s a lot of expensive stuff that will break. Indeed, components will fail in the coming decades in ways that aren’t even being considered. This is a lesson that the Marine Corps failed to learn with its current STOVL aircraft, the AV-8B Harrier. The Harrier has been a maintenance and operational nightmare that has killed too many of its own pilots and delivered too little utility. Anyone who says differently is ignorant or a liar. And in terms of complexity, the Harrier is a latch bolt compared to the F-35B as a Swiss watch.

So, what should be done? The Marine Corps should ditch the STOVL F-35B and follow the Navy’s lead. The Navy might continue with the more traditional, non-STOVL, F-35C, or it might get out of the F-35 business entirely and continue with its F/A-18 Super Hornets until something better is built. This approach—a common Marine Corps and Navy aircraft—will yield economies of scale as well as the sorts of operational efficiencies that come from using the same aircraft. There is no arguing the fact that many billions of dollars in STOVL development, testing and procurement costs will be lost. But those losses will pale compared to the losses—fiscal and operational—that will be incurred if the Marine Corps follows its present course.

The Air Force and Navy should subsequently identify all the penalties with which their designs are burdened by an airframe intended to accommodate STOVL. To the maximum extent possible, those penalties should be eliminated or mitigated on the production line to ensure better and more affordable operational aircraft.

Ultimately, the Marine Corps, for all it touts itself as a pioneer in warfighting concepts and technologies, cannot afford to procure the F-35B. As much as the service's leadership might hope or believe otherwise, the risks attendant to the aircraft's STOVL characteristics stand a very good chance of bankrupting its tactical aviation arm. Admitting its mistake and leaving the F-35B behind will take guts, but guts are perhaps the only resource the Marine Corps has never lacked.

"Every great mistake has a halfway moment, a split second when it can be recalled and perhaps remedied." -Pearl Buck
Lieutenant Colonel Stout (retired) is a fighter pilot who flew 37 missions during Operation Desert Storm. His writing has been read on the floor of the US Senate, and he has been widely hosted as an aviation and military expert on various television and radio news shows including Fox, NPR, and Al Jazeera. He is the author of several award-winning books. Penguin Random House is publishing his next book, Hell’s Angels: The True Story of the 303rd Bomb Group in World War II.


Idiot leadership...Y/Z are good enough (s---can TACAIR)...no, wait...follow the Navy's lead...

...and if anyone disagrees with you they are lying or stupid. Oh, and "we're doooooomed...".

At least we're not paying for the privilege of reading this stuff. :roll:

Still carrying around the worms-eye view, Jay. Get out of your cubicle every once in a while and talk to the people who actually fly the machine.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 12:24
by XanderCrews
jayastout wrote:I'm worried that it's going to bankrupt and ruin USMC fixed wing aviation


A Poorly Considered Jackass of a Bad Idea
Thursday, 11 December 2014 13:23
By Jay A. Stout, SpeakOut | Op-Ed

"A man who has committed a mistake and does not correct it is committing another mistake." -Confucius

Half a trillion dollars. With that kind of money we could buy Facebook, Scandinavia, General Motors (again), the Chinese Politburo and all the good bits of the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. And, with luck, Taylor Swift. Instead, we’re getting a trouble-plagued new fighter jet that is running $163 billion over budget and close to a decade behind schedule. Worse, by the time it is finally put into service, it is quite possible that it will not be able to perform the missions for which it was intended. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the King-of-All-Jackass-Defense-Programs, the F-35 Lightning II.

What happened? Quite simply, about twenty years ago the idiot leadership of my beloved Marine Corps convinced the idiot leaderships of the Air Force and the Navy to design their next fighter jets around the corrupt concept of Short Takeoff Vertical Landing—or STOVL. It was a horrible idea for about half-a-trillion reasons, but chief among them was agreeing to an essentially common airframe that could accommodate a STOVL concept. It was a basic design that was heavier and more complex than what the Air Force and Navy needed. In the aerospace world, heavier and more complex are very bad words.

In so doing they inflicted upon the nation—and our allies—a grotesquerie the likes of which our adversaries could only dream of matching.

And the salt in the wound is the fact that the Marine Corps does not need, nor has it ever needed, a Short Takeoff Vertical Landing capability. STOVL disciples (remember my idiot Marine Corps leadership?) mistakenly embrace the notion of high performance jets climbing skyward from small jungle clearings or other similarly unprepared locations. Once airborne, these aircraft dash to the battlefield, visit high-tech destruction on the enemy, and then return to their ad hoc lairs where they are readied for more action.

The concept is a fantasy that has been operationally demonstrated as little more than a stunt. Firstly, modern combat aircraft must be serviced by comprehensively trained maintenance men. These men must work out of the weather with specialized tools and equipment. Too, they must be regularly supplied with repair parts and materials as well as fuel which the aircraft consume at the rate of a thousand or more gallons per sortie. And of course, the aircraft are of little value whatsoever unless they are loaded with bombs and other weapons that are not only heavy and balky but also very sensitive to rough handling and harsh environments. All of this—the men, the shelters, the tools and material, the fuel, the bombs and more—must be supported by a transportation infrastructure of the type not normally found in austere locations.

Of course the aircraft are flown by pilots who must be connected to various operations centers so that they know which missions to fly, when to fly them, and how they are to be flown. The pilots, just like the maintenance men, must be fed, sheltered, rested and otherwise kept healthy. All of this—the aircraft, the men, the infrastructure and the various supplies—must be protected by more men.

So, it quickly becomes apparent that a site that can handle such an operation looks a great deal like…get ready for it…an airbase! It is implicit that airbases are ideal for conducting combat operations—we’ve proved it during several wars over nearly a century. And we have lots of them. In the event that we don’t have them where we need them, we can build, borrow or take them. We’ve done it before.

There are those who might argue that a STOVL aircraft is needed to operate from the Navy’s amphibious ships such as the new America -class LHAs which cannot handle conventionally launched and recovered aircraft. They are wrong. Success in any campaign has never hinged on STOVL-type aircraft based on Navy amphibious combatants. If our forces are ever going to engage a serious adversary against whom tactical jets are a requirement, they are going to come to the fight with more than what the Navy’s amphibious ships can embark. Indeed, for most amphibious missions the AH-1Z attack helicopter and the UH-1Y utility helicopter can provide adequate firepower.

But it’s not just that the Marine Corps does not need a STOVL capability. The Marine Corps also cannot afford a STOVL capability. The STOVL version of the F-35, the F-35B, is not only approximately thirty percent more pricey than the Air Force and Navy variants (the F-35A and F-35C respectively); it also does not perform as well This is because all the fancy STOVL bits add weight and take up space. The F-35B is also much more complex than the other two variants. And complexity translates to mechanical failures and mechanical failures cost money and operational capability.

For the technically-minded, the F-35B’s STOVL capability is provided by a high-risk, shaft-driven, two-stage, counter-rotating lift fan, in combination with a large swiveling duct and unique doors on the top and bottom of the fuselage. In layman’s terms, this means that there’s a lot of expensive stuff that will break. Indeed, components will fail in the coming decades in ways that aren’t even being considered. This is a lesson that the Marine Corps failed to learn with its current STOVL aircraft, the AV-8B Harrier. The Harrier has been a maintenance and operational nightmare that has killed too many of its own pilots and delivered too little utility. Anyone who says differently is ignorant or a liar. And in terms of complexity, the Harrier is a latch bolt compared to the F-35B as a Swiss watch.

So, what should be done? The Marine Corps should ditch the STOVL F-35B and follow the Navy’s lead. The Navy might continue with the more traditional, non-STOVL, F-35C, or it might get out of the F-35 business entirely and continue with its F/A-18 Super Hornets until something better is built. This approach—a common Marine Corps and Navy aircraft—will yield economies of scale as well as the sorts of operational efficiencies that come from using the same aircraft. There is no arguing the fact that many billions of dollars in STOVL development, testing and procurement costs will be lost. But those losses will pale compared to the losses—fiscal and operational—that will be incurred if the Marine Corps follows its present course.

The Air Force and Navy should subsequently identify all the penalties with which their designs are burdened by an airframe intended to accommodate STOVL. To the maximum extent possible, those penalties should be eliminated or mitigated on the production line to ensure better and more affordable operational aircraft.

Ultimately, the Marine Corps, for all it touts itself as a pioneer in warfighting concepts and technologies, cannot afford to procure the F-35B. As much as the service's leadership might hope or believe otherwise, the risks attendant to the aircraft's STOVL characteristics stand a very good chance of bankrupting its tactical aviation arm. Admitting its mistake and leaving the F-35B behind will take guts, but guts are perhaps the only resource the Marine Corps has never lacked.

"Every great mistake has a halfway moment, a split second when it can be recalled and perhaps remedied." -Pearl Buck
Lieutenant Colonel Stout (retired) is a fighter pilot who flew 37 missions during Operation Desert Storm. His writing has been read on the floor of the US Senate, and he has been widely hosted as an aviation and military expert on various television and radio news shows including Fox, NPR, and Al Jazeera. He is the author of several award-winning books. Penguin Random House is publishing his next book, Hell’s Angels: The True Story of the 303rd Bomb Group in World War II.




ALong with getting the History of the JSF and what lead to it wrong, along with a few other things I'm sure it will get a lot of play with the same folks who won't be confused with facts.

I'll just add this:

The Navy's super fighter is a super failure


By JAY A. STOUT

The Virginian-Pilot,

December 15, 1999


I am a fighter pilot. I love fighter aircraft. But even though my service --I am a Marine-- doesn't have a dog in the fight, it is difficult to watch the grotesquerie that is the procurement of the Navy's new strike-fighter, the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet.

Billed as the Navy's strike-fighter of the future, the F/A-18 E/F is instead an expensive failure - a travesty of subterfuge and poor leadership. Intended to over come any potential adversaries during the next 20 years, the aircraft is instead outperformed by a number of already operational air craft - including the fighter it is scheduled to replace, the original F/A-18 Hornet.

The Super Hornet concept was spawned in 1992, in part, as a replacement for the 30 year-old A-6 Intruder medium bomber. Though it had provided yeoman service since the early 1960s, the A-6 was aging and on its way to retirement by the end of the Gulf War in 1991. The Navy earlier tried to develop a replacement during the 1980s - the A-12 - but bungled the project so badly that the whole mess was scrapped in 1991. The A-12 fiasco cost the taxpayers $5 billion and cost the Navy what little reputation it had as a service that could wisely spend taxpayer dollars.

Nevertheless, the requirement for an A-6 replacement remains. Without an aircraft with a longer range and greater payload than the current F/A-18, the Navy lost much of its offensive punch. Consequently it turned to the original F/A-18 - a combat-proven per former, but a short-ranged light bomber when compared to the A-6. Still stinging from the A-12 debacle, the Navy tried to "put one over" on Congress by passing off a completely redesigned aircraft - the Super Hornet - as simply a modification of the original Hornet.

The obfuscation worked. Many in Congress were fooled into believing that the new aircraft was just what the Navy told them it was - a modified Hornet. In fact, the new airplane is much larger - built that way to carry more fuel and bombs - is much different aerodynamically, has new engines and engine intakes and a completely reworked internal structure. In short, the Super Hornet and the original Hornet are two completely different aircraft despite their similar appearance.

Though the deception worked, the new aircraft - the Super Hornet - does not. Because it was never prototyped - at the Navy's insistence - its faults were not evident until production aircraft rolled out of the factory. Among the problems the aircraft experienced was the publicized phenomenon of "wing drop" - a spurious, uncommanded roll, which occurred in the heart of the air craft's performance envelope. After a great deal of negative press, the Super Hornet team devised a "band-aid" fix that mitigated the problem at the expense of performance tradeoffs in other regimes of flight. Regardless, the redesigned wing is a mish-mash of aerodynamic compromises which does nothing well. And the Super Hornet's wing drop problem is minor compared to other shortfalls. First, the aircraft is slow -- slower than most fighters fielded since the early 1960s. In that one of the most oft- uttered maxims of the fighter pilot fraternity is that "Speed is Life", this deficiency is alarming.

But the Super Hornet's wheezing performance against the speed clock isn't its only flaw. If speed is indeed life, than maneuverability is the reason that life is worth living for the fighter pilot. In a dog fight, superior maneuverability allows a pilot to bring his weapons to bear against the enemy. With its heavy, aerodynamically compromised airframe, and inadequate engines, the Super Hornet won't win many dogfights. Indeed, it can be outmaneuvered by nearly every front-line fighter fielded today.

"But the Super Hornet isn't just a fighter", its proponents will counter, "it is a bomber as well". True, the new aircraft carries more bombs than the current F/A-18 - but not dramatically more, or dramatically further. The engineering can be studied, but the laws of physics don't change for anyone - certainly not the Navy. From the beginning, the aircraft was incapable of doing what the Navy wanted. And they knew it.

The Navy doesn't appear to be worried about the performance shortfalls of the Super Hornet. The aircraft is supposed to be so full of technological wizardry that the enemy will be overwhelmed by its superior weapons. That is the same argument that was used prior to the Vietnam War. This logic fell flat when our large, expensive fighters - the most sophisticated in the world - started falling to peasants flying simple aircraft designed during the Korean conflict.

Further drawing into question the Navy's position that flight performance is secondary to the technological sophistication of the aircraft, are the Air Forces' specifications for its new - albeit expensive - fighter, the F-22. The Air Force has ensured that the F-22 has top-notch flight performance, as well as a weapons suite second to none. It truly has no rivals in the foreseeable future.

The Super Hornet's shortcomings have been borne out anecdotally. There are numerous stories, but one episode sums it up nicely. Said one crew member who flew a standard Hornet alongside new Super Hornets: "We outran them, we out-flew them, and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for those pilots". These shortcomings are tacitly acknowledged around the fleet where the aircraft is referred to as the "Super-Slow Hornet".

What about the rank-and-file Navy fliers? What are they told when they question the Super Hornet's shortcomings? The standard reply is, "Climb aboard, sit down, and shut up. This is our fighter, and you're going to make it work". Can there be any wondering at the widespread disgust with the Navy's leadership and the hemorrhaging exodus of its fliers?

Unfortunately, much of the damage has been done. Billions of dollars have been spent on the Super Hornet that could have been spent on maintaining or upgrading the Navy's current fleet of aircraft. Instead, unacceptable numbers or aircraft are sidelined for want of money to buy spare parts. Paradoxically, much of what the Navy wanted in the Super Hornet could have been obtained, at a fraction of the cost, by upgrading the current aircraft - what the Navy said it was going to do at the beginning of this mess.

Our military's aircraft acquisition program cannot afford all the proposed acquisitions. Some hard decisions will have to be made. The Super Hornet decision, at a savings of billions of dollars, should be an easy one".

Lt. Col. Jay Stout, a USMC fighter pilot, combat veteran, and the author of "Hornets Over Kuwait" (these views are his own and do not represent the views of the Department of the Navy, the Marine Corps, or the United States government.


U wot M8?

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 14:01
by XanderCrews
So lets go over some of the things I disagee with you on here (I'm very excited about this because most authors who post stories with the words "jackass" in the title about the F-35 don't come by here to be refuted) so lets begin shall we?:


What happened? Quite simply, about twenty years ago the idiot leadership of my beloved Marine Corps convinced the idiot leaderships of the Air Force and the Navy to design their next fighter jets around the corrupt concept of Short Takeoff Vertical Landing—or STOVL. It was a horrible idea for about half-a-trillion reasons, but chief among them was agreeing to an essentially common airframe that could accommodate a STOVL concept. It was a basic design that was heavier and more complex than what the Air Force and Navy needed. In the aerospace world, heavier and more complex are very bad words.


"People were saying that airplanes are too sophisticated and that they wouldn't work in the desert, that you didn't need all this high technology, that simple and reliable was better, and all that.
Well, first of all, complex does not mean unreliable. We're finding that out. For example, you have a watch that uses transistors rather than a spring. It's infinitely more reliable than the windup watch that you had years ago. That's what we're finding in the airplanes." ---General Chuck Horner

beyond the inflammatory "idiot" remarks that are meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator, Its probably important to mention that the USMC and USAF had already combined with CALF pre-JSF and it had a STOVL requirement. I would also point out that a lot of countries that signed onto the JSF signed on due to a need for a new STOVL aircraft, chief among them the UK, which has based all its plans since on STOVL.

In so doing they inflicted upon the nation—and our allies—a grotesquerie the likes of which our adversaries could only dream of matching.


Remember our allies have signed onto the JSF, with full knowledge of the STOVL requirement from the start, even those not buying the B model in particular and the many countries that already plan to, or are planning to. In fact canceling the B would absolutely screw our allies completely over at this point.

And the salt in the wound is the fact that the Marine Corps does not need, nor has it ever needed, a Short Takeoff Vertical Landing capability. STOVL disciples (remember my idiot Marine Corps leadership?) mistakenly embrace the notion of high performance jets climbing skyward from small jungle clearings or other similarly unprepared locations. Once airborne, these aircraft dash to the battlefield, visit high-tech destruction on the enemy, and then return to their ad hoc lairs where they are readied for more action.


"All tactical aircraft should possess a short/vertical take off and landing capability as soon as it is technically feasible without sacrificing existing mission capabilities," Gen. Randolph Pate 1957. Boy those idiots go way back. and the USMC got its first Harriers in the early 1970s...

VSTOL and STOVL has proven itself many times, and not just with the US Marines. Organic air continues to be important as we go into the future (WE meaning the US Marines) as our vehicles have all been "uparmored" thanks to GWoT, and we have precious few LCACs to carry them, vehicles that used to rely on smaller boats to bring them to shore are now having to get into a cue. and the AmTraks aren't going to be replaced anytime soon. It takes a full 8 hours to get arty set up as well. The USMC has been operating STOVL aircraft since the 1970s, and I would also point out that our critical helicopters are also expected to generate sorties in the field, and they require maintenance too. which brings us to:

The concept is a fantasy that has been operationally demonstrated as little more than a stunt. Firstly, modern combat aircraft must be serviced by comprehensively trained maintenance men. These men must work out of the weather with specialized tools and equipment. Too, they must be regularly supplied with repair parts and materials as well as fuel which the aircraft consume at the rate of a thousand or more gallons per sortie. And of course, the aircraft are of little value whatsoever unless they are loaded with bombs and other weapons that are not only heavy and balky but also very sensitive to rough handling and harsh environments. All of this—the men, the shelters, the tools and material, the fuel, the bombs and more—must be supported by a transportation infrastructure of the type not normally found in austere locations.


There would be no difference with Super Hornets in a lot of these cases, as the USMC's CONOPs isn't going to change. even hornets using MOREST gear, would face the same challenges, and its looking like we already have a pretty good handle on how this works, its just a matter of getting into practice with it.

http://media.dma.mil/2005/Mar/26/109986 ... 5P-001.jpg

You seem to think that STOVL is driving the forward basing concept (along with organic fixed wing air for L-class ships), when its the forward basing concept that necessitates STOVL. Even with Super Hornets you now advocate (Irony) the plan would stay the same it would just mean more difficulty and the need to secure or build larger runways and bases.

Of course the aircraft are flown by pilots who must be connected to various operations centers so that they know which missions to fly, when to fly them, and how they are to be flown. The pilots, just like the maintenance men, must be fed, sheltered, rested and otherwise kept healthy. All of this—the aircraft, the men, the infrastructure and the various supplies—must be protected by more men.


If only there was a way to supply rations, and every Marine could be a rifleman? Marines have managed to make do in far worse conditions, and I'm sorry you won't have hot chow, and a nice briefing room. You may want to read up on the F-35s ability to transmit and share data, including missions.

So, it quickly becomes apparent that a site that can handle such an operation looks a great deal like…get ready for it…an airbase! It is implicit that airbases are ideal for conducting combat operations—we’ve proved it during several wars over nearly a century. And we have lots of them. In the event that we don’t have them where we need them, we can build, borrow or take them. We’ve done it before.


I thought that was pure fantasy in the above paragraph? oh well. There are actually plans to do that with the F-35B believe it or not. Moreover, those same bases that are created or taken, face the same problems you outlined above about men needing weapons, advanced equipment, weapons handling, and logistics.


They are wrong. Success in any campaign has never hinged on STOVL-type aircraft based on Navy amphibious combatants.


but Who was Falkland Islands? Jesus Jay you are an aviation historian!! You were in the Marines when that was taking place! Think that might have been worth noting?

If our forces are ever going to engage a serious adversary against whom tactical jets are a requirement, they are going to come to the fight with more than what the Navy’s amphibious ships can embark. Indeed, for most amphibious missions the AH-1Z attack helicopter and the UH-1Y utility helicopter can provide adequate firepower.


but Who was Libya 2011? In several cases its was Harriers or nothing.

I would also point out that Special Operations forces operate in areas where massive amounts of US Firepower is not always available in well cleared areas, and thats before we get into things like range. Yankees and Zulus are great, but they can't refuel in the air. Which means when targets are out of reach (wait for it) You have to set up FOBs so they can reach, Those FOBs will take ground forces, ordnance, maintainers, etc. and thats assuming they operating in an area that doesn't have IADs.

So simply put an MEU(SOC) could end up being "johnny on the spot" with fixed wing (imagine that!-- thats surely never ever happened before)

But it’s not just that the Marine Corps does not need a STOVL capability. The Marine Corps also cannot afford a STOVL capability. The STOVL version of the F-35, the F-35B, is not only approximately thirty percent more pricey than the Air Force and Navy variants (the F-35A and F-35C respectively); it also does not perform as well This is because all the fancy STOVL bits add weight and take up space. The F-35B is also much more complex than the other two variants. And complexity translates to mechanical failures and mechanical failures cost money and operational capability.


For as complex as the F-35B is, its still more simple than a dual engine aircraft like the Super hornet, (Engines are the most mechanically complex system in an airplane) moreover, the USMC plans on using the STOVL only when it needs to as the F-35B, unlike the Harrier is not required to land vertically. Even more amazingly even with all the "added weight/pace taken/complexity" The F-35B is still performs as well as a Hornet, and has huge dramatic edges over legacy airplanes like the super hornet (which you said sucked and would never win a dogfight) in things that matter nowadays like Avionics and sensors.


For the technically-minded, the F-35B’s STOVL capability is provided by a high-risk, shaft-driven, two-stage, counter-rotating lift fan, in combination with a large swiveling duct and unique doors on the top and bottom of the fuselage. In layman’s terms, this means that there’s a lot of expensive stuff that will break. Indeed, components will fail in the coming decades in ways that aren’t even being considered.


The F-35B is already vastly more safe than the aircraft its replacing, Hornet and Harrier. Lets talk about the Harrier though

This is a lesson that the Marine Corps failed to learn with its current STOVL aircraft, the AV-8B Harrier. The Harrier has been a maintenance and operational nightmare that has killed too many of its own pilots and delivered too little utility. Anyone who says differently is ignorant or a liar.


speaking of ignorant liars, I think you may have taken your rant a tad too far. Harrier/STOVL has been validated on multiple occasions on multiple fronts and continues to do so as we speak. I would point out that the F-35B being massively more advanced, is easier to fix, easier to fly, and easier to maintain than the Harrier. but I know you knew that right? Harrier Combat is well documented and several books have been published by many "ignorant/liars" in multiple countries and languages.

And in terms of complexity, the Harrier is a latch bolt compared to the F-35B as a Swiss watch.


I can tell you have never worked on a Harrier. One of the cool things about the F-35B is being able to remove the engine without having to remove the wings or require a crane. You also don't have to worry reattaching the flight controls once you replace the wing.

A purely ignorant statement. by a very ignorant man.

So, what should be done? The Marine Corps should ditch the STOVL F-35B and follow the Navy’s lead. The Navy might continue with the more traditional, non-STOVL, F-35C, or it might get out of the F-35 business entirely and continue with its F/A-18 Super Hornets until something better is built.


Like what? whens the time line? define 'better'?

The USMC is planning on F-35s for the next 50 years, and the USN is planning on Super Hornets into 2040s. So tell me again how its cheaper to buy the Super Hornet, and then buy a replacement aircraft again in 20 years?

This approach—a common Marine Corps and Navy aircraft—will yield economies of scale as well as the sorts of operational efficiencies that come from using the same aircraft.


like a kind of Joint Strike Fighter?

There is no arguing the fact that many billions of dollars in STOVL development, testing and procurement costs will be lost. But those losses will pale compared to the losses—fiscal and operational—that will be incurred if the Marine Corps follows its present course.

The Air Force and Navy should subsequently identify all the penalties with which their designs are burdened by an airframe intended to accommodate STOVL. To the maximum extent possible, those penalties should be eliminated or mitigated on the production line to ensure better and more affordable operational aircraft.


LOL like what? Can you even name any "penalties" yourself that warrant a redesign?

Ultimately, the Marine Corps, for all it touts itself as a pioneer in warfighting concepts and technologies, cannot afford to procure the F-35B. As much as the service's leadership might hope or believe otherwise, the risks attendant to the aircraft's STOVL characteristics stand a very good chance of bankrupting its tactical aviation arm. Admitting its mistake and leaving the F-35B behind will take guts, but guts are perhaps the only resource the Marine Corps has never lacked.


I'm sorry you never did a good job of convincing me of any inherent risks with STOVL F-35s, nor the USMC plan to operate in forward areas in support of rifleman. You simply repeated a lot of the same things parroted all over the internet (risk complex, heavy) and then aped them yourself with a Marine twist. I'm sorry but just like how 15 years ago you were using the same arguments about the Super Hornet being a hunk of junk, and now think we should buy more of them for more services, I can't wait to see your opinion on the F-35B in 15 years. It will probably be that we should buy more of them and other services too if your Super Hornet opinion stays consistant

Appreciate your post, I'm going to save a lot of money by never buying one of your books. I'm embarrassed for you Jay.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 14:09
by sferrin
Unfortunately it's unlikely in the extreme that "jayastout" is willing to be educated. He's already made up his mind, and likely won't understand (or care to) little things like "logic" and "reality".

"Quite simply, about twenty years ago the idiot leadership of my beloved Marine Corps convinced the idiot leaderships of the Air Force and the Navy to design their next fighter jets around the corrupt concept of Short Takeoff Vertical Landing—or STOVL. It was a horrible idea for about half-a-trillion reasons"


I mean we're talking Solomon-level dumbth here.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 14:12
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:Unfortunately it's unlikely in the extreme that "jayastout" is willing to be educated. He's already made up his mind, and likely won't understand (or care to) little things like "logic" and "reality".

"Quite simply, about twenty years ago the idiot leadership of my beloved Marine Corps convinced the idiot leaderships of the Air Force and the Navy to design their next fighter jets around the corrupt concept of Short Takeoff Vertical Landing—or STOVL. It was a horrible idea for about half-a-trillion reasons"


I mean we're talking Solomon-level dumbth here.



Words like "Idiot" and "jackass" really speak to his well researched professionalism, and his target audience of critical thinkers, along with claiming anyone who disagrees with broad statements is either lying or ignorant. Intelligent argument power: 9000

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 14:41
by sferrin
Objective he is not. :lol:

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 14:47
by KamenRiderBlade
XanderCrews wrote:
sferrin wrote:Unfortunately it's unlikely in the extreme that "jayastout" is willing to be educated. He's already made up his mind, and likely won't understand (or care to) little things like "logic" and "reality".

"Quite simply, about twenty years ago the idiot leadership of my beloved Marine Corps convinced the idiot leaderships of the Air Force and the Navy to design their next fighter jets around the corrupt concept of Short Takeoff Vertical Landing—or STOVL. It was a horrible idea for about half-a-trillion reasons"


I mean we're talking Solomon-level dumbth here.



Words like "Idiot" and "jackass" really speak to his well researched professionalism, and his target audience of critical thinkers. Intelligent argument power: 9000


You forgot to move back 3 decimal places.
Intelligent argument power : 9.000

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 16:04
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:Objective he is not. :lol:


I'm curious to know when and why he reversed himself on the Super Hornet, and if he has ever admitted he was wrong about it, including this whole bit:

http://capitolwords.org/date/2000/02/07 ... t-program/

So Jay, lying or ignorant?

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 17:06
by blindpilot
Without getting too specific, I always chuckle when I read some "expert's" opinion on the viability of forward deployments in austere environments. (IE. no hot meals, and Friday movies, commissary etc.)

On at least one occasion I deployed a nearly 300,000 lb aircraft to a remote "short" air strip where we couldn't even turn around. (had to do the Michael Jackson Moonwalk to back up) With a bunch of wavers and even some flown in maintenance for strut leakage we completed the missions and returned home for the Friday Movie.

I'm guessing the Harriers and 35's can probably pull it off. With all due respect to the Lt Col's opinion.

Little did I know I was an idiot and it couldn't be done. LOL

MHO anyway,
BP

PS FYI one sortie was one of the very few ever, that were calculated and flown using EWO condition tables.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 19:09
by XanderCrews
quicksilver wrote:
Idiot leadership...Y/Z are good enough (s---can TACAIR)...no, wait...follow the Navy's lead...

...and if anyone disagrees with you they are lying or stupid. Oh, and "we're doooooomed...".

At least we're not paying for the privilege of reading this stuff. :roll:

Still carrying around the worms-eye view, Jay. Get out of your cubicle every once in a while and talk to the people who actually fly the machine.


Maybe at the very least talk to the Harrier folks before throwing the STOVL baby out with the bath water. LOL I know, I know, but its the season for miracles.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 20:59
by spazsinbad
Thanks for the old stuff 'ZanderCrue' (like MotleyCrue like like). How is this for a quote from the Admirable Rear Adm. John Nathman response at the URL above: http://capitolwords.org/date/2000/02/07 ... t-program/
"... It [NAVY] dismissed the F-18E as unacceptable in both range and stealth. As to stealth, it concluded that ordnance hanging under the F-18E would provide too good a target on radar...."

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 22:00
by archeman
jayastout wrote:I'm worried that it's going to bankrupt and ruin USMC fixed wing aviation


A Poorly Considered Jackass of a Bad Idea
Thursday, 11 December 2014 13:23
By Jay A. Stout, SpeakOut | Op-Ed

-----trimmed------

1) The Marine Corps should ditch the STOVL F-35B and follow the Navy’s lead. The Navy might continue with the more traditional, non-STOVL, F-35C, or it might get out of the F-35 business entirely and continue with its F/A-18 Super Hornets until something better is built. This approach—a common Marine Corps and Navy aircraft—will yield economies of scale as well as the sorts of operational efficiencies that come from using the same aircraft.

2) The Air Force and Navy should subsequently identify all the penalties with which their designs are burdened by an airframe intended to accommodate STOVL. To the maximum extent possible, those penalties should be eliminated or mitigated on the production line to ensure better and more affordable operational aircraft.



Thank you jaystout for your honorable service.
Now lets discuss these very tardy and empty Suggestions above.

I will ignore all your long winded reasons for coming up with the Suggestions, and let others refute those.

I have boiled down your Suggestions to two items from above (1 and 2), and attempt to answer them below:

1), Time is more than a little bit short don't you think to ditch the F-35B? Not only because it IS meeting design parameters outlined by the Marines, but it is also scheduled to begin tactical operations months from now. It seems more than silly to rant on and on that it is years late then, just before it actually goes operational, suggest cancelling it and starting the design process over again. Don't you see anything wrong with that?
The magic moment you were trying to describe to change paths from F-35B to some other path actually passed you by a long time ago - we are not there anymore. Also, just for a moment, consider the terrific effects across the NATO defense community for the partner nations that are also planning to field this same F-35B airframe and are depending on Navy and Marine maritime co-tactics, co-weapons development and production economy-of-scale to help meet their own regional defense goals. The scope of the change would be devastating. Don't give a damn about anybody else? OK then -that actually would say more about your capacity for strategic thinking than anything else you've written.

I think your time would be better spent building a time machine in your basement so that you can run around 12 or 14 years ago shouting this chicken little story of yours.

2), Others have correctly questioned this assertion that there is something 'wrong' with the F-35A and F-35C that should be blamed on the F-35B. The flight test results appear to bear out the truth that the A and C aircraft are not burdened by terrible penalties that need to be eliminated and mitigated. The fact that you couldn't even come up with one imaginary 'fix' seems to provide some strong evidence that this is a dead end thought train.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 22:29
by SpudmanWP
There are several things that drove the overall shape of the F-35A/C:

1. Single Engine - It was always going to have one engine as this was a USAF REQUIREMENT.

2. Shape - The wider shape was dictated by the need for a single, large jet engine. By having the engine & tunnel in the middle, the bays had to be pushed out to the sides leading to the overall shape. Including all of the fuel internal also caused the shape to "swell".

3. Length - This was dictated by the need to keep the carrier spot to a minimum.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 22:46
by KamenRiderBlade
SpudmanWP wrote:There are several things that drove the overall shape of the F-35A/C:

1. Single Engine - It was always going to have one engine as this was a USAF REQUIREMENT.

2. Shape - The wider shape was dictated by the need for a single, large jet engine. By having the engine & tunnel in the middle, the bays had to be pushed out to the sides leading to the overall shape. Including all of the fuel internal also caused the shape to "swell".

3. Length - This was dictated by the need to keep the carrier spot to a minimum.


You look at so many aircraft today that has CFT's (Conformal Fuel Tanks) used on regular day to day and combat use.
It makes you wonder, what if all those extra swells made by the CFT's were just built into the airframe outer mold line from the very start. Look at the CFT options for the F-15, F-16, F-18.

Now imagine how much extra fuel and how much less drag penalty per mission there could be by not having to carry a EFT on all those missions.

What the F-35 did was just built in that extra fuel storage straight into the air frame. It's a more sound decision to do that up front in the beginning, then eventually buy a plane, strap in CFT / EFT, and pay the extra drag / weight penalty for having to add those on to extend the range.

What a novel idea, built in extra range from the very beginning, it's like Lockheed Martin learned from the previous fighters and added features that the USAF and other military was demanding from the get go. They effectively learned what was necessary from their customers demands and just did it up front.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 23:10
by spazsinbad
UhOh. Maybe one day we will see drawings or the real thing - an F-35i with CFTs. No word on that for a long time.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 23:23
by KamenRiderBlade
spazsinbad wrote:UhOh. Maybe one day we will see drawings or the real thing - an F-35i with CFTs. No word on that for a long time.


How much more range does the Israeli's really need?

Where are they planning on Striking with that kind of range?

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2014, 23:25
by spazsinbad
Nuke Facilities elsewhere come to mind.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2014, 02:57
by sferrin
SpudmanWP wrote:There are several things that drove the overall shape of the F-35A/C:

1. Single Engine - It was always going to have one engine as this was a USAF REQUIREMENT.

2. Shape - The wider shape was dictated by the need for a single, large jet engine. By having the engine & tunnel in the middle, the bays had to be pushed out to the sides leading to the overall shape. Including all of the fuel internal also caused the shape to "swell".

3. Length - This was dictated by the need to keep the carrier spot to a minimum.


Pretty sure the Length was dictated by the need to fit on a Gator's elevator. There have been many 55'+ CV aircraft.

XF8U-3 - 59'
F-4J - 58'
F-111B - 69'
F-14 - 63'
EA-6B - 60'
A-5 - 76'
A-3D - 76'
F/A-18C/D - 56'
F/A-18E/F - 60'
E-2C/D - 58'

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2014, 03:47
by spazsinbad
Don't know why people forget about a good overview of how the flat deck models were sized and why. Anyway from that 1Mb PDF there is a lot of info replicated many times now on this forum. Yes the F-35B and F-35C have to fit to what is set in steel on USN ships (with the CVF and others built later allowing the aircraft to fit). The USMC required SIX F-35Bs to fit behind the island on the stbd side so that flight ops were not interfered with - obscure I know - otherwise yes they obviously fit now that both have been onboard.
The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD ... tTRDoc.pdf (1Mb)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2014, 06:51
by smsgtmac
jayastout wrote:I'm worried that it's going to bankrupt and ruin USMC fixed wing aviation

Yeah, my few major concerns are usually in areas where I have too large of a gap in knowledge as well.
So to summarize Stout:
1) F-18 Tribe member doesn't 'get' why the Marines like STOVL. As if that's a revelation or even novel. I note here that I was just talking last week to the retired Marine that was 'THE' AMO for the MAW during Desert Storm who surprised me with descriptions of Harriers hitting FARPS as the fight went inland... which I hadn't been aware of. It surprised me because I thought I had already found all, certainly more than enough evidence of Marines using their Harriers in austere basing conditions to support their CONOPs years ago. So much for an F-18 meat-servo "Marines will never" trope.
2) Trots out the standard B-model 'compromised design' storyline. Sheesh. Does anybody know where that myth started? And weights? ALL the variants are lighter 'because STOVL!' The design history actually suggests that the program probably should have used the STOVL variant as the 'base' design, but didn't because the A model was considered the dominant type.
3) Puts his crap out via Truthout? DIna Rasor (the Maverick Missile is useless, the M-1 Abram's driver's seat is impossible to sit in unless you're a midget, the M113's aluminum armor 'burns' AND Founder of POGO Dina Rasor) leaves POGO behind (because it was too mainstream?) for an even wackier hangout for the tinfoil hat brigade.
I am unimpressed.
Though I am now going to take a chance and buy Stout's "Men Who Killed the Luftwaffe", used, this weekend. I saw it earlier this week and thought about picking it up at the time.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2014, 07:43
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'smsgtmac': Who is 'Kurt Plummer' aka 'M&S all over the place'?

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2014, 09:24
by Corsair1963
I have no doubt the "F-35B" will compare very favorably with either the Hornet or Super Hornet in a combat configuration. As the F-35B carries just a little less fuel that the F/A-18E and more than the F/A-18F. Yet, has superior Aerodynamic Performance. Plus, I would be very surprised if the Super Hornets twin GE F414's are more fuel efficient than the F-35's single P&W F135......


In short I've seen nothing to suggest that the F-35B gives up anything to most 4/4.5 Gen Fighters for having the STOVL Capability. Sure it does sacrifice some performance (payload/range) compared to the F-35A/C. Yet, why do we care about those comparisons???

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2014, 10:32
by spazsinbad
Marines Propose Rapidly Mobile F-35 Operations Marines push shell-game plan for JSF survival
16 Dec 2014 Bill Sweetman | Aviation Week & Space Technology

"Fast Movers
An ambitious plan to move short-takeoff, vertical-landing (STOVL) Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighter units rapidly between multiple temporary bases—to protect both the aircraft and U.S. Navy amphibious-warfare ships from theater-range guided ballistic and cruise missiles—is being explored by the U.S. Marine Corps and was the focus of an October wargame....

...The new Conops is known as distributed Stovl operations (DSO), according to Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, Marine deputy commandant for aviation. The objective is to sustain air operations from bases in allied territory that are within the range of hostile missiles. By using mobile forward arming and refueling points (M-Farps), the F-35Bs—which have the shortest range of any F-35 variant—can respond more quickly to operational needs, generate more sorties and reach deeper into enemy territory than they could if they were based outside missile range. The DSO plan envisages the use of Bell/Boeing MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft to provide air refueling support to the F-35B.

Mobility is the key to the DSO concept, according to Davis and the most recent Marine aviation plan, which was produced under his leadership. The M-Farps are intended to be moved around the theater inside the adversary’s targeting cycle—assumed to be 24-48 hr.—so that they can survive without active defense against missile attacks. Decoy M-Farps would be established to complicate the targeting problem.

The DSO concept is scalable, from units operating a handful of aircraft to multi-squadron forces, the Marine planning document says. The smaller units could be supported by helicopters, although Davis says that in most cases the M-Farp will be able to accommodate Lockheed Martin KC-130J tankers to deliver fuel, and could also be located in littoral areas and supplied by sea links from ships, via mobile distribution sites on land. The M-Farps could be based on small airfields, multi-lane roads or damaged main bases, the aviation plan suggests F-35Bs would return to U.S. Navy ships, rear-area U.S. Air Force bases or coalition carriers for scheduled maintenance.

Metal planking would be needed to protect unprepared roads from the F-35B’s exhaust, Davis says, and the Marines are studying lighter and more heat-resistant products. The planking would be moved between M-Farp sites by helicopter...."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/marines ... operations

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2014, 14:33
by sferrin
spazsinbad wrote:Don't know why people forget about a good overview of how the flat deck models were sized and why. Anyway from that 1Mb PDF there is a lot of info replicated many times now on this forum. Yes the F-35B and F-35C have to fit to what is set in steel on USN ships (with the CVF and others built later allowing the aircraft to fit). The USMC required SIX F-35Bs to fit behind the island on the stbd side so that flight ops were not interfered with - obscure I know - otherwise yes they obviously fit now that both have been onboard.
The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD ... tTRDoc.pdf (1Mb)



"Additionally, compatibility with deck elevators may constrain an aircraft's length, width, or both."

LHA Elevator Length, Port: 50'

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2014, 14:51
by XanderCrews
smsgtmac wrote:
jayastout wrote:I'm worried that it's going to bankrupt and ruin USMC fixed wing aviation

Yeah, my few major concerns are usually in areas where I have too large of a gap in knowledge as well.
So to summarize Stout:
1) F-18 Tribe member doesn't 'get' why the Marines like STOVL. As if that's a revelation or even novel. I note here that I was just talking last week to the retired Marine that was 'THE' AMO for the MAW during Desert Storm who surprised me with descriptions of Harriers hitting FARPS as the fight went inland... which I hadn't been aware of. It surprised me because I thought I had already found all, certainly more than enough evidence of Marines using their Harriers in austere basing conditions to support their CONOPs years ago. So much for an F-18 meat-servo "Marines will never" trope.
2) Trots out the standard B-model 'compromised design' storyline. Sheesh. Does anybody know where that myth started? And weights? ALL the variants are lighter 'because STOVL!' The design history actually suggests that the program probably should have used the STOVL variant as the 'base' design, but didn't because the A model was considered the dominant type.
3) Puts his crap out via Truthout? DIna Rasor (the Maverick Missile is useless, the M-1 Abram's driver's seat is impossible to sit in unless you're a midget, the M113's aluminum armor 'burns' AND Founder of POGO Dina Rasor) leaves POGO behind (because it was too mainstream?) for an even wackier hangout for the tinfoil hat brigade.
I am unimpressed.
Though I am now going to take a chance and buy Stout's "Men Who Killed the Luftwaffe", used, this weekend. I saw it earlier this week and thought about picking it up at the time.



hey Mac, was it you that posted something about STOVL/VSTOL taking some workload off the AAR tankers in 1991 thanks to forward basing? Probably an important attribute to remember...

Oh well, I'm off to buy the "hey I guess they don't suck" Super Hornet . i cant wait for the next "worst aircraft evar!!1!" to be developed

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2014, 20:28
by spazsinbad
'sferrin' do you note how aircraft arses are parked over the edge of elevators outboard - thankfully these are side elevators so aircraft length is not so important in this instance. I guess I should find a few photos - that will be later.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2014, 20:44
by optimist
My memory is that the UK set the length of B because of the size of the elevator on ?. when they retired the ship, this allowed about a 6inch increase in length

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2014, 21:51
by sferrin
spazsinbad wrote:'sferrin' do you note how aircraft arses are parked over the edge of elevators outboard - thankfully these are side elevators so aircraft length is not so important in this instance. I guess I should find a few photos - that will be later.


Oh, I know. I'd have thought that all they'd need is enough elevator between the nose of the aircraft and the aft landing gear for clearance. I'd heard the length restriction in the past. It seemed the logical reason for the F-35 being as short as it is.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2014, 22:03
by spazsinbad
I think the original reference I quoted covers that scenario - the potential to PERHAPS operate the F-35B on the OLD UK CVSs. I see whilst composing this reply 'sferrin' has replied - my reply is implied in the response to 'optimist' below. There are many variables and the question of "HOW LONG IS A PIECE OF STRING" becomes relevant. One may speculate about a lot of things however some variables fall into place because REQUIREMENTS set in stone such as the 'LHA spot of 6 USMC F-35Bs' TRUMPS the lot - IN A GOOD WAY.

It reminds of me of all the B/S about how the STOVL Bee made the others a CRAP aircraft. I recall giving three quotes from the designer of the LiftFan that put paid to these erroneous assumptions. I may find them again or I may not - I'm just going outside and may be some time.... :doh: :devil: :mrgreen: I can see how people get fixed ideas and do not incorporate new ideas which are perhaps more useful. I face this issue in my declining years. :drool: :twisted: :roll:
The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter
26-27 Feb 2002 Mr. Eric S. Ryberg

[IN THE graphic the CVS elevators are described as being 55 feet long and 32 feet wide with a note:]
"...(3) Both CVS elevators are positioned mid-deck, leaving no flexibility to extend beyond the elevator edges"


“...UK OPERATIONAL NEEDS
The UK requires a Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA) that will be a stealthy, multi-role aircraft to follow on from the Sea Harrier FA1, Harrier GR7, and Harrier T10 operated by the Royal Navy (RN) and Royal Air Force (RAF). The aircraft must be capable of sustained air defensive counter air, suppression of enemy air defenses, combat search and rescue, reconnaissance, and anti-surface warfare missions. While the STOVL JSF is to be evaluated for basic compatibility with INVINCIBLE-class (CVS) carriers, it is unlikely that the aircraft will ever be deployed aboard CVS for any extended periods. Instead, the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has initiated development of a future aircraft carrier (CVF) scheduled to enter service at or about the same time as its JSF. The CVF program is currently in its concept development phase, and the ship will be designed for compatibility with the shipboard JSF variant, CV or STOVL, that will be procured for use by the UK's joint air forces. The UK's selection of JSF variant is scheduled to occur during the first half of 2002....

...Landing Gear Geometry
The shipboard environment has significant influence on the geometry of an aircraft’s landing gear, much of which tends to drive the position of the landing gear in opposing directions. For example, a large landing gear footprint is desirable for stability during deck handling, thereby preventing a tendency to tipback or rollover. [ON THE LIFTS for example and TIPPING OVER THE EDGE during ship ROLLS] A large footprint also eases the positioning of critical maintenance and
servicing points, so that they can be accessed when the aircraft is parked with its tail extending beyond the deck edge. However, a large footprint can complicate deck handling in that the aircraft requires more deck space for maneuvering,... ...Gear height is also influenced by ship basing concerns. A shorter landing gear is more desirable for tipback and rollover stability and for maintainer accessibility, while taller landing gear aids in clearing deck
obstacles and in avoiding ground impingements. For JSF, the designer has strived for the best balance between these opposing forces.

...CONCLUSIONS
Ship compatibility can only be achieved through the use of a comprehensive, detailed process that identifies every critical interface issue, diligently monitors their status, and determines sensible resolutions for any areas of incompatibility. The Joint Strike Fighter Program has established such a process, and the designs of its family of aircraft have been influenced by the configurations of the ships on which the aircraft will be based. As was done with JSF, the designers of new ship-based air systems must engage themselves with the ship builder early in their design effort, to understand where ship characteristics will influence their aircraft design. Conversely, the designers of new aircapable ships must coordinate with air system designers to understand how ship design decisions may impact the operations of its complement of aircraft. In the event of an incompatibility across a ship/air interface, personnel from both sides must show care not to arrive at a suboptimal solution that works best for either the ship or the aircraft alone. Instead, they must strive for the synergy that comes by optimizing the performance of the total ship/air system.”

Source: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a399988.pdf (1.1Mb)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2014, 23:59
by delvo
spazsinbad wrote:Yes the F-35B and F-35C have to fit to what is set in steel on USN ships... they obviously fit now that both have been onboard.
That's the second time in the last week that I've seen someone around here apparently saying an F-35C has landed on a carrier, but I missed the original announcement. Were there any online articles & videos about it like when a pair of Bs went to the Wasp before? How long did it/they stay; are we talking about just landing & launching tests or days of general operations like the Bs on the Wasp?

Or did I just misunderstand when I saw the word "both" in your post?

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2014, 00:08
by SpudmanWP
Sorry... what rock have you been sleeping under?

:mrgreen:

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2014, 00:18
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: Rip Van Winkle? :mrgreen: Go here for the good gen and work backwards: 'Millstone & Plank Owner Freds'

THE MORE RELEVANT FRED below here now:
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=26634&p=282795#p282795
&
viewtopic.php?f=57&p=282892#p282892
&
Good luck out there....

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2014, 02:51
by smsgtmac
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks 'smsgtmac': Who is 'Kurt Plummer' aka 'M&S all over the place'?

How soon we forget! :lol:
I never knew who M&S was for certain, but I noticed as soon as KP was mentioned, they disappeared. You probably remember KP as a certain 'Galoot'

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2014, 02:59
by spazsinbad
Yes the galoot seems to have had a few names to terrify others with immensely long rambling posts - not on topic. :doh:

As for forgetting. The interwobble is going to trash my brain with all the trash I read from day to day. No wonder I forget. What did you say? :mrgreen: :doh: :drool: :roll: :shock:

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2014, 05:10
by delvo
spazsinbad wrote::mrgreen: Rip Van Winkle? :mrgreen: Go here for the good gen and work backwards: 'Millstone & Plank Owner Freds'

THE MORE RELEVANT FRED below here now:
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=26634&p=282795#p282795
&
viewtopic.php?f=57&p=282892#p282892
&
Good luck out there....
Ah, yes, the Milestones forum... I quit checking there after seeing that it was full of little trifles like "First F-35 with a left-handed Capricorn pilot and a tail number that's a perfect cube of an integer gets its 84th hour of flying on Tuesdays". I thought I was safe because the REAL milestones, like the two Bs' mission to the Wasp, also get talked about a lot elsewhere. Now I know you people are getting sneaky on me, hiding even the big stuff that I expected would be all over this place... "stealth" news, I could call it...

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2014, 05:36
by spazsinbad
Oooh we are sooo naughty. :mrgreen:

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2014, 05:43
by smsgtmac
This thread is wandering some, but its all related I guess. Going back to the 'why' the F-35 variants are the way they are, you have to go back to before the technology demonstrators were built. I'm sure the full brief is probably somewhere in the archives here, but to illustrate there is no one or two things anyone can point to and say 'this drove that or the other', here's an excerpt from a 2005 F-35 Systems Engineering Case Study Brief.
First the fuselage 'size' was pretty much determined before Boeing and Lockheed were turned on to build the technology demonstrators:
Fuselage-Sizing-Rationale.jpg

This kind of stuff fed the initial sizing:
Cost-and-Operational-Trades.jpg

Don't try and completely decode this. I'm pretty sure they took some info out before the release. The URF dollars indicate circa 1994, which translates into ~$80M in $CY2013.
Sample-Case-Trade-Space.jpg

Here's a progression of wing area/wingspan configurations as the early 230- design iterations emerged:
span-area-1.jpg

span-area-2.jpg

span-area-3.jpg

span-area-4.jpg

I'd say they thoroughly explored the boundaries of the trade space.
Also note the A/B Wing configuration isn't as large as it could be if LH's deck elevator dimensions were a limiting factor.

G'nght all :wink:

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2014, 06:22
by spazsinbad
I'll wander off to find the three quotes - meanwhile here is a graphic from the previously mentioned PDF - if any dimensions or spot factors (they have changed for sure - depending on the base spot calculation of 1) then all the detail is from the original 2002 PDF "The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter".

The CVS Invincible Class dimensions are now irrelevant - I hope that is clear. CLICK Graphic for more Readability!

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2014, 06:37
by spazsinbad
The three tenants with a fourth somewhere as I recall.... ORIGINAL THREE tenors here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=25537&p=274779&hilit=Bevilaqua+Suitability#p274779 and the forth:
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=25537&p=275083&hilit=Commonality#p275083 ADDed BeLOW.
Joint Strike Fighter PERSPECTIVES
Paul Bevilaqua, Lift-Fan System Inventor; Code One Magazine July 1996 Vol. 11 No. 3

“..."Our lift fan approach is like taking that one large fan on the Harrier's engine, breaking it into two smaller fans, and turning off one of the smaller fans when the airplane converts to the cruise mode," he explains. "The concept doesn't compromise the other JSF variants. Our STOVL concept requires twin inlets, what we call bifurcated inlet ducts, to create the space needed for the lift fan. That is the only design requirement. And bifurcated ducts have low-observable and performance advantages that improve all of our JSF variants.”

Source: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/C ... 8_7528.pdf

Genesis of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 2009
Paul M. Bevilaqua JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT Vol. 46, No. 6, Nov–Dec 2009, 2009 WRIGHT BROTHERS LECTURE

“...The technical challenges involved in designing a single aircraft for all three services were met by designing three highly common, but not identical, variants of the same aircraft. The STOVL variant, which was designed first, incor-porates a shaft-driven lift fan in a bay between the inlet ducts and a thrust-vectoring cruise nozzle. The airframe was designed to Air Force specifications, so that the conventional takeoff and landing variant was developed by removing the lift fan and vectoring nozzles from the STOVL variant and substituting a fuel tank and a conventional cruise nozzle. The Naval variant was similarly developed from the conventional variant by increasing the wing area, designing stronger landing gear, and using stronger cousin parts to handle the larger airframe loads associated with carrier takeoffs and landings. Both the STOVL and Naval variants are about 15% heavier than the conventional variant.”

Source: http://pdf.aiaa.org/getfile.cfm?urlX=-% ... 0%20%20%0A

The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter
26-27 Feb 2002 Mr. Eric S. Ryberg, page 10 of 11

“...SHIP SUITABILITY DESIGN ‘PENALTY’
Because of the numerous factors that influence the design of a ship-based aircraft, many assume these considerat-ions have significantly compromised the mission performance of the CV and STOVL variants. Correspondingly, it is assumed that the remaining CTOL variant carries appreciable "scar impacts" to maintain commonality with its sea-going siblings.

However, the JSF design solution has been quite successful in minimizing the "penalty" of ship suitability....

...the CTOL variant carries virtually no scars as the result of the ship suitability of the other two variants. The JSF program has clearly shown that shipboard compatibility does not have to come at the expense of such critical attributes as lethality and survivability....”

Source: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA399988

Commonality in Complex Product Families: Implications of Divergence and Lifecycle Offsets
Ryan C. Boas Sept 2008; pp 81-4

"…The initial development order for the three variants was to be CTOL, followed by STOVL, and then CV; a decision driven mainly by the desire to reduce internal development risk. The CTOL variant was selected as the lead variant because it was “easy” to develop in relation to the more difficult STOVL version and because the CTOL variant had served as the baseline for all prior development effort: CTOL allowed STOVL lift fan complexity to be avoided for the first variant and was also the best understood of the three variants. The JSF team was preparing to embark on an extremely complex program and was about to do so with a newly formed team….

…After development of the CTOL variant, STOVL would represent an incremental increase in complexity but would be addressed by a more experienced team, with well understood tools and processes. These benefits outweighed the fact that STOVL demand actually preceded demand for the CTOL aircraft. CV would follow CTOL and STOVL because demand for CV production aircraft was scheduled the farthest out….

…CTOL layout started immediately after the March 2003 PDR and marked an important transition for the JSF program: the program had transitioned from the parallel development of the three variant concepts to sequential layout development, starting with the CTOL variant. While decisions would be made with consideration for all three variants, the majority of the focus was placed on developing the CTOL variant. STOVL capabilities (mainly the lift fan and ducts) would be added to the CTOL baseline to form the B variant, while the C variant would be formed by scaling certain aspects of the CTOL variant….”

Source: http://esd.mit.edu/people/dissertations/boas.pdf (3.5Mb)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2014, 22:49
by spazsinbad
From good ole: http://aviationweek.com/site-files/avia ... 4_4052.jpg

CVN Lift mit F-35C overhung - or not - hung over 2014 NIMITZ? & Bee on WASP Lisp? Aug 2013 - CVFs take two side be side.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2014, 20:58
by spazsinbad
An example of a MAJOR piece of CVN equipment - IFLOLS (mirror) - being designed for 'aircraft' because it came later/during those ops. I have lost the original reference to the graphic - may find it later.....

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2014, 22:01
by spazsinbad
From dat SNAFUmensch is another PDF about USMC OMFTS & STOM dated 25 Apr 2014

[USMC] Current Operations Brief 25 Apr 2014

https://www.scribd.com/document_downloa ... ension=pdf (3Mb)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2014, 22:27
by spazsinbad
‘Complete transformation’ awaits Marine aviation in 2015
23 Sep 2014 Gina Harkins & Joshua Stewart

"...New aircraft, same missions
...“It’s really an exciting time to be on the ground floor, if you will, of a complete transformation in Marine aviation,” he [Lt. Col. John Field] said.

Aside from transitioning the remaining Phrog [Sea Knights CH-46E] squadrons into Osprey squadrons, here are some of the other ongoing changes in Marine aviation:

■ Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121, based in Arizona, will be the first F-35B squadron to reach initial operational capability status next year.

■ Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501 is moving from Florida to South Carolina, where it will be responsible for teaching new and experienced aviators how to operate the F-35B.

■ As of late August, 41 Marines have been qualified to fly the F-35B, according to a news release from Lockheed Martin. Once VMFAT-501is moved to Beaufort, the squadron plans to qualify another 15 pilots in the first year. Eventually, the goal is to qualify four times that many pilots annually.

■ Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron 22 will stand up an F-35B detachment in 2015 at Edwards Air Force Base, California, to evaluate the aircraft’s systems, said Capt. Dustin Pratico, a Marine spokesman at the Pentagon. The Corps is also preparing to stand up the first of four planned F-35C squadrons in 2019, Pratico said, which will fly the carrier variant of the aircraft.

■ The Corps will continue replacing the UH-1N Huey helicopter with the UH-1Y Venom. After 41 years of flying in the Marine Corps, the UH-1N was retired in August, but the Venoms have been gradually integrated into the fleet since 2008. The newer version uses the same airframe, but is faster, can fly higher, has a longer range and can lift more than its predecessor. The Corps expects Bell Helicopter to deliver 160 Venoms by 2018.

■ The AH-1Z Venom is replacing the AH-1W Cobra. The Venom reached initial operational capability status in 2011 and is expected to reach it’s full operational capabilities in 2021.

■ The Corps is continuing work on the CH-53K King Stallion. The heavy-lift helicopter is expected to reach initial operational capabilities in 2019 and will replace the CH-63E Super Stallion, which is expected to remain in service through 2027. The new aircraft is expected to move cargo further and faster than its predecessor.

Field said the recent evolution of Marine aviation highlights the Corps’ ability to adapt.

“As technology changes, we look to capitalize on those advances so we can better accomplish the missions of supporting the infantry Marine and responding to the nation’s crises,” he said...."

Source: http://hrana.org/news/2014/09/complete- ... n-in-2015/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2014, 00:51
by jayastout
I apologize for my tardy reply. I “fired” and “forgot” and I now see that my post created quite a bit of discussion.

Certainly the words “jackass” and “idiot” are unflattering. And I considered that fact before I used them. I also considered the fact that these leaders helped to set the conditions for a program that has overrun its budget by $163B. So far. I’m definitely no dove, but that overrun could pay for a lot of bridges and other useful projects.

Indeed, bearing that in mind, there are those who would offer the opinion that the words “jackass” and “idiot” are inappropriate because they are not strong enough.

I’ve noted statements which indicate that STOVL had no influence on the other variants. So then, that is akin to declaring that the F-35A is the aircraft the Air Force would have built had the Marine Corps never existed. And that there is nothing about the F-35A that has any relationship or/lineage to the STOVL requirement.

I’m unconvinced. But if those statements are correct…it makes for a more tragic story. It would be very sad indeed if the F-35A were the best clean-sheet design the Air Force could create.

I’ll address a few of the more specific comments that some of you made.

Quicksilver wrote:

“Still carrying around the worms-eye view, Jay. Get out of your cubicle every once in a while and talk to the people who actually fly the machine.”

Rather than “worm’s-eye” view, I’d suggest that it’s a top-level macro perspective. It declares that the STOVL concept is a failure and additionally decries the tomfoolery that created the current situation. If I were to nit-pick at the “worm’s-eye” level I would niggle at the disturbing but not unusual (for a new aircraft) issues such as performance shortcomings, weight issues, hot fuel problems, arresting hook challenges, etc.

XanderCrews wrote:

"...chief among them the UK, which has based all its plans since on STOVL."

Yes, our staunchest ally has changed its mind twice on this. That’s how wary of the concept they’ve been.

XanderCrews wrote:

"I can tell you have never worked on a Harrier. One of the cool things about the F-35B is being able to remove the engine without having to remove the wings or require a crane. You also don't have to worry reattaching the flight controls once you replace the wing."

Well, you could have told I never worked on a Harrier by reading my byline. Although I was an aircraft maintenance officer for part of my career, my primary MOS was as a pilot (7522 and 7523). But yes, during my Marine Corps career we shared hangars with Harriers that had had their wings peeled off just to change an engine. In fact, during twenty years I worked with the Harrier folks quite a bit: I flew with them, trained with them and performed FFPBs and mishap investigations with them. During this time I learned a great deal about the aircraft. And it was the aircraft and the STOVL concept I disliked—I had and have nothing but respect for the men and women who fly, maintain and support them.

Nevertheless, the Harrier was a mess. Hornet ops officers constantly adjusted training and operations plans to cover taskings that the Harrier units couldn’t perform because the aircraft was grounded. Over and over again.

The STOVL mechanics of the F-35B are quite a bit more complex than those of the AV-8B. But even putting that aside, I’m sure that the Software Lines of Code (SLOC) and their complexity—just for the STOVL elements—are orders of magnitude beyond that of the Harrier.

XanderCrews wrote:

“If only there was a way to supply rations, and every Marine could be a rifleman? Marines have managed to make do in far worse conditions, and I'm sorry you won't have hot chow, and a nice briefing room. You may want to read up on the F-35s ability to transmit and share data, including missions.”

I did spend twenty years in the Marine Corps and so indeed was a rifleman. And I’m aware of how Marines have made do. But the notion of “make do” is just blather when the right parts, people and material are not available. Working harder doesn’t fix aircraft if the right material and people aren’t available. Any Marine Corps maintenance officer can confirm this.

Too, I don’t understand your point. The briefs for every combat mission I flew were conducted in a hardback tent. Or under the wing of an aircraft. Still, no one would discount the value of clean comfortable, connected operations and maintenance spaces if they were available.

I do understand modern communications concepts which means that I also understand their vulnerabilities.

XanderCrews also wrote:

“There are actually plans to do that with the F-35B believe it or not.”

Yes, there were also plans to do it with the Harrier. Believe it or not.

XanderCrews also wrote:

“but Who was Falkland Islands? Jesus Jay you are an aviation historian!! You were in the Marines when that was taking place! Think that might have been worth noting?”

My context was U.S. conflicts and campaigns. Of course, I’m aware of the Falklands conflict. The Brits didn’t come to the fight with the Harrier because it was the best aircraft they had. Rather they used the Harrier because it was the only aircraft it could get there. They won because they were better trained with more modern equipment. The U.S.-loaned AIM-9L was certainly helpful.

I don’t think anyone would argue that the British would have chosen the Harrier if they had had the option of big decks with traditional, contemporary carrier aircraft (F-14s and F-4s). In the Falklands, the British pilot/Harrier combination was good enough. But it was a close thing. And Argentina was hardly a first-rate power.

XanderCrews also wrote:

"but Who was Libya 2011? In several cases its was Harriers or nothing."

If Libya had been important enough to push through the diplomatic shenanigans, operations could have been conducted out of Sicily and elsewhere with better aircraft. Or the big decks could have done the job better.

XanderCrews also wrote:

"The F-35B is already vastly more safe than the aircraft its replacing, Hornet and Harrier."

I think I’d wait until it has an established operational record before making that statement. Nevertheless, I do hope you are correct.

XanderCrews also wrote:

"There would be no difference with Super Hornets in a lot of these cases, as the USMC's CONOPs isn't going to change. even hornets using MOREST gear, would face the same challenges,"

Yes, but a Hornet using MOREST is still dramatically more capable than its STOVL-penalized counterpart, the Harrier.

XanderCrews also wrote:

"You seem to think that STOVL is driving the forward basing concept."

Not at all. I just don’t think that forward-basing needs to be supported by STOVL.

XanderCrews also wrote:

"All tactical aircraft should possess a short/vertical take off and landing capability as soon as it is technically feasible without sacrificing existing mission capabilities," Gen. Randolph Pate 1957. Boy those idiots go way back. and the USMC got its first Harriers in the early 1970s...”

Idiocy goes back much further than that. And note that he does declare “as soon as it is technically feasible without sacrificing existing mission capabilities.” I’d offer the example of the Harriers operating from aboard ship during OIF. They carried one Litening pod and a single 500-pound weapon. Or two, 500-pound weapons that had to be buddy-lased from another aircraft or from the ground. It was a pitiful weapons load and represents what General Pate warned against: “sacrificing existing mission capabilities.”

F-35B also sacrifices capabilities for its STOVL attributes. Mr. Newton demands it.

XanderCrews also wrote:

"I'm sorry but just like how 15 years ago you were using the same arguments about the Super Hornet being a hunk of junk, and now think we should buy more of them for more services, I can't wait to see your opinion on the F-35B in 15 years."

Actually, newly-manufactured and modernized legacy Hornets would have been fine to this point and beyond, but the tools were destroyed to ensure the survival of the Super Hornet—no chance of any “backsies.” So, there is no other option.My point, fifteen years ago, was that the Super Hornet underperformed in certain aspects (it still does) and that it was not needed. The legacy Hornet could have been improved with many of the same attributes, and stayed in production for a lot less money until the JSF was available. However, no one understood at the time what a mess the JSF was.

Certainly the legacy Hornet is not as long-legged as the Super Hornet and can’t bring back as much ordnance to the ship. However, the legacy Hornet can still conduct long-range missions as evidenced by many operations since that time, and most recently against ISIS earlier this year from the Bush. Anyway, I’ll defend that article all day long.

XanderCrews also wrote:

"Harrier Combat is well documented and several books have been published by many "ignorant/liars" in multiple countries and languages."

Oh, it’s in books? Well never mind, then—that settles everything.

Actually, I covered Harrier ops in two of my books and greatly supported a Harrier pilot who wrote a very successful memoir. Remember, I love the crews but dislike the concept.

That Harrier pilots have been successful is due to their excellence as pilots. Had they flown a better aircraft from those same airfields (Kandahar, for example) they could have been even more successful.

People get distracted by the fact that Harrier pilots have done excellent work in spite of the aircraft.

XanderCrews also wrote:

"Appreciate your post, I'm going to save a lot of money by never buying one of your books. I'm embarrassed for you Jay."

Hmmm…evidence suggests otherwise. Anyway, I’m sorry I’ve caused you the discomfort of being embarrassed.

Blindpilot wrote:

"Without getting too specific, I always chuckle when I read some "expert's" opinion on the viability of forward deployments in austere environments."

I always chuckle at the notion of high performance jets sustaining operations in austere environments. Whenever the Harrier conducted shore-based operations on anything approaching a large scale, it’s been from an airbase.

smsgtmac wrote:

“Though I am now going to take a chance and buy Stout's "Men Who Killed the Luftwaffe", used, this weekend. I saw it earlier this week and thought about picking it up at the time.”

Thanks much for the patronage. Seriously. I do hope you like it. And used is fine...there are some excellent used book values out there. I do the same quite often.

Anyway…please bear in mind that this was an Op-Ed (Opinion-Editorial) intended to create discussion. It’s not a doctoral thesis with citations. I used hyperbole, overstatement and exaggeration as attention grabbers. I mean, who believes Taylor Swift can actually be bought for less than half-a-trillion? And the majority of the audience isn’t going to resonate with a discussion of requirements development, CONOPs, SDD, PDR, Milestone B, blah, blah, blah. Nevertheless, there is no arguing the point that the program has been a mess.

Finally, I wish everyone an excellent New Year.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2014, 03:15
by smsgtmac
Anyway…please bear in mind that this was an Op-Ed (Opinion-Editorial) intended to create discussion. It’s not a doctoral thesis with citations. I used hyperbole, overstatement and exaggeration as attention grabbers. I mean, who believes Taylor Swift can actually be bought for less than half-a-trillion? And the majority of the audience isn’t going to resonate with a discussion of requirements development, CONOPs, SDD, PDR, Milestone B, blah, blah, blah. Nevertheless, there is no arguing the point that the program has been a mess.


Yeah, there's a huge shortage of bomb-throwers needed to keep the 'discussion' going. Why just the other day I was marveling at the absolute dearth of outsiders playing nattering nabobs of negativity on all things F-35.
Then I woke up.
Happy New Year to you and all as well.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2014, 22:13
by quicksilver
Jay, you're an intelligent guy -- rather than mimicking the tin-hatters, the POGO crowd or the Boeing shills on the "163B over budget", take some time to learn a little about the difference between an estimate of possible future expenditures and an actual budget.

Here's a link to the most recent F-35 SAR.

http://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/u ... 13-SAR.pdf

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2014, 03:53
by spazsinbad
Some interestin' detail from the Marine Aviation Plan 2015.....
"...• Max gross weight: F-35B = 61,500 lbs; F-35C = 70,400 lbs

...[F-35B/C] Cruise speed w/ attack payload: .94M...

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2014, 09:26
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:Some interestin' detail from the Marine Aviation Plan 2015.....
"...• Max gross weight: F-35B = 61,500 lbs; F-35C = 70,400 lbs

...[F-35B/C] Cruise speed w/ attack payload: .94M...



Now "Cruise Speed" is not Maximum Speed on Military Power correct???

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2014, 13:57
by Dragon029
Well the F-35A does Mach 1.2 with full mil power; surely the F-35B's extra little volume behind the cockpit wouldn't cut that down to 0.94 right?

Cruise speed for airliners represents a point of peak efficiency in terms of distance traveled per gallon of fuel, etc; I don't imagine it being any different for combat aircraft.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2014, 14:47
by spazsinbad
:devil: READING IS BORING - I do the readin' so youse ain't bored? :mrgreen: :doh: Just a few woids about DSO and expeditionary ops real and training and whatever - just so's youse know. OK? :drool:
Marine Aviation Plan 2015 DISTRIBUTED STOVL OPERATIONS
"Strategic Context
Potential adversaries are increasingly becoming equipped with advanced anti-access, area denial(A2/AD) long-range precision strike capabilities that threaten traditional US power projection through fixed infrastructure and naval strike groups. The MAGTF is challenged with developing asymmetric operating concepts which counter an enemy A2/AD strategy, thereby allowing access for the joint force.

DSO Defined
Distributed short take-off, vertical land (STOVL) operations (DSO) is a threat-based limited objective operation which occurs primarily when the entire MAGTF cannot be brought to bear against the enemy. DSO asymmetrically moves inside of the enemy targeting cycle by using multiple mobile forward arming and refueling points (M-FARPs). Using existing infrastructure (multi-lane roads, small airfields, damaged main bases), DSO provides strategic depth and operational resiliency to the joint force.

DSO, coupled with the 5th generation low observable forcible entry capability of the F-35B, provides the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) with game-changing strategic access inside of the enemy weapons engagement zone (WEZ). The ability to operate inside of an A2/AD environment from multiple austere locations enables the joint force to have operational depth while simultaneously providing a strong deterrence to adversary aggression.

DSO Characteristics
- Can be executed with sea based or land based logistics and land sites. Shared logistics assets (whether from ships or main bases) support numerous dispersed M-FARPs through mobile distribution sites.

- Austere M-FARPs enable concept to be implemented at the time of crisis rather than requiring years of infrastructure preparation.

- DSO can rely on a passive defense if not operating in the vicinity of a main base or from a damaged main base airfield. M-FARPs are only active for a limited period of time to operate inside of an enemies targeting cycle (24-72 hrs). Deception and decoys further increased the efficacy of DSO.

- Scalable in size, DSO can range from MEU sized F-35B divisions supported by MV-22s/CH-53s to MEB sized multiple squadron packages. The specific footprint ashore is scenario based for designated M-FARPs.

- During the early phase of operations, the air combat element (ACE) is the supported effort and the ground combat element (GCE) and logistics combat element (LCE) are the supporting efforts in order to deploy and employ STOVL aircraft in an A2/AD environment.

- DSO study (Feb ‘14)) has proven the concept is logistically feasible using organic MEU/MEB air and surface connectors along with maritime prepositioning ship squadron (MPSRON) and Combat Logistics Force (CLF) ships.

- Scheduled aircraft maintenance conducted on sea base (LHA, LHD or a coalition carrier, such as the UK's Queen Elizabeth II) or at main base away from threat. DSO provides high sortie generation through fuel and ordnance reload inside of the threat WEZ....

...TODAY’S EXPEDITIONARY AVIATION GROUND SUPPORT FORCE
The Marine Wing Support Squadron (MWSS) provides the functional support necessary to enable Marine aviation operations in an expeditionary environment; these capabilities are also relevant to the joint force commander, where forward basing and the rapid build up and sustainment of aviation combat power are essential....

...A PROVEN COMBAT PEDIGREE
The importance of the MWSS and what it contributes to the commanders ability to generate and sustain combat power has been reinforced over the past twelve plus years of conflict in both Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) and Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF). In support of MAGTF and joint/coalition operations during these two conflicts, MWSSs continuously achieved results that far exceeded doctrinal employment expectations in both space and time. The MWSSs ability to consistently maintain a high operational tempo enabled the ACE to provide a sustained level of support across the functions of Marine aviation. MWSS accomplishments during OIF and OEF include;

• Installed over 6 million square feet of expeditionary airfield surface material, which included the construction of the largest expeditionary airfield in history at FOB Dwyer in Afghanistan.

• Constructed or established over 100 forward arming and refueling points (FARPs) and dozens of tactical landing zones (TLZs) by occupying existing airfields, repurposing roads, and installing vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) pads.

• Dispensed tens of millions of gallons of fuel to support both aviation and ground operations

• Constructed and operated numerous forward operating bases and provided critical life support and security for both aviation and ground tenant units

• Conducted numerous combat logistics patrols through contested areas to establish and resupply FARPs and TLZs.

These significant actions only serve to highlight the numerous accomplishments that directly contributed to the execution of thousands of combat sorties and the overall success of the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan....

...MARINE AVIATION WEAPONS AND TACTICS SQUADRON ONE...
...Distributed Operations
The MV-22 routinely practice conducting distributed operations missions with the AV-8B Harrier at Laguna Army Airfield. For the demonstration event, MV-22Bs will conduct ADGR and weapons reload for the AV-8B in support of AV-8B offensive air support execution. This falls in line with the F-35B’s desired capability to fight in anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) environments. With the F-35B, our MEUs and MEBs will have a fifth-generation low observable strike and sensor platform providing a unique and critical role in joint forcible entry operations.

Distributed operations are also well-rehearsed during separate evolutions involving “spider” forward arming and refueling points (FARPs). These rapidly deployable FARPS relocate on call reacting to mission requirements and maturation of the battlespace, and provide fuel and ordnance to Marine attack and utility helicopters....

EVOLUTION OF EXPEDITIONARY AVIATION GROUND SUPPORT THROUGH 2025
...MAINTAIN CRITICAL SUPPORT FOR MISSION ESSENTIAL TRAINING
Marine Corps Auxiliary Landing Field (MCALF) Bogue in Cape Carteret, North Carolina and the Strategic Expeditionary Landing Field (SELF) aboard Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC) in 29 Palms, California are premiere training sites designed to simulate the adverse conditions faced in austere operational environments.

This includes exercising emerging TTPs [Tactics Training Procedures] under the unique stresses associated with conducting mixed type, model, and series operations in a confined space using expeditionary surface material and lighting. By operating these sites, the MWSS enables the accomplishment of critical mission essential training and readiness qualification requirements for aviation units....

...• Establishing AGS [Aviation Ground Support] as the seventh function of Marine aviation. This change will result in a deeper institutional understanding of the inherent connection between the planning of AGS and the execution of successful expeditionary and distributed operations.

• Participation in the new global posture of the Marine Corps by supporting aviation operations to SPMAGTFs and Unit Deployment Program rotations.

• Enabling the new concept of distributed STOVL operations. This concept ensures a ready force forward, and ground support in a sine qua non for such distributed expeditionary operations.

• Publication of the MWSS T&R manual to facilitate the standardization of the unique combination of skills and equipment required to maintain a high level of readiness in assigned Mission Essential Tasks (MET).

• Development of Automated Information Systems (AIS) such as the EAF Design and Analysis Tool (EDAT) to standardize and expedite the design and logistical planning for expeditionary airfields.

• Conduct of a comprehensive Capabilities Based Assessment (CBA) for EAF and ARFF to ensure programmatics are aligned with emerging platforms and ACE employment concepts.

• Development of new concepts and procedures such as Mobile Forward Arming and Refueling Points (MFARP) to allow the MAGTF or joint commander to exploit the operational overmatch afforded by the expeditionary nature of rotary wing (RW), tiltrotor (TR), and short take off vertical landing (STOVL) aviation operating within an anti-access, area denial (A2AD) environment...."

Source: https://marinecorpsconceptsandprograms. ... 20Plan.pdf (16Mb)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2014, 15:22
by spazsinbad
Aaah "cruisin' for a bruisin'" - 'cruising' will be defined in F-35B/C NATOPS so as we do not have access to such a publication we may find a definition only in general terms. Firstly 'cruisin'' will not be done at 100% RPM. MilJet Engines these days are still likely to have a maximum time at this 100% and / or AB power for any length of time/sortie duration.

It is significant that the altitude was not given for the 'cruisin'' speed scenario. Still and all it is the first time I recall seeing such a number stated. Anyway here is some goobledegook from an oldenstyle NATOPS defining some of the variables for that aircraft (when drag index is not an issue for the superslick F-35s eh). Then there is an example from the SuperbHorny aircraft from: http://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-200.pdf (30Mb) & Lastly but not Leastly is the zoom to the Mach Number variation from that graph.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2014, 15:59
by spazsinbad
And some "cruise defs" for ye: also here: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=25735&p=276960&hilit=interest#p276960
GLOSSARY OF DEFINITIONS, GROUND RULES, AND MISSION PROFILES TO DEFINE AIR VEHICLE PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY
9 Sep 2008 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE STANDARD PRACTICE

"...3.5 Cruise MIL-STD-3013A
3.5.1 Cruise Altitude. Cruise altitude is defined as the altitude at which the cruise portion of the mission is conducted. For an unpressurized air vehicle, the cruise altitude without oxygen masks will not exceed 10,000 ft (Hp); with oxygen masks, it will not exceed 25,000 ft (Hp). A pressure suit is required for extended periods above 50,000 ft (Hp) in a pressurized air vehicle. In no case will cruise altitude exceed cruise ceiling.

3.5.2 Optimum Cruise Speed/Altitude. Optimum cruise speed/altitude is defined as the speed/altitude combination at which the air vehicle attains the maximum nautical miles per pound of fuel for a specified configuration and weight.

3.5.3 Constant Altitude Cruise. Constant altitude cruise is defined as flight at a constant altitude during the cruise portion of flight.

3.5.4 Cruise Climb. Cruise climb is defined as a cruise performed during a climb to maximize nautical miles per pound of fuel as fuel is consumed.

3.5.5 Step Climb Cruise. Step climb cruise is defined as a cruise technique that is a compromise between constant altitude cruise and a cruise climb. In practice, the desired gradual altitude increase of the cruise climb is approximated by increasing altitude in discrete steps.

3.5.6 Maximum-Range Cruise Speed. Maximum-range cruise speed is defined as the speed at which maximum nautical miles per pound of fuel is attainable at a specified configuration, weight, and altitude.

3.5.7 Long-Range Cruise Speed. Long-range cruise speed is defined as the higher of the two speeds which yields 99-percent (99%) of the maximum nautical miles per pound of fuel for a specified configuration, weight, and altitude. Optimum long-range cruise takes place at the same altitude as the optimum value of maximum range cruise.

3.5.8 Average Cruise Speed. Average cruise speed is defined as the total distance covered in the cruise portion of flight divided by the time for cruise.

3.5.9 Maximum Cruise Speed. Maximum cruise speed is defined as the highest level flight speed that can be maintained at the Maximum Continuous (Intermediate for augmented-engine-powered air vehicles) thrust (power) setting at the specified configuration, weight, and altitude...."

Source: http://www.everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-ST ... 022905.PDF (1Mb)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2014, 19:34
by XanderCrews
Certainly the words “jackass” and “idiot” are unflattering. And I considered that fact before I used them. I also considered the fact that these leaders helped to set the conditions for a program that has overrun its budget by $163B. So far. I’m definitely no dove, but that overrun could pay for a lot of bridges and other useful projects.


We should elect a guy who will spend 800 billion dollars as a stimulus for infrastructure like bridges. That would take care of it. too bad that never happened... oh wait!

I’ve noted statements which indicate that STOVL had no influence on the other variants. So then, that is akin to declaring that the F-35A is the aircraft the Air Force would have built had the Marine Corps never existed. And that there is nothing about the F-35A that has any relationship or/lineage to the STOVL requirement.

I’m unconvinced. But if those statements are correct…it makes for a more tragic story. It would be very sad indeed if the F-35A were the best clean-sheet design the Air Force could create.


So was the Super Hornet Compromised because of STOVL?

I remember people saying the same thing about the Hornet ("compromised", and "is that your best?") and then you said the same thing about the Super hornet. Before changing your mind of course. Now the Super is awesome, and all those same "idiots" were right. how about that?


Yes, our staunchest ally has changed its mind twice on this. That’s how wary of the concept they’ve been.


Immaterial as it turns out.

My context was U.S. conflicts and campaigns. Of course, I’m aware of the Falklands conflict.


I'd forgive it if only the USMC evey used STOVL/VSTOL harriers, but when you are trying to go after a broad concept like STOVL/VSTOL, and then leaving out a clearly successful use of that concept, one might get the impression you are excluding it to support your own narrative and false conclusion.

The Brits didn’t come to the fight with the Harrier because it was the best aircraft they had. Rather they used the Harrier because it was the only aircraft it could get there. They won because they were better trained with more modern equipment. The U.S.-loaned AIM-9L was certainly helpful.

I don’t think anyone would argue that the British would have chosen the Harrier if they had had the option of big decks with traditional, contemporary carrier aircraft (F-14s and F-4s). In the Falklands, the British pilot/Harrier combination was good enough. But it was a close thing. And Argentina was hardly a first-rate power.



20-0 including Mirages and A-4s but yeah ok "close thing". You may also want to check to weather conditions and how that would have affected conventional cat and trap ops. lastly, not everyone can afford cat and trap carriers. last I checked not even the US could afford Tomcats anymore-- hence the Super Hornet, but you know all about that. Speaking of, Tomcats were never complex maint hogs. no sir. never. complex folding wings...

If Libya had been important enough to push through the diplomatic shenanigans, operations could have been conducted out of Sicily and elsewhere with better aircraft. Or the big decks could have done the job better.


But guess what happened, jay? So other than all these real world examples that should have gone a different way in an alternative universe anyway, what do you got? other than all the successes it sucks. Feel the same way about the Super Hornet?

"The F-35B is already vastly more safe than the aircraft its replacing, Hornet and Harrier."

I think I’d wait until it has an established operational record before making that statement. Nevertheless, I do hope you are correct.


looking good so far.


XanderCrews also wrote:

"There would be no difference with Super Hornets in a lot of these cases, as the USMC's CONOPs isn't going to change. even hornets using MOREST gear, would face the same challenges,"

Yes, but a Hornet using MOREST is still dramatically more capable than its STOVL-penalized counterpart, the Harrier.


Again, replacing the Harrier.

XanderCrews also wrote:

"You seem to think that STOVL is driving the forward basing concept."

Not at all. I just don’t think that forward-basing needs to be supported by STOVL.


yet your biggest gripe is the logistics of supporting modern fighters in forward bases:

"I always chuckle when I read some "expert's" opinion on the viability of forward deployments in austere environments."

So...?

Idiocy goes back much further than that. And note that he does declare “as soon as it is technically feasible without sacrificing existing mission capabilities.” I’d offer the example of the Harriers operating from aboard ship during OIF. They carried one Litening pod and a single 500-pound weapon. Or two, 500-pound weapons that had to be buddy-lased from another aircraft or from the ground. It was a pitiful weapons load and represents what General Pate warned against: “sacrificing existing mission capabilities.”


Interesting seeing as it was comparable to an A-4 initially and only got better with the follow on design.

F-35B also sacrifices capabilities for its STOVL attributes. Mr. Newton demands it.


And yet its comparable and superior in a lot of cases to the Super Hornet, which you say is the logical alternative. thoughts? and the Rhino is superior in most cases than the legacy.

Actually, newly-manufactured and modernized legacy Hornets would have been fine to this point and beyond, but the tools were destroyed to ensure the survival of the Super Hornet—no chance of any “backsies.” So, there is no other option.My point, fifteen years ago, was that the Super Hornet underperformed in certain aspects (it still does) and that it was not needed. The legacy Hornet could have been improved with many of the same attributes, and stayed in production for a lot less money until the JSF was available. However, no one understood at the time what a mess the JSF was.


LOL umm ok.

Certainly the legacy Hornet is not as long-legged as the Super Hornet and can’t bring back as much ordnance to the ship. However, the legacy Hornet can still conduct long-range missions as evidenced by many operations since that time, and most recently against ISIS earlier this year from the Bush. Anyway, I’ll defend that article all day long.


Neat. That Super Hornet turned out to be pretty great. care to admit your error? whats the score so far jay? you seem to be down a goal.


Oh, it’s in books? Well never mind, then—that settles everything.


Good point, you of all people know how easy it is for an author to twist things. Seems like anyone can write a book now claiming to be a historian. I understand your suspicion. but you still made a bold claim that anyone who dare defends it is a liar or ignorant...

Actually, I covered Harrier ops in two of my books and greatly supported a Harrier pilot who wrote a very successful memoir. Remember, I love the crews but dislike the concept.


was he an ignorant liar too?

You seem to be confusing the concept with the Harrier too. ITs not the only STOVL game in town now. Its actually looking like the F-35B is better than your legacy hornet. (it is)

That Harrier pilots have been successful is due to their excellence as pilots. Had they flown a better aircraft from those same airfields (Kandahar, for example) they could have been even more successful.


of course. They would have been more successful because they would be supporting your narrative.


Anyway…please bear in mind that this was an Op-Ed (Opinion-Editorial) intended to create discussion. It’s not a doctoral thesis with citations. I used hyperbole, overstatement and exaggeration as attention grabbers. I mean, who believes Taylor Swift can actually be bought for less than half-a-trillion? And the majority of the audience isn’t going to resonate with a discussion of requirements development, CONOPs, SDD, PDR, Milestone B, blah, blah, blah.


Facts and accuracy take a back seat, roger that. what did you say again about idiots, liars, *****, and ignorance? Its probably not important.

Nevertheless, there is no arguing the point that the program has been a mess.


like the Super Hornet of course. I'm sure this is a "real wolf" not like the last time you cried it.

happy new year Jay

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2014, 01:04
by spazsinbad
I do not believe this video has been highlighted before - a bit old - but - some interesting snippets nevertheless.
F-35B and F-35C
LockheedMartinVideos Published on Oct 5, 2012

"Video footage of F-35B and F-35C test flights compiled for Tailhook 2012. Note: Footage 00:05 -- 00:06 is computer generated."


Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2014, 07:16
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:Some interestin' detail from the Marine Aviation Plan 2015.....
"...• Max gross weight: F-35B = 61,500 lbs; F-35C = 70,400 lbs

...[F-35B/C] Cruise speed w/ attack payload: .94M...



Older Article about the Typhoon but interesting nonetheless.....Quote: acceleration was impressive and climb rate rapid to our transit altitude of 33,000ft and cruise speed of Mach 0.85.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ng-213442/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2015, 05:03
by bring_it_on

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2015, 06:40
by spazsinbad
A recent update to that tome is available here: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Dimensional ... F46JPBFA93

NOT Having Read either book I would guess that it is a compilation of a lot of SLDinfo articles?

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2015, 15:04
by bring_it_on
spazsinbad wrote:A recent update to that tome is available here: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Dimensional ... F46JPBFA93

NOT Having Read either book I would guess that it is a compilation of a lot of SLDinfo articles?


Yup, it looks like that from the free preview on Amazon.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2015, 22:06
by jayastout
XanderCrews,

There is much in your last post that doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t mean that in a snarky or snide way; in some instances I just don’t understand what your point is and consequently can’t reply.

I will address a couple of points:

First, I’ve not had a change of heart about the Super Hornet and many of the shortcomings I noted still stand. The legacy Hornet, had it been kept in production and updated as appropriate, would have been more than adequate for every contingency up to now and beyond. For less money. I only offered the Super Hornet as an option to replace F-35B because the tooling for the legacy Hornet was destroyed—it’s out of production.

There are no other realistic options aside from the F-35C.

Yes, the Falklands War was considered a very close thing. Two destroyers lost, two frigates and some other cats and dogs. Had the Argentines adjusted the fuzing on their bombs it would have been a much closer thing. David Craig, the Marshal of the Royal Air Force declared, "Six better fuses and we would have lost."

And the Harriers were so dominant in large part because of the AIM-9L which was hurried into service. Sandy Woodward, who commanded the RN task group said: “President Reagan's Defence Secretary Caspar Weinberger himself moved us to the head of the queue and it is now perfectly clear to me that without those AIM-9L the Sea Harriers would not have been good enough [my emphasis]”

Had the Argentines been similarly equipped, I think the numbers would have been markedly different. Anyway, I always thought it was a great advantage to have forward quarter options when my opponent did not.

And I’m confident that conventional carriers could have operated in the weather conditions extant at the time.

Your reference to the A-4 versus the Harrier…is interesting. The A-4 launched from the ship with thousands of pounds of weapons during the 1960s. The Harrier, during OIF, almost forty years later, launched from the ship with one or two 500-pound bombs. Had the Navy/Marine Corps spent just a portion of the money on the A-4 that they spent on the Harrier, they would have had a modern and much more capable aircraft.

No Harrier pilot that I worked with would have declared the AV-8B program as a great success. Too much time spent not flying because the aircraft was grounded. Too many dear friends dead.

Comparing the Super Hornet mess to the F-35 mess is like comparing the stomach flu to Ebola.

Anyway, as they say, time will tell.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2015, 22:46
by spazsinbad
I have found the contention that conventional aircraft carriers could operate at any time in the South Atlantic to be bogus. Here are some quotes from some who will have known - with context.
V/STOL: Neither Myth Nor Promise—But Fact
Sep-Oct 1982 Wing Commander John D. L. Feesey, Royal Air Force Air University Review

"...In a remarkable demonstration of the inherent flexibility of V/STOL, RAF Harriers flown by pilots with no previous deck experience operated successfully from naval aircraft carriers and the converted cargo ship Atlantic Conveyor. Sea Harriers frequently landed on the helicopter flight decks of destroyers to refuel, thus freeing carrier decks for other uses. A total of more than 2000 Harrier sorties was flown from aircraft carriers during the conflict, an impressive average
of about six per day per aircraft.2 Any doubts about the effectiveness of the Harrier as a versatile fighter must surely have been removed by its outstanding record in the Falkland Islands War.

note 2: Aviation Week & Space Technology, July 19, 1982, p. 20.

Source: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airc ... eesey.html

THE RAF HARRIER STORY - OPERATIONS – GR3
Air Chf Mshl Sir Peter Squire | 2006

"...Incidentally, whilst embarked in Ark Royal in 1971, Ken Hayr had already demonstrated the Harrier’s ability to operate from the deck in weather well below the limits for conventional jet aircraft, and this was proven again – several times – during operations in the South Atlantic. In cloud bases of 200 ft and visibility of half a mile, Harriers slowed to 60 knots on the CCA, descended to 100 ft, identified the carrier’s wake and motored slowly forward until the superstructure appeared from the gloom, leaving just time to establish a hover alongside FLYCO....

...Landing on the forward spot [of Atlantic Conveyor] in a heavy rolling swell off Georgetown (Ascension) was probably one of the more demanding flying events of our deployment... However, the use of Atlantic Conveyor as a carrier of aircraft with the ability to launch and recover whilst in transit, is an interesting reflection of the Harrier’s versatility....”

Source: http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk.nyud.net/do ... -Story.pdf (25.6Mb)

V/STOL SHIPBOARD RECOVERY: “IT’S NOT JUST ANOTHER CARRIER LANDING”
12 Apr 2002 Major A. G. Shorter, USMC

"......In the past, there was seldom a mention of instrument or night recoveries with respect to the Harrier. That is not because these recoveries were not executed early in the aircraft’s development; on the contrary, history is replete with examples of Harriers recovering in weather conditions that would have normally grounded CTOL aircraft. This fact is best described by a passage from V/STOL in the Roaring Forties, dealing with the RN’s experiences during the Falkland War of 1982:
‘For much of the task force’s time in the South Atlantic, the weather was almost a second adversary. It was not without good reason, in the heyday of the sailing ship, that these ports of the southern ocean became known as the roaring forties. The flight decks of the carriers were moving vertically at times through 30 feet and the weather produced cloud bases typically [down to] 200 feet and often down to 100 feet during flying operations. Visibility was typically ½ nautical mile and often much less. One Harrier recovered to the deck of the [HMS] Hermes in horizontal visibility of 50 meters [on] one notable occasion. The time honoured carrier trick of dropping flares at intervals into the ship’s wake was used, but it was the Sea Harrier’s facility to approach the ship using its internal approach aid & Blue Fox radar at part jetborne [slow] closing speeds of a few tens of knots which primarily provided the safety and hence the success in bad weather recovery.

No conventional fixed-wing naval aircraft could have operated with adequate safety in such conditions, thus supporting the claim that the greatest military contribution made by the V/STOL and STOVL aircraft is in the vertical landing phase of operation. In the Harrier, this phase is made safer, easier and more flexible than in any other combat aircraft’....”


Source: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA407726

I would gather STOVL people will know the name 'John Farley'?
No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
29th Mar 2012, 10:38 #303
Quote [elsewhere]: ‘but would we have been better off in the Falklands with a squadron of Buccs and and one of F4s?’ | John Farley answers:
“Of course. But only if they could have been operated. The Wx down there [South Atlantic] was grim especially the vis and flying up a line of floating flares until you get to the ship is not something a Bucc or F4 pilot would want to do. Over and over sens-ible people seem to ignore the incredible value of being able to slow right down when landing. Unless you have tried it perhaps you cannot grasp how (relatively) relaxed this makes you feel even if you literally have ony two minutes fuel. (Just think how bored you are watching somebody near you sit in a hover for two minutes).

Not wishing to flog a dead horse but one night I was doing visual circuits round Foch with a French naval aviator in a civil reg two seater (no HUD or stabs) somewhere in the Bay of Biscay. We got to landing fuel but I succumbed to the plea for one more circuit. On the downwind leg the ship vanished. They called to say they had driven into a patch of low stratus and could not see the masthead light from the deck. I asked for a radar line up and ranges every half mile and told my French mate not to let me go below 100 ft. I kept slowing down and gingerly stepping down on the VSI and altimeter until we found the ship about one length astern. After landing I bollocked said mate for not mentioning we were now below 100ft.

Honestly, ship motion and vis that would rule out an arrested landing are not of concern if you can hover.”


Source: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... 5b-16.html

‘V/STOL in the Roaring Forties’, dealing with the RN’s experiences during the Falkland War of 1982:
1982 British Aerospace Pamphlet

“For much of the task force’s time in the South Atlantic, the weather was almost a second adversary. It was not without good reason, in the heyday of the sailing ship, that these ports of the southern ocean became known as the roaring forties. The flight decks of the carriers were moving vertically at times through 30 feet and the weather produced cloud bases typically [down to] 200 feet and often down to 100 feet during flying operations. Visibility was typically ½ nautical mile and often much less. One Harrier recovered to the deck of the [HMS] Hermes in horizontal visibility of 50 meters [on] one notable occasion. The time honoured carrier trick of dropping flares at intervals into the ship’s wake was used, but it was the Sea Harrier’s facility to approach the ship using its internal approach aid and Blue Fox radar at part jetborne [slow] closing speeds of a few tens of knots which primarily provided the safety and hence the success in bad weather recovery.

No conventional fixed-wing naval aircraft could have operated with adequate safety in such conditions, thus supporting the claim that the greatest military contribution made by the V/STOL and STOVL aircraft is in the vertical landing phase of operation. In the Harrier, this phase is made safer, easier and more flexible than in any other combat aircraft.”

Source: British Aerospace Pamphlet, V/STOL in the Roaring Forties: 75 days in the South Atlantic (Titchfield, England: Polygraphic Limited. 1982), 16.

Flying the Sea Harrier: a test pilot’s perspective
20 Apr 2009 Peter Collins, Flight International

“Royal Navy Cdr Nigel "Sharkey" Ward and the Royal Air Force's David Morgan gained their place in British military folklore by flying the navy's British Aerospace Sea Harrier FRS1 fighter with distinction during the 1982 Falklands War. Flight International's UK test pilot Peter Collins offers a rare insight on flying the "SHAR", having sailed south aboard the rapidly completed aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious as the combat action drew to a close.

Freshly posted to Germany as an RAF Harrier GR3 ground-attack pilot, Collins was recalled to the UK after the war broke out and diverted to the Fleet Air Arm for a short tour flying the Sea Harrier. Type conversion was conducted with 899 NAS at RNAS Yeovilton in Somerset between June and July 1982. "My first memory is of my first FRS1 familiarisation flight, including 'Ski Jump' launch," says Collins. "The FRS1 cockpit wasn't like the GR3's at all, with the engine and critical aircraft systems instrumentation on the left [rather than the right], to allow space for the Blue Fox radar display. There was no Sea Harrier T-Bird [two-seat trainer] and no simulator training; just a quick cockpit self-assessment in the last FRS1 left in the UK. And then go: taxi up to the very bottom of the ramp, gaze upwards at what looked like Mount Snowdon (the ramp was set at the maximum angle of around 18°), remember some words of wisdom from somewhere, pause, slam the throttle, depart the lip, take nozzles and fly away. Piece of cake!"

Collins then moved aboard HMS Illustrious – aka "Lusty" – with 809 NAS for the voyage to the South Atlantic. The vessel arrived in the Falkland Islands Protection Zone in late August, with its SHARs flying combat air patrol sorties to plug a gap until a new landing strip could be completed for the RAF. Recalling one experience, Collins says: "It was a perfect day, but Lusty was heaving in a massive swell and the flight deck was pitching through 6°. I manoeuvred into my launch position while Flyco [Flying Co-ordination] had a think about it. Through my forward canopy the entire world alternated from completely bright blue to completely bright green (the sea was alive with plankton) as the ship pitched through more angles than I had ever seen before. Refusing the launch is mutiny: it has to be done by the pilot slamming the throttle as the deck starts to pitch down. Thankfully Flyco scrubbed the launch!" Illustrious returned home after two months of duty, with Collins having logged a total of 66 deck landings. "I am immensely proud of my short time with the Fleet Air Arm," says Collins. "I wish them every continued success as a uniquely professional element of our fighting services.”

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ctive.html

Corbett Paper No 13
The interoperability of future UK air power, afloat and ashore: a historical analysis

Jan 2014 Tim Benbow and James Bosbotinis

"...18 May [1982]: Four Harrier GR3s cross-decked from Atlantic Conveyor to Hermes (the other two aircraft were unserviceable and joined Hermes subsequently). On 19 May, four additional Harrier GR3s deployed to Hermes with the aid of air-to-air refuelling, bringing the number of Harriers aboard Hermes to ten, alongside 14 Sea Harriers.

Three of the pilots from 1(F) Squadron had prior experience of landing on ship; Squadron Leaders Bob Iveson, Peter Harris and Tim Smith had previous experience via the US Marine Corps. The Squadron had prior to its deployment undertaken some ski jump training at Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton and, whilst embarked on Atlantic Conveyor, joint ground training with personnel from 809 NAS.

For the most part, no major problems were encountered with integrating 1(F) Squadron aboard HMS Hermes. This was because the Squadron:
…joined a well-founded airfield [VERY FUNNY HaHA!] that was experienced in the safe operation of Harriers in poor weather and with a fully worked up Air Department optimised for the environment. They were supported and trained by the existing carrier system. They also had the benefit of dovetailing with the RN’s 800 Sqn, who provided deck briefings and an intensive work-up package. Their minds were firmly focussed upon the dangers of operating from a ship.


Source: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/d ... aper13.pdf (1.2Mb)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2015, 00:27
by XanderCrews
jayastout wrote:
First, I’ve not had a change of heart about the Super Hornet and many of the shortcomings I noted still stand. The legacy Hornet, had it been kept in production and updated as appropriate, would have been more than adequate for every contingency up to now and beyond. For less money. I only offered the Super Hornet as an option to replace F-35B because the tooling for the legacy Hornet was destroyed—it’s out of production.

There are no other realistic options aside from the F-35C.


Keeping in mind just how similiar the B and C are.

Yes, the Falklands War was considered a very close thing. Two destroyers lost, two frigates and some other cats and dogs. Had the Argentines adjusted the fuzing on their bombs it would have been a much closer thing. David Craig, the Marshal of the Royal Air Force declared, "Six better fuses and we would have lost."


It would have been a sure loss without the harrier. Thus validating STOVL/VSTOL. Please add this to Spaz's post above as well.

And the Harriers were so dominant in large part because of the AIM-9L which was hurried into service. Sandy Woodward, who commanded the RN task group said: “President Reagan's Defence Secretary Caspar Weinberger himself moved us to the head of the queue and it is now perfectly clear to me that without those AIM-9L the Sea Harriers would not have been good enough [my emphasis]”


so?

And I’m confident that conventional carriers could have operated in the weather conditions extant at the time.


based on what?

Your reference to the A-4 versus the Harrier…is interesting. The A-4 launched from the ship with thousands of pounds of weapons during the 1960s. The Harrier, during OIF, almost forty years later, launched from the ship with one or two 500-pound bombs. Had the Navy/Marine Corps spent just a portion of the money on the A-4 that they spent on the Harrier, they would have had a modern and much more capable aircraft.


Not my reference.

No Harrier pilot that I worked with would have declared the AV-8B program as a great success. Too much time spent not flying because the aircraft was grounded. Too many dear friends dead.


I guess we know different Harrier pilots, and once again VSTOL STOVL is no longer just the Harrier's game. how many British Harrier pilots do you know BTW? If a particular helicopter struggles for example, it doesn't negate the need for rotary wing aircraft. Air Arms are far ore interested in the B than the C as well

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2015, 02:27
by basher54321
jayastout wrote:And the Harriers were so dominant in large part because of the AIM-9L which was hurried into service. Sandy Woodward, who commanded the RN task group said: “President Reagan's Defence Secretary Caspar Weinberger himself moved us to the head of the queue and it is now perfectly clear to me that without those AIM-9L the Sea Harriers would not have been good enough [my emphasis]”

Had the Argentines been similarly equipped, I think the numbers would have been markedly different.


Don't agree here - they would have been fine with the AIM-9G - the pilots training and tactics were a bigger reason and it was all geared to rear aspect missile employment. The AIM-9L was not a wonder weapon and had to be employed strict in parameters still - and you might find most were employed rear aspect - I have only seen one account of a head on attempt and it wouldn't lock on.
AFAIK the European supplier had not got AIM-9L production going so a US shipment was delivered to the fleet on the way there.

jayastout wrote:And I’m confident that conventional carriers could have operated in the weather conditions extant at the time.


Mute point really - they were stuck with through deck cruisers so had to make do.

jayastout wrote:Your reference to the A-4 versus the Harrier…is interesting. The A-4 launched from the ship with thousands of pounds of weapons during the 1960s. The Harrier, during OIF, almost forty years later, launched from the ship with one or two 500-pound bombs. Had the Navy/Marine Corps spent just a portion of the money on the A-4 that they spent on the Harrier, they would have had a modern and much more capable aircraft.


The A-4s were cat launched - good luck to it getting off a ski ramp with that payload (See stuck with Through Deck Cruiser). Also pretty sure the SHAR had a far better bombing system than the 1960s A-4s so carpet dive bombing was not required.
I would agree that the fleet Air defence seems to have been inadequate - probably due to the NATO role it was geared to - they needed a better AEW platform sitting miles out - something Ark Royal probably had. I think the SHAR had no look down radar at the time and intercepting the Super Etendards was never going to happen - they were probably on their way home long before anyone likely knew an Exocet was coming. (Good job they only had 5 missiles)


The F-35B appears to address all the problems the SHAR had in 82 and adds far more capability...............TBH the 1982 SHAR might as well be a Sopwith Camel looking at the massive gap in tech capability and performance!

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2015, 15:43
by quicksilver
Good that Basher points out the 'L' reality -- G/H would have been sufficient.

Actually, what people launch off the front of any ship with is always a matter of trade-offs given the circumstances. The just "one or two bombs" Harrier meme is disingenuous because it reflects about what everyone was going north with (including the SHs with 2x 2k JDAM), and doesn't reflect the amount of 'stuff' that was carried for the purposes necessary at the time. IIRC OIF Harriers launched off the ship with about 7K# of stuff strapped on -- 4K fuel, 2x GBU 12 or 1 GBU-16, 1300# of gun and ammo, a 400# ALQ, a 400# Litening pod, and a couple missiles. L-pods supported much more than the wingmen; ALQ could have been sacrificed for other options, fuel stations could have been loaded w ordnance with more tanker support (like the folks off of the CVNs routinely got), etc etc.

There are lotsa different ways to skin the tactical cat. But the operational/strategic reality is that what something else can or cannot carry or do is irrelevant if they're not there. If a country cannot afford cat and traps it doesnt matter what those ships can do; it doesnt matter what some other kind of aircraft might do hypothetically-speaking because they're not gonna be there.

Here's my proposal -- since one B-1 or B-2 with SDBs can cover a CVW-worth of DMPIs per day, let's buy more bombers and do away with all Navy and Marine TACAIR. Saves money, keeps the troops home, saves lives. :doh:

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2015, 16:03
by XanderCrews
quicksilver wrote:Good that Basher points out the 'L' reality -- G/H would have been sufficient.

Actually, what people launch off the front of any ship with is always a matter of trade-offs given the circumstances. The just "one or two bombs" Harrier meme is disingenuous because it reflects about what everyone was going north with (including the SHs with 2x 2k JDAM), and doesn't reflect the amount of 'stuff' that was carried for the purposes necessary at the time. IIRC OIF Harriers launched off the ship with about 7K# of stuff strapped on -- 4K fuel, 2x GBU 12 or 1 GBU-16, 1300# of gun and ammo, a 400# ALQ, a 400# Litening pod, and a couple missiles. L-pods supported much more than the wingmen; ALQ could have been sacrificed for other options, fuel stations could have been loaded w ordnance with more tanker support (like the folks off of the CVNs routinely got), etc etc.

There are lotsa different ways to skin the tactical cat. But the operational/strategic reality is that what something else can or cannot carry or do is irrelevant if they're not there. If a country cannot afford cat and traps it doesnt matter what those ships can do; it doesnt matter what some other kind of aircraft might do hypothetically-speaking because they're not gonna be there.

Here's my proposal -- since one B-1 or B-2 with SDBs can cover a CVW-worth of DMPIs per day, let's buy more bombers and do away with all Navy and Marine TACAIR. Saves money, keeps the troops home, saves lives. :doh:


Didn't SMSGT Mac have some cool tidbit about thanks to forward deploying Harriers in 1991. Tanker Assets were freed up for other missions as well?

I would also like to know how additional aircraft could have been brought in via cargo ship in the Falklands...

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/wp-conten ... .jpg?w=496

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2015, 01:14
by spazsinbad
On page four of this thread there are some uplifting waspish photos of the F-35B - here is anotherie - overlyhung?:

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=26629&p=282959&hilit=overhung#p282959

PHOTO BELOW: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/ima ... 00x467.jpg
"(Simon M Bruty/Any Chance Productions/Getty Images)"

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2015, 02:04
by spazsinbad
P'raps this item should be elsewhere but I think relevant because of the info about USMC Cees to Eglin info below: [and YES the news is a bit old but only reported TODAY]
Marines receive first F-35C Lightning II carrier variant
23 Jan 2015 Story by Staff Sgt. Marleah Robertson; 33rd Fighter Wing/Public Affairs

"...EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. - The first F-35C Lightning II, carrier variant, for the U.S. Marine Corps touched-down on the flight line here, Jan. 13, from the Lockheed Martin plant in Fort Worth, Texas, to begin training in support of carrier-based operations.

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....

...[The F-35C] also allows the Marine Corps to fly aboard Navy aircraft carriers, which continues an effective and long-standing tactical air integration program between the Navy and Marine Corps.

“In the past, Marines have been trained to fly the Navy’s F-18 Hornet to share the load of deployment cycles,” said Ryan. “Now, Marine pilots will be flying the F-35C with the Navy’s Carrier Air Wings while deployed aboard aircraft carriers.”

The first operational Marine Corps F-35C fleet squadron, VMFA-115, is scheduled to stand up at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, South Carolina, in 2019....

Source: http://www.dvidshub.net/news/152593/mar ... er-variant

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2015, 22:58
by spazsinbad
NOW LM Fast Facts 02 Feb 2015 reflect the change in USMC mix of F-35Bs and F-35Cs:
F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts ATTACHED BELOW
02 Feb 2015 LM PR

"Planned Quantities
USAF 1,763 F-35As
USN 260 F-35Cs
USMC 353 F-35Bs/67 F-35Cs
U.K. RAF/RN 138 F-35Bs
Italy 60 F-35As/30 F-35Bs
Netherlands 37 F-35As
Turkey 100 F-35As
Australia 100 F-35As
Norway 52 F-35As
Denmark 30 F-35As
Canada 65 F-35As
Israel 33 F-35As
S. Korea 40 F-35As
Japan 42 F-35As"

Source: https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/down ... ruary_2015)_2.pdf (65Kb)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2015, 23:17
by KamenRiderBlade
Why didn't the Brits split buy F-35A for the RAF & F-35B for the RN instead of going in all F-35B's?

Does it have to do with the F-35B and the money going to Rolls Royce for the lift fan?

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2015, 23:23
by cantaz
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Why didn't the Brits split buy F-35A for the RAF & F-35B for the RN instead of going in all F-35B's?


The Brits are wholely invested in their Eurofighter for their land-based fighter needs.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2015, 23:26
by mrigdon
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Why didn't the Brits split buy F-35A for the RAF & F-35B for the RN instead of going in all F-35B's?

Does it have to do with the F-35B and the money going to Rolls Royce for the lift fan?


There are so few operators of the B that every airframe counts more towards lowering unit cost? The Royal Navy doesn't need more than a couple dozen. Shave a hundred airframes off and the cost per goes up quite a bit. Plus, the Brits may be thinking of future foreign engagements where they can't make use of U.S. airbases. In that case, the B opens up more airfields that might not be long enough for a fully loaded A to take off from.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2015, 01:01
by XanderCrews
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Why didn't the Brits split buy F-35A for the RAF & F-35B for the RN instead of going in all F-35B's?

Does it have to do with the F-35B and the money going to Rolls Royce for the lift fan?



RAF and RN operated Harriers and RAF HArriers deployed to carriers including in combat in the falklands, eventually it was made official with Joint Force Harrier which technically fell under RAF command.

Image

RAF GR.3

Much later with a GR.7

Image

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2015, 09:38
by spazsinbad
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOSEPH DUNFORD COMMANDANT UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
BEFORE THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE
ON
26 FEBRUARY 2015

"...Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) pp14-16
Our tried and true F/A-18s, AV-8Bs and EA-6B Prowlers have performed magnificently in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, providing our Marine riflemen the fires they needed, in every clime and place from sea bases large and small, and expeditionary bases ashore. With the help of Congress, we have kept these aircraft as modern as possible and extracted every ounce of readiness we can from them; however, the high operational tempo has pushed these aircraft to more rapidly approach the end of their service lives. Due to the uncertainty prevalent in today’s global security environment, the Nation requires we maintain a capability to respond quickly in contested regions regardless of weather conditions. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, as part of the MAGTF, meets the Nation’s needs.

The Marine Corps remains committed to the recapitalization of our aging TACAIR fleet through the procurement of the F-35. The JSF brings a new capability to the battalion sized forces that sail with our Marine Expeditionary Units. Today, there are a multitude of high risk regions where a crisis response operation would require large Joint strike packages to soften or blind the threat. These packages would have to include cruise missiles, fighter aircraft, electronic warfare platforms, aircraft which specialize in suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses, and strike aircraft - just for U.S. forces to gain access. Such strike packages require coordination across services and combatant commands and take weeks and months to assemble. This same kind of access can be attained with a single detachment of 4 to 8 F-35s - the same sized detachment which will reside with a Marine Expeditionary Unit. [Good news for F-35Bs on Oz LHDs] For major contingencies, a surge of F-35Bs to our amphibious carrier decks and forward austere bases enables even greater options and striking power. The F-35 provides a transformational capability to the Marine Corps and the Joint Force. It gives our Nation a day one, full spectrum capability against the most critical and prohibitive threats.

The Marine Corps prioritizes putting our TACAIR as close to our infantry as we can by basing them from Amphibious Carriers or austere Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) and Forward Arming and Refueling Points (FARPs) ashore. This places the F-35’s transformational capabilities in the hands of the infantry Marine. The Marine rifleman is now supported immediately with close air support, electronic warfare capabilities, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support in threat and weather conditions which previously would have denied aviation support. The F-35's ability to develop, process, and display information to the pilot and disseminate it at tactical, operational, and strategic levels is what makes the platform truly unique, "a server in the sky" for the MAGTF. The sensors and communications equipment of our F-35s allow pilots and forward air controllers to see through the clouds to exchange high fidelity pictures in environments we would consider a no go today. Enhancing the C2, strike and intel capabilities of the MAGTF commander, the F-35 transforms the MAGTF into an element capable of penetrating any AOR in the world to set the conditions necessary to enable follow-on forces.

The Marine Corps has maintained the lead in this transformational platform. The F-35B and C models will replace the over 23 year old F/A-18 Hornet, 18 year old AV-8B Harrier and the 27 year old EA-6B Prowler; the same aircraft that have been passed from fathers to sons and daughters now serving. We have stood up our first two squadrons of F-35Bs and will stand up a third in 2016. PB16 supports the Marine Corps’ timeline to achieve IOC of its first F-35B squadron later this year and complete full transition by 2031. With the optempo expected to remain high, we will transition to F-35s as rapidly as possible. Continued Congressional support for this transition is key to increasing our degraded aviation readiness and minimizing our exposure to ever increasing operations and support costs for aged aircraft."

Source: https://www.scribd.com/document_downloa ... ension=pdf (140Kb)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2015, 18:29
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOSEPH DUNFORD COMMANDANT UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
BEFORE THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE
ON
26 FEBRUARY 2015

"...Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) pp14-16
Our tried and true F/A-18s, AV-8Bs and EA-6B Prowlers have performed magnificently in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, providing our Marine riflemen the fires they needed, in every clime and place from sea bases large and small, and expeditionary bases ashore. With the help of Congress, we have kept these aircraft as modern as possible and extracted every ounce of readiness we can from them; however, the high operational tempo has pushed these aircraft to more rapidly approach the end of their service lives. Due to the uncertainty prevalent in today’s global security environment, the Nation requires we maintain a capability to respond quickly in contested regions regardless of weather conditions. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, as part of the MAGTF, meets the Nation’s needs.

The Marine Corps remains committed to the recapitalization of our aging TACAIR fleet through the procurement of the F-35. The JSF brings a new capability to the battalion sized forces that sail with our Marine Expeditionary Units. Today, there are a multitude of high risk regions where a crisis response operation would require large Joint strike packages to soften or blind the threat. These packages would have to include cruise missiles, fighter aircraft, electronic warfare platforms, aircraft which specialize in suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses, and strike aircraft - just for U.S. forces to gain access. Such strike packages require coordination across services and combatant commands and take weeks and months to assemble. This same kind of access can be attained with a single detachment of 4 to 8 F-35s - the same sized detachment which will reside with a Marine Expeditionary Unit. [Good news for F-35Bs on Oz LHDs] For major contingencies, a surge of F-35Bs to our amphibious carrier decks and forward austere bases enables even greater options and striking power. The F-35 provides a transformational capability to the Marine Corps and the Joint Force. It gives our Nation a day one, full spectrum capability against the most critical and prohibitive threats.

The Marine Corps prioritizes putting our TACAIR as close to our infantry as we can by basing them from Amphibious Carriers or austere Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) and Forward Arming and Refueling Points (FARPs) ashore. This places the F-35’s transformational capabilities in the hands of the infantry Marine. The Marine rifleman is now supported immediately with close air support, electronic warfare capabilities, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support in threat and weather conditions which previously would have denied aviation support. The F-35's ability to develop, process, and display information to the pilot and disseminate it at tactical, operational, and strategic levels is what makes the platform truly unique, "a server in the sky" for the MAGTF. The sensors and communications equipment of our F-35s allow pilots and forward air controllers to see through the clouds to exchange high fidelity pictures in environments we would consider a no go today. Enhancing the C2, strike and intel capabilities of the MAGTF commander, the F-35 transforms the MAGTF into an element capable of penetrating any AOR in the world to set the conditions necessary to enable follow-on forces.

The Marine Corps has maintained the lead in this transformational platform. The F-35B and C models will replace the over 23 year old F/A-18 Hornet, 18 year old AV-8B Harrier and the 27 year old EA-6B Prowler; the same aircraft that have been passed from fathers to sons and daughters now serving. We have stood up our first two squadrons of F-35Bs and will stand up a third in 2016. PB16 supports the Marine Corps’ timeline to achieve IOC of its first F-35B squadron later this year and complete full transition by 2031. With the optempo expected to remain high, we will transition to F-35s as rapidly as possible. Continued Congressional support for this transition is key to increasing our degraded aviation readiness and minimizing our exposure to ever increasing operations and support costs for aged aircraft."

Source: https://www.scribd.com/document_downloa ... ension=pdf (140Kb)



Nice! I can hear Sol's head exploding now

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2015, 00:45
by popcorn
XanderCrews wrote:

Nice! I can hear Sol's head exploding now


not a pretty sight.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2015, 00:48
by spazsinbad
Another HeadExploder from MAXheadRoom:
Document: Evolving the Relationship of SOF and the ARG/MEU
10 Mar 2015 Trollinger Col Matthew G

"The following is a Jan. 13, 2014 outline of the U.S. Marine Corps efforts to better integrate U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) with embarked U.S. Navy and Marine Corps Amphibious Ready Groups and Marine Expeditionary Units (ARG/MEU)."

"...GLOBAL SOF NETWORK
USSOCOM- 2020 Vision A globally networked force of SOF, interagency, allies, and partners able to rapidly respond and persistently address regional contingencies and threats to stability."

Value of Forward Deployed Amphibious Forces
Advantages

• Sea-based approach limits our footprint ashore
• Reassures coalition partners and demonstrates commitment
• Allows rapid crisis response
• Enable rapid buildup of follow-on joint forces
• Deterrent that prevents and/or limits conflict
• Credible means to create and sustain access

Flexibility
• Build partnerships
• Respond to crises
• Project influence and power when and where necessary
“Amphibious flexibility is the greatest strategic asset that a sea-based power possesses.” - B.H. Liddell Hart, 1960, Soldier, Military Historian, Theorist


Source: http://news.usni.org/2015/03/10/documen ... the-argmeu
&
http://news.usni.org/2015/03/10/documen ... the-argmeu (PDF 2.3Mb)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2015, 09:34
by spazsinbad
Another SCALPingDEcapitator:
Re-Shaping Distributed Operations: The Tanking Dimension
10 Mar 2015 SLDinfo

"In an interesting piece published in the Air and Space Power Journal, Dr. Robert C. Owen takes a look at how to rethink tanking support for deployed forces....

...Technology is emerging which can allow for innovations in C2 to allow for distributed operations, and new air platforms such as the F-35 and the Osprey certainly facilitate dispersal and aggregation of force....

...In the Pacific, the Aussies and Singaporeans are adding up to 13 new KC-30A tankers, the tanker of choice in the current Iraq operations, and the new A400M is coming to the Pacific as well and can perform lift and tanking functions as well and can be considered part of rethinking distributed operations in an area like the Pacific.

And it is also the case that the deployment of significant numbers of A330MRTT tankers in the Middle East allows the GCC states to operate a flying air base to support various nations combat capabilities.

The deployment of such capabilities broaden significantly the assets available for the tanking of allied air forces, and of course, tankers can land and provide fuel for land based systems as well.

Owens develops a concept of sea land basing of tanking support, somewhat like a spider’s web concept....

http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... Forces.pdf (255Kb) Main Artikle mentioned
&
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... d-Ops1.pdf (225Kb) this artickle

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/re-shaping-distr ... dimension/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2015, 11:39
by weasel1962
Analysis is too simplistic. Need to identify how many tankers are required to be deployed at what sortie rates which determines the logistical scope before deciding on the appropriateness of an SLB ship (or air expeditionary force).

If main concept is to enable tactical fighter refuel. Makes sense instead to use a major airport like Manila which already have the fuel logistics in place instead of a small airfield with limited fuel resource and likely significant resupply restrictions. You can have a port nearby but with no ground tankers to take the fuel to the airport = no use. Also important is the ramp size, runway strength etc to support the actual aircraft and crew. If you look at current logistics, all major logistic nodes use major airports due to infrastructure benefits.

Putting in just tankers is also questionable i.e. no escort? So a flanker eg from China which can go 1000nm will then take out the base and there goes all the tankers. I think the marine concept of distributed logistics differs from the main thrust of the article i.e. towards small deployments of tactical fighters with adequate logistics support but close to the fight with constant redeployments to changing FARP locations.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2015, 20:40
by spazsinbad
Can only guess at what else is in this article (no subscription) but I'll put it here anyway.... I thought a lot of this bombast about 'how bad the USMC have been because they wanted what BS says' below has been answered before in various posts on this forum such as the USAF required a single engine but BS likes to think he can bad mouth STOVL and the Marines - you go girl. :devil: He is on his own mission for sure. :mrgreen:
Opinion: Ambitious Marine Plans For F-35B Should Be Tested Early Marines’ Stovl plans should be tested early
12 Mar 2015 Bill Sweetman Aviation Week & Space Technology

"The Lockheed Martin F-35B, the short-takeoff, vertical-landing (Stovl) version of the Joint Strike Fighter, has the shortest range and the smallest payload of the three variants. It’s also the most expensive. The Stovl and carrier shipboard requirements determined the F-35’s wingspan and length, dictated the use of a single engine and drove the internal ­layout of the fuselage. U.S. Marine Corps leaders have been confident that the F-35B alone will deliver strategic options..."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion ... sted-early

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2015, 22:07
by SpudmanWP
um, no

If you look at all the Pre-JSF programs (CALF/MRF/ASTOVL/Etc but not the larger fighters such as A/F-X) that existed in each service (and therefore should be optimized for that service) you will see that a vast majority of ALL the proposals were single engine (even for the Navy).

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2015, 16:27
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:Can only guess at what else is in this article (no subscription) but I'll put it here anyway.... I thought a lot of this bombast about 'how bad the USMC have been because they wanted what BS says' below has been answered before in various posts on this forum such as the USAF required a single engine but BS likes to think he can bad mouth STOVL and the Marines - you go girl. :devil: He is on his own mission for sure. :mrgreen:
Opinion: Ambitious Marine Plans For F-35B Should Be Tested Early Marines’ Stovl plans should be tested early
12 Mar 2015 Bill Sweetman Aviation Week & Space Technology

"The Lockheed Martin F-35B, the short-takeoff, vertical-landing (Stovl) version of the Joint Strike Fighter, has the shortest range and the smallest payload of the three variants. It’s also the most expensive. The Stovl and carrier shipboard requirements determined the F-35’s wingspan and length, dictated the use of a single engine and drove the internal ­layout of the fuselage. U.S. Marine Corps leaders have been confident that the F-35B alone will deliver strategic options..."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion ... sted-early



What an a$$, no surprise though

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2015, 16:54
by bring_it_on
spazsinbad wrote:Can only guess at what else is in this article



No more guessing ..;)

Opinion: Ambitious Marine Plans For F-35B Should Be Tested Early (Preferably by the author ;) )

The Lockheed MartinF-35B, the short-takeoff, vertical-landing (Stovl) version of the Joint Strike Fighter, has the shortest range and the smallest payload of the three variants. It’s also the most expensive. The Stovl and carrier shipboard requirements determined the F-35’s wingspan and length, dictated the use of a single engine and drove the internal ­layout of the fuselage.
U.S. Marine Corps leaders have been confident that the F-35B alone will deliver strategic options that justify its price and impact on the Air Force and Navy versions. That’s a tall order. A Marine expeditionary force is organized around a single amphibious warfare ship, a Landing Helicopter Dock or a Landing Helicopter Assault. These are big warships but they also carry Marines, their equipment and helicopters. Normally, the air combat element includes just six AV-8B Harriers, and no force of six aircraft has won a war yet.

The idea behind the Marine Harrier force always has been that it can expand beyond the ship’s capacity, by using shore bases that other fighters cannot reach: short civilian runways or even stretches of road. This kind of operation has been performed by the Marines, in combat, exactly three times in the 40-year history of the Harrier force.

The question today is simple: What scenario can we contemplate where you need supersonic, stealthy multirole fighters, but you don’t need the full carrier air wing? In the past few months, the Marines have rolled out some potential answers.

Corps Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford told the House defense appropriations subcommittee in late February that a shipboard detachment of 4-8 F-35Bs would deliver “the same kind of access” in “high-risk regions” as a joint strike package today that would include “cruise missiles, fighter aircraft, electronic-warfare platforms, aircraft which specialize in suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses, and strike aircraft.” The F-35 detachment is “a Day-One, full-spectrum capability against the most critical and prohibitive threats,” Dunford said.

On land, the Marines would use a new concept of operations known as distributed Stovl operations (DSO), according to Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, deputy commandant for aviation. The idea behind DSO is to obtain the advantages of forward-basing—deeper reach and faster response—while keeping people, aircraft and equipment on the ground safe from counter-attack from threats that are likely to include guided tactical ballistic missiles.

Mobility is the key. The plan calls for mobile forward-arming and refueling points (M-Farp) that can be moved around the theater inside the adversary’s targeting cycle—assumed to be 24-48 hr.—so they can survive without active missile defense. Decoy M-Farp would be established to complicate the targeting problem.

Dunford’s eight-aircraft detachment would be kept busy sustaining combat air patrols, providing over-the-horizon intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), and performing close air support and strike. Britain’s new aircraft carriers are 70,000-ton ships because the operations analysts calculated that a stand-alone air wing would need 24 aircraft to cover those missions.

Without a carrier, Dunford’s force has no persistent ISR or airborne early warning (AEW)—and any nation qualifying as a high-risk threat will have antiship cruise missiles (ASCM) on fast attack craft, on trucks or masked in commercial containers. AEW was invented because by the time ASCM or kamikazes appear on the horizon, it’s too late.

DSO sounds like an adventure in logistics. The Marines’ biggest off-base Harrier operation, in 1991 during Desert Storm, was supported by 45 8,000-gal. tanker trucks, and the ­F-35B is more than twice the Harrier’s size. Davis envisages that in some cases, the M-Farp will be supplied by KC-130J tankers, but each of their sorties will deliver five F-35B-loads of fuel at best. As was finally confirmed in the run-up to last year’s Farnborough air show (AW&ST May 26, 2014, p. 15), the F-35’s exhaust is tough on runways; many tons of metal planking will be needed to protect poor-quality runways or roads, even in a rolling vertical landing. It will have to be moved on the same cycle as the rest of the M-Farp.

Force protection could be a challenge. The M-Farp will need either a huge sanitized zone or its own active defense against rockets, mortars and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, which no practical decoy or jammer will distract from the F-35B’s exhaust.

These ambitious operational concepts should be tested, in force-level exercises against an aggressive and independent Red team, before we get much further into the $48 billion F-35B procurement. There could be no better use for the first F-35B squadron, once Marine leaders declare it ready for combat later this year.


Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2015, 18:40
by sferrin
His whole argument pretty much falls on it's face right here:

"The question today is simple: What scenario can we contemplate where you need supersonic, stealthy multirole fighters, but you don’t need the full carrier air wing? In the past few months, the Marines have rolled out some potential answers."

When the carriers have better things to do. Why tie up a carrier if 8 F-35s (or 20) would be sufficient?


"These ambitious operational concepts should be tested, in force-level exercises against an aggressive and independent Red team, before we get much further into the $48 billion F-35B procurement. There could be no better use for the first F-35B squadron, once Marine leaders declare it ready for combat later this year. "


Sure Bill. Let's do that with every air base in the UK and get rid of all of their Typhoons when the bases fail under equal circumstances. Game? I didn't think so.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2015, 19:06
by bring_it_on
He has some opportunities to ask questions about tactical deployment or mission requirements when he has a chance to actually attend one of the speakers familiar on the matter. The last I remember was when he could pose technical questions to General Mike Hostage, instead he chose to make a statement on acquisition (to the ACC boss rather than to say a Frank Kendall or Ash Carter) by quoting Norm augustine. I think he has given up asking questions and getting answers and leaves that to other editors for the publication. His job seems to be pretty much split between speculation and ranting.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2015, 20:49
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: Fanks 'brung_it_off' :mrgreen: BS has for sure gone off the deep end with this (SeaBasing involves a large number of diverse ships providing support to the ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (ARG/MEU) Talk about a hissy fit '6 not won a war' for gorrsake.
"...A Marine expeditionary force is organized around a single amphibious warfare ship, a Landing Helicopter Dock or a Landing Helicopter Assault. These are big warships but they also carry Marines, their equipment and helicopters. Normally, the air combat element includes just six AV-8B Harriers, and no force of six aircraft has won a war yet...."

Then billybobboy goes to completely ignore seabasing - a cretin indeed given that he has explained seabasing (in part) in an earlier article. If an USMC General can talk to Sol recently at SNAFU then BS is really in the shitcan with NOTHING from USMC. :doh: :mrgreen: :devil: OMFTS Operational Maneuver from the Sea y'all. Aircraft will hop about - mostly from their seabase whilst the very temporary M-FARPs are just that. Try STOM Ship to Objective Maneuver also.

And the F-35B is bad for ordinary runways when doing a VL - who said anything about the other 'running landing modes'?
"...the F-35’s exhaust is tough on runways; many tons of metal planking will be needed to protect poor-quality runways or roads, even in a rolling vertical landing....
&
...These ambitious operational concepts should be tested, in force-level exercises against an aggressive and independent Red team, before we get much further into the $48 billion F-35B procurement. There could be no better use for the first F-35B squadron, once Marine leaders declare it ready for combat later this year."

<sarc on> I guess the gyrenes will just have to leap to attention SIR YES SIR to follow the brilliant suggestion of BS eh. :doh: <sarc off>

Over the last several years the BOLD ALLIGATOR exercises have been doing this (with simulated F-35s of course) AND it has been done FROM THE SEA no less. BillyBoBboy is the dill et tente here NOT the USMC - they are professionals.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2015, 22:45
by archeman
"The question today is simple: What scenario can we contemplate where you need supersonic, stealthy multirole fighters, but you don’t need the full carrier air wing? In the past few months, the Marines have rolled out some potential answers."

Better to:
HAVE and not always NEED.

Seems Bill is suggesting the Marines would be better off with
NEED and not EVER HAVE.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2015, 00:29
by popcorn
bring_it_on wrote:He has some opportunities to ask questions about tactical deployment or mission requirements when he has a chance to actually attend one of the speakers familiar on the matter. The last I remember was when he could pose technical questions to General Mike Hostage, instead he chose to make a statement on acquisition (to the ACC boss rather than to say a Frank Kendall or Ash Carter) by quoting Norm augustine. I think he has given up asking questions and getting answers and leaves that to other editors for the publication. His job seems to be pretty much split between speculation and ranting.

Yeah, and got slapped down in front of his peers. LOL.. like shooting fish in a barrel for the former ACC Chief. :D

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2015, 00:47
by bring_it_on
The problem is some of his older work on reporting technical capabilities is extremely impressive. He isn't gaining any fan following or any significant audience by doing the sort of reporting he is doing now. He is also taking a confrontational posture with stealth, VHF radars and EW as if his assessment is more precise, informed or technically comprehensive than the intel and threat assessments done by the DOD. What is is essentially doing in that argument is regurgitating brochure information or what has been 'claimed' by radar makers during air-shows.

His earlier work was informative, unfortunately the recent stuff is pure garbage, and offers technical "opinion" and critique when he has absolutely no technical qualification to talk about either. It is as bad as when beat reporters start talking about the IMF and economic policy :). Not only is he outright hostile but he has obviously had public spat with Lockheed that got him disciplined from his employer.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/254885620/F-22-Janes1997

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2015, 15:08
by quicksilver
"Can only guess at what else is in this article (no subscription) but I'll put it here anyway.... I thought a lot of this bombast about 'how bad the USMC have been because they wanted what BS says' below has been answered before in various posts on this forum such as the USAF required a single engine but BS likes to think he can bad mouth STOVL and the Marines - you go girl. :devil: He is on his own mission for sure. :mrgreen:"

Appears he's on someone else's mission. Perhaps even a fool's errand.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2015, 16:51
by XanderCrews
bring_it_on wrote:The problem is some of his older work on reporting technical capabilities is extremely impressive. He isn't gaining any fan following or any significant audience by doing the sort of reporting he is doing now. He is also taking a confrontational posture with stealth, VHF radars and EW as if his assessment is more precise, informed or technically comprehensive than the intel and threat assessments done by the DOD. What is is essentially doing in that argument is regurgitating brochure information or what has been 'claimed' by radar makers during air-shows.

His earlier work was informative, unfortunately the recent stuff is pure garbage, and offers technical "opinion" and critique when he has absolutely no technical qualification to talk about either. It is as bad as when beat reporters start talking about the IMF and economic policy :). Not only is he outright hostile but he has obviously had public spat with Lockheed that got him disciplined from his employer.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/254885620/F-22-Janes1997


Bill has said F-35 means the end of European aerospace and he has made it his mission to be "right" about the JSF. Its personal at this point, as far as I am concerned he has bet his career on the JSF, and he lost. The only thing left to do now is take cheap shots, at the USMC, at the F-35B. The concept of distributed ops was widely accepted with the harrier in europe, this is the new and improved version.

Bill is setting the rules in this argument, and then pointing out how the USMC won't fit in his construct. the bottom line is everyone not just the USMC is happy to have a harrier replacement that fits into the overall war plan. I could go on and on, but basically harriers are proven and valuable aircraft the F-35B even more valuable. the F-35B will sell more than the F-35C. There is a market that goes well beyond just the marines and framing the F-35B as a bizarre Marine dream is disingenuous but critical to the argument that the USMC is weird, thus the F-35B is weird, thus the JSF is unneeded.

We are also looking to me anyway at worst case scenarios, ships in danger, airfields in danger, distributed airfields in danger. the concept of "this should really be tested against a competent redforce" should be applied to the other options he finds acceptable too as Sferrin noted. I don't think he will like the results in any case. It only took 1 war for the harrier to look like a brilliant idea.

Another thing that gets lost is the Gator Navy wants to remain relevant like any other part of the Navy. Ive said it before and I'll say it again, The Marine mission is just as valuable to the Navy. projecting power from the sea is in some ways more navy critical than Marine. Marines can always fight on land like A-stan, the Navy ships not so much. The Navy is the biggest fan of the Marines. The Navy is just as happy to have possession of "America's 911 force" as they are when the president asks where the carriers are, and the F-35B is a further expansion of capability, its more options, more value.

"This isn't how we fight anymore....there are not "USAF strike packages" and "USN strike packages." The JFACC owns all airpower not retained for USN CVN defense or USMC organic force support. And in both of those cases, any excess sorties are usually chopped to the JFACC for employment. So the Growlers provide the EW support to JFACC MAAP (Master Air Attack Plan) ATO fragged sorties, which are put together typically by a Mission Planning Cell/Center at an AOC. There are LNOs from all services and force providers at the AOC to help this process and ensure the right capabilities are in the mission package to support the desired objectives."

Bill is appealing to the folks who still think everyone does their own compartmentalized Schweinfurt raids. The last thing Bill wants to do is paint the Marines and the F-35B as more valuable to everyone overall, but rather as lone rogue elements. PLanes launched from L class ships can be treated like equals instead of the slow cousins. The last slow child will be the A-10 BTW. You can also, (And stop me if this sounds crazy) but you can send multiple ships and combine the air power, or combine with other nearby assets. Its science fiction I know. but it can happen.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2015, 18:29
by KamenRiderBlade
XanderCrews wrote:
bring_it_on wrote:The problem is some of his older work on reporting technical capabilities is extremely impressive. He isn't gaining any fan following or any significant audience by doing the sort of reporting he is doing now. He is also taking a confrontational posture with stealth, VHF radars and EW as if his assessment is more precise, informed or technically comprehensive than the intel and threat assessments done by the DOD. What is is essentially doing in that argument is regurgitating brochure information or what has been 'claimed' by radar makers during air-shows.

His earlier work was informative, unfortunately the recent stuff is pure garbage, and offers technical "opinion" and critique when he has absolutely no technical qualification to talk about either. It is as bad as when beat reporters start talking about the IMF and economic policy :). Not only is he outright hostile but he has obviously had public spat with Lockheed that got him disciplined from his employer.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/254885620/F-22-Janes1997


Bill has said F-35 means the end of European aerospace and he has made it his mission to be "right" about the JSF. Its personal at this point, as far as I am concerned he has bet his career on the JSF, and he lost. The only thing left to do now is take cheap shots, at the USMC, at the F-35B. The concept of distributed ops was widely accepted with the harrier in europe, this is the new and improved version.

Bill is setting the rules in this argument, and then pointing out how the USMC won't fit in his construct. the bottom line is everyone not just the USMC is happy to have a harrier replacement that fits into the overall war plan. I could go on and on, but basically harriers are proven and valuable aircraft the F-35B even more valuable. the F-35B will sell more than the F-35C. There is a market that goes well beyond just the marines and framing the F-35B as a bizarre Marine dream is disingenuous but critical to the argument that the USMC is weird, thus the F-35B is weird, thus the JSF is unneeded.

We are also looking to me anyway at worst case scenarios, ships in danger, airfields in danger, distributed airfields in danger. the concept of "this should really be tested against a competent redforce" should be applied to the other options he finds acceptable too as Sferrin noted. I don't think he will like the results in any case. It only took 1 war for the harrier to look like a brilliant idea.

Another thing that gets lost is the Gator Navy wants to remain relevant like any other part of the Navy. Ive said it before and I'll say it again, The Marine mission is just as valuable to the Navy. projecting power from the sea is in some ways more navy critical than Marine. Marines can always fight on land like A-stan, the Navy ships not so much. The Navy is the biggest fan of the Marines. The Navy is just as happy to have possession of "America's 911 force" as they are when the president asks where the carriers are, and the F-35B is a further expansion of capability, its more options, more value.

"This isn't how we fight anymore....there are not "USAF strike packages" and "USN strike packages." The JFACC owns all airpower not retained for USN CVN defense or USMC organic force support. And in both of those cases, any excess sorties are usually chopped to the JFACC for employment. So the Growlers provide the EW support to JFACC MAAP (Master Air Attack Plan) ATO fragged sorties, which are put together typically by a Mission Planning Cell/Center at an AOC. There are LNOs from all services and force providers at the AOC to help this process and ensure the right capabilities are in the mission package to support the desired objectives."

Bill is appealing to the folks who still think everyone does their own compartmentalized Schweinfurt raids. The last thing Bill wants to do is paint the Marines and the F-35B as more valuable to everyone overall, but rather as lone rogue elements. PLanes launched from L class ships can be treated like equals instead of the slow cousins. The last slow child will be the A-10 BTW. You can also, (And stop me if this sounds crazy) but you can send multiple ships and combine the air power, or combine with other nearby assets. Its science fiction I know. but it can happen.


It's not Science Fiction, it's just FACT.

Be it IRL in the US military, or in "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and beyond, or even "Star Wars"

Combined arms is the NORMAL way of employing force.

Not the exception.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2015, 21:31
by spazsinbad
A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower
13 Mar 2015 USN

Source: https://www.scribd.com/document_downloa ... ension=pdf (5.2Mb)

Winning The War Of Electrons: Inside The New Maritime Strategy
13 Mar 2015 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"[UPDATED with additional comments from Rep. Randy Forbes and Cdr. Bryan Clark]
WASHINGTON: We must win the war of electrons in a more dangerous world. That’s the stark imperative behind the bland title of the new maritime strategy released today by the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

“There is an offensive warfighting tone to this document that says, where the United States has interests, it needs access, [and] it can have that access,” said the new Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Joseph Dunford, speaking this morning at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. What Dunford didn’t say explicitly, but the strategy does, is that we may have to fight for that access against increasingly sophisticated adversaries — including in cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum, domains where we long took dominance for granted.

Despite its benign title — “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower” — and plenty of boilerplate, the new strategy has a definite edge.....

...By focusing on defeating high-end threats, the strategy also helps makes the case for more capable systems in general. In debates on individual programs, Forbes told me, the strategy supports his long-standing position that the carrier-launched UCLASS drone needs to be a combat aircraft, not a souped-up scout....

...So all-domain access is important — but what is it, exactly? As official documents tend to do, the description in the strategy degenerates into a laundry list. “It looks like many constituencies were trying to tie their activity to the function of all domain access,” said Cmdr. Clark. But there is still a strong unifying theme: electrons.

The strategy lists five aspects of all-domain access, all of which have a strong cyber or electronic warfare component:

Battlespace awareness, which requires “persistent surveillance” of not only the physical environment but cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum as well.

Assured command and control, which requires US communications networks to operate reliably and securely in the face of enemy jamming and hacking. Gen. Dunford specifically said Navy-Marine networks aren’t up to coordinating the kind of dispersed operations that have become routine and will require new investment.

Cyberspace operations, “including both defensive and offensive measures.”

Electromagnetic Maneuver Warfare, a new Navy concept for masking friendly emissions — radar, radio, and so on — and deceiving or disrupting the enemy’s.

Integrated fires, which seeks to reduce reliance on a limited supply of expensive missiles by using jamming, hacking, lasers, and rail guns.

What the new weapons and tactics will be remains, unsurprisingly, unspecified. “There’s a classified annex or two or three to be put together here to go to the next level and say ok, how do we deal with this regionally in more detail,” Greenert said. In the unclassified public strategy, he said when I asked him at CSIS, “it’s more conceptual, Sydney, in our approach — and it captures the very essence, in my opinion, of what started out to be the Air-Sea Battle concept.”

Air-Sea Battle began as a controversial concept for high-tech, high-intensity, long-range warfare by Air Force and Navy forces against a sophisticated adversary. Since then the Marines and Army came aboard, and the domesticated concept has been blandly renamed the Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons. But its central concern — fighting enemies capable of challenging us in air, sea, space, and cyberspace — is now enshrined at the heart of the new strategy."

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2015/03/winn ... -strategy/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2015, 06:39
by spazsinbad
An Update on the F-35B: Art “Turbo” Tomassetti Talks About the Way Ahead
13 Mar 2015 Robbin Laird

"...Tomassetti: I visit to see how they’re doing on progressing to close out SDD at Pax River to Beaufort to check on Pilot training and to Yuma to see how they’re progressing on preparation for IOC and OT-1 as they will be the predominant entity conducting that event on the USS Wasp in May. OT-1 will be a team event with personnel from OT in Edwards and from VMFAT-501 from Beaufort supporting as well.

The key focus of OT-1 is verifying that we can take the airplanes, move in from a land home base, put them out at sea, operate them at sea, and bring them home, which is what the Marine Corps would do in most cases, should they be called upon to go support an activity somewhere on the globe.

I will be at Yuma next week and looking to find ways we can support them most effectively....

...Question: A challenge of building a software upgradeable program is to understand how capable the initial planes actually are. They will progress over time, and in a real sense never be finished. How capable do you see the initial F-35B to be deployed by the Marines for combat?
Tomassetti: I hear the same things and people say, “How can you go initial operational capability before you’re done developing the airplane?” I agree with you we should really never be done developing airplane. We should always be looking to improve it and that is the plan going forward.

We already talk about follow-on developments because we know technology’s going to change, tactics are going to change, the threat’s going to change. We have to keep up with that. The airplane never becomes static in terms of its growth.

Why would the Marine Corps declare IOC with something at this stage of the game? I think you have to look at, if called upon to go someplace and do something. You are the person in charge. You would like to send your best assets forward. Your best assets are those that can accomplish the mission and the ones that can keep your people safe doing the mission.

Look at what the Marine Corps has in its inventory as an example look at the airplane I grew up in, the Harrier. I went to Desert Storm in a Harrier that was a day-attack airplane. It did not have systems to conduct night operations yet we conducted operations at night. It is a subsonic airplane with a limited weapons envelope, but it got the job done because the people were well-trained. The airplane was the best it could be at the time, and that’s what the Marine Corps had in its arsenal to do the job with.

Now the F-35B is in the Marine Corps’ arsenal and they look at the best platform to go do whatever the mission is. I think today, the F35B has all of the attributes to excel in a number of mission areas and why would you not choose to send your best system out to accomplish the mission? I think that’s where the Marine Corps is and that they realize that the airplane today is already getting to the point where it’s meeting or exceeding the capabilities of legacy airplanes.

In addition to that, knowing that you’re probably going to send the F35s with a mix of what you already have. Having the F35 out there with the legacy airplanes only makes the legacy airplanes better. From the outset, the F-35 will have an additive effect in the battlespace and will enhance the lethality and survivability of the other air assets and of the ground force as well....

...Question: We put in our latest Defense News commentary the simple proposition that the F-35 is coming at a point for the services and the partners where they are looking at its contribution to the transformation of their forces, not simply adding a silver bullet to the holster. How do you view the transformation process?
Tomassetti: It is twofold. On the one hand, it is about operating legacy aircraft with the F-35 and learning how to make these legacy aircraft better and to use them differently as the services learn what the F-35 does and how it does it.

For the Marines, this means that the Av-8Bs and F/A-18s, which remain in the force, will not be used the same way they have been used before. You have to figure out how to integrate them. Understanding how do they operate differently and more effectively with the F-35s, and how do the F-35s draw upon the legacy aircraft to gain more significant effects from operating together.

On the other hand, the F-35 is simply not like a legacy aircraft. We need to learn how to operate them together to learn their special effects when so doing for joint F-35 operations, or anticipating the day when we have an all F-35 fleet. The pilot and maintainer evolution will be critical to this as new pilots and maintainers enter the force now with no history/habits from legacy aircraft.

All of us old folks carry a lot of baggage from wherever we came from. It’s not a good thing or a bad thing. It’s just reality. We’ve carried that with us. It shapes how we think about things. We’re going to bring a breed of folks into the airplane shortly that is going to have a fresh perspective, that is a different generation which grew up with X-Box 1 and Play Station not Pong and Space Invaders. They’re used to processing a lot of information. They’re used to speed in information. They are going to find out ways to do things with this airplane that we haven’t even thought of.

We have these big milestones we’ve got to track through to be successful in that but what those youngsters are going to bring to the table when they get their hands on this airplane and start putting their new perspective on it I think is going to be dramatically different over time."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/an-update-on-the ... way-ahead/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2015, 15:43
by blindpilot
Good article. It begins to address what it means that the Marines are going IOC with a "system," and not a platform. We actually don't have much previous experience with that type pf transtion...

BUT we do have some !!!

One point that was made about fighting in the desert during Desert Storm, (1991) was that the allies knew where they were and what was happening. This was highlighted at the time with Whiz-Bang journalism talking about GPS and such ...

BUT !!!! It wasn't just or even GPS

JSTARS stood up its first squadron in 1996 five years later .. (IOC?) but for Desert Storm two development aircraft deployed with test crews, contractors and Pentagon based planners, who hadn't even written a draft plan of operating yet. Fifty or so combat sorties and 500 combat hours later they had changed the character of the battlespace and had as much to do with success as GPS, and laser guided munitions. JSTARS was not even cleared to "fly," much less ... hmm let's see .. what are the objections? .. cleared to fly at night, fly in thunderstorms, turn on the radar, umm.. run the software version 1.x which really didn't do anything yet etc. etc.

But it went to war and changed the nature of war forever. Then it went home and worked for 5 years at getting "IOC"

/sarcasm on> Marine F-35s post IOC will probably be able to do some of that too /sarcasm off

When you don't have anything like JSTARS, the Development aircraft makes a big difference.
When you don't have anything like the F-35 system. It will make a huge impact on day one, whether the readiness report says the gun works or not... if it goes to war we know through examples like JSTARS, what it likely will be able to do turning the plodding schedule, if required for some feature, on a dime ... and then taking five years if needed to let the paper work and training catch up. It's not like it hasn't been done before. Marine IOC is a big deal.

If the F-35 has to go to war in August of this year, it will be a bigger deal.

Good article Spaz

BP

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2015, 23:52
by popcorn
Astute insights BP.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2015, 02:00
by XanderCrews
blindpilot wrote:Good article. It begins to address what it means that the Marines are going IOC with a "system," and not a platform. We actually don't have much previous experience with that type pf transtion...

BUT we do have some !!!

One point that was made about fighting in the desert during Desert Storm, (1991) was that the allies knew where they were and what was happening. This was highlighted at the time with Whiz-Bang journalism talking about GPS and such ...

BUT !!!! It wasn't just or even GPS

JSTARS stood up its first squadron in 1996 five years later .. (IOC?) but for Desert Storm two development aircraft deployed with test crews, contractors and Pentagon based planners, who hadn't even written a draft plan of operating yet. Fifty or so combat sorties and 500 combat hours later they had changed the character of the battlespace and had as much to do with success as GPS, and laser guided munitions. JSTARS was not even cleared to "fly," much less ... hmm let's see .. what are the objections? .. cleared to fly at night, fly in thunderstorms, turn on the radar, umm.. run the software version 1.x which really didn't do anything yet etc. etc.

But it went to war and changed the nature of war forever. Then it went home and worked for 5 years at getting "IOC"

/sarcasm on> Marine F-35s post IOC will probably be able to do some of that too /sarcasm off

When you don't have anything like JSTARS, the Development aircraft makes a big difference.
When you don't have anything like the F-35 system. It will make a huge impact on day one, whether the readiness report says the gun works or not... if it goes to war we know through examples like JSTARS, what it likely will be able to do turning the plodding schedule, if required for some feature, on a dime ... and then taking five years if needed to let the paper work and training catch up. It's not like it hasn't been done before. Marine IOC is a big deal.

If the F-35 has to go to war in August of this year, it will be a bigger deal.

Good article Spaz

BP


Very well put, and thank you

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2015, 13:02
by rpgrynn
I find it really fascinating how few actually get the "systems" part. Great post.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2015, 16:39
by KamenRiderBlade
rpgrynn wrote:I find it really fascinating how few actually get the "systems" part. Great post.


The more complex something is, the fewer understand it.

The more things evolve, the fewer understand it.

That's a given reality of all things.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2015, 20:21
by rpgrynn
KamenRiderBlade wrote:
rpgrynn wrote:I find it really fascinating how few actually get the "systems" part. Great post.


The more complex something is, the fewer understand it.

The more things evolve, the fewer understand it.

That's a given reality of all things.


To add greater insult to injury - Far more data is available on this program than ever.
Awaiting USMC IOC

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2015, 22:00
by KamenRiderBlade
rpgrynn wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:
rpgrynn wrote:I find it really fascinating how few actually get the "systems" part. Great post.


The more complex something is, the fewer understand it.

The more things evolve, the fewer understand it.

That's a given reality of all things.


To add greater insult to injury - Far more data is available on this program than ever.
Awaiting USMC IOC


Most modern punk journalists couldn't be bothered to read more than 1 page single spaced on any subject.

Also, if the wording doesn't agree with their world view, they'll cherry pick lines to make the narrative fit their story.

Real journalists would've had far more in depth detail on understanding a subject including far more research.

The lack of good journalists these days is a result of the short attention span news bite world & corporate news structure that exists globally.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2015, 22:49
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: Gotta HAND IT to BS to be WAY BEHIND - this is old stuff (for us slow oldies down here in the LandDunUnder) :devil: :doh:
Marine Corps Commandant Dunford: Alternatives for Amphibious Warships Needed
13 Feb 2015 Yasmin Tadjdeh

"SAN DIEGO — The Marine Corps needs 50 amphibious warships to tend to all the missions it must perform around the globe, but there are currently only 31 available. The service will have to seek alternative platforms to fill that gap, said the commandant of the Marine Corps on Feb. 12.

“There is a requirement for over 50 ships on a day-to-day basis, that’s what … the combatant commanders are asking for,” said Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, Jr. “We’ve got an objective of 38 — that’s the requirement within the Department of the Navy. We’ve got a fiscally constrained objective of about 33. We’ve got an inventory right now of 31.”...

...The Navy will increase its fleet of amphibious vessels to 33 over the next four to six years, he noted. In the mean time, the Marine Corps must be creative and flexible as it seeks alternatives to the vessels that are used to transport and station Marines around the world, often in contested areas.

“There’s got to be another answer besides just amphibious ships,” he said. “We’re working very closely on alternative platforms not as a substitute for amphibious ships, not as substitute for a warship, but as an opportunity to get Marines to sea to be more responsive to combatant commanders.”

For instance, using mobile landing platform afloat forward staging base vessels are one solution, Dunford said. The ships have flight decks as well as command-and-control stations. They are compatible with V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, which could be used to ferry Marines to shore for forward presence engagements as well as crisis response missions.

“By no means are they replacements. They’re not a warship. They’re not a replacement for an amphibious ship. But they are [a way] to augment our capability to meet our requirements on a day-to-day basis and are very, very capable ships,” he said.

The Marine Corps plans to test out new concepts of operations that take advantage of alternative platforms in U.S. Africa Command's area of responsibility as well as in Australia this year, Dunford said...."

Source: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... a2&ID=1747

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2015, 10:23
by spazsinbad
Even SOLOman gets it (all your seabase are mine) why cannot billybobboyo?:
Strock Interview Part 1. Why the "Short Well Deck LX(R) & Army Integration with the Sea Base.
16 Mar 2015 SNAFU

"...The Sea Base could...I repeat could...change the way that the USMC conducts operations."


Source: http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com.au/20 ... -well.html [/quote]

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2015, 21:17
by spazsinbad
[USN/USMC] Amphibious Ops 1990-2013
19 Jun 2014 Research done by John C. Berry, Jr., Director, Concepts Branch, Emergent Force Development Division, Futures Directorate, DC CD&I

8 page .PDF attached made from the 8 page original .DOCX file

Source: https://www.scribd.com/document_downloa ... nsion=docx (58Kb)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2015, 05:36
by spazsinbad
Over on previous page BS attempted to dunk Marines for their innovative plans for F-35s etc. Well goodfibreshit refloats as we know so here it is again with probably some words changed? If youse have read over page probably do not bother with this'un.... AND... LordyLordy how USMC have used their assets historically (not histrionically) is immediately above in the PDF - well I never. :doh:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... nking.html

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2015, 07:19
by spazsinbad
Some of this info may have been posted before OR may not be as up to date as NOW! So here 'tis:
An Update on the F-35 Roll Out as of February 2015: A Conversation with Steve Over
20 Mar 2015 Robbin Laird, SLDinfo.com

"...Clearly, the F-35 enterprise is focused on U.S. Services IOC’s which start with USMC in July 2015, the USAF in 2016 and USN in 2018.

The Marines have the software, which they will go to IOC with currently, and will finish testing this year, including tests this spring on the USS Wasp.

By the end of last week, the USMC has 12 test points remaining and one additional weapons accuracy test to complete before finishing testing for IOC.

Early increment 3i software, which is loaded into a new generation of mission computer, is being tested now as well.

USN testing is continuing with the next carrier based testing to occur in the Fall aboard the USS Eisenhower.

During the recent USS Nimitz testing, the F-35C began its night operations testing, and this will continue along with weapons loading (inert) and other tests relevant to the work flow aboard a carrier...."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/an-update-on-the ... teve-over/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2015, 23:06
by spazsinbad
Repost (from 'a wrong thread') reference to how USMC have tested - and will test - their F-35/DSO & SeaBase OMFTS concepts etc (and NOT on BS command).

Some USN/USMC 'testing' (yep NO F-35Bs in sight - yet but - wait for 2016? or 2018? RIMPAC and of course the BOLD ALLIGATOR exercises (amongst probably a whole lot of other F-35B future exercises). PSSSTTT! Don't tell BS.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... -2014.html
&
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ities.html

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2015, 02:12
by spazsinbad
F-35 jump jet gears up for crucial at-sea tests [PSSSSSSSTT!!!!!!!!!!! Don't Tell BS - BS won't ask anyways] :devil:
22 Mar 2015 Lance M. Bacon

"The first shipboard operational test period for the Marine Corps' short take off and vertical landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter is scheduled to take place May 18-30 aboard the amphibious assault ship Wasp. Six of the jets will participate, four out of Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona, and two from MCAS Beaufort, South Carolina.

Evaluators will assess the stealth jet's integration and operation within the full spectrum of flight and maintenance operations, as well as supply chain support while embarked at sea, said Maj. Paul Greenberg, Marine Corps spokesman. Lessons learned will "lay the groundwork" for future deployments, he said. The aims of the at-sea tests include:

• Assess day and night take-offs and landings, weapons loads, and extended range operations.
• Assess aircraft-to-ship network communications.
• Evaluate the landing signal officer's launch and recovery software.
• Test the crew's ability to conduct scheduled and unscheduled maintenance.
• Determine the suitability of maintenance support equipment for shipboard operations.
• Assess the logistics footprint of a deployed, six-plane F-35B detachment.

The F-35B remains the centerpiece of Marine fixed-wing modernization because "it supports our doctrinal form of maneuver warfare and our operational need for close air support in austere conditions and locations potentially inaccessible for traditional fighters," Greenberg told Navy Times on March 17."The Lightning II will provide effective close-air support to our Marines and sailors when they need it the most."

Twenty-one alterations were required to equip the Wasp for regular operation of the F-35B aircraft, according to Matt Leonard, spokesman for Naval Sea Systems Command. Each alteration will be made on all L-class ships during planned availabilities and in line on newly constructed ships in advance of the F-35B's arrival.

Among the biggest challenges has been the downward force and heat of the F-35B's engines as it lands, which has burned the nonskid deck. [QUE?] A new highly tolerant, temperature resistant thermal spray coating was applied and has been successfully evaluated aboard Wasp during F-35B, V-22, AV-8B and other helicopter flight operations, Leonard said.

The Wasp also underwent seven "cornerstone" alterations that provide necessary electrical servicing upgrades, expand weapons handling and storage, provide for the F-35B Autonomic Logistics Information System, secure access facilities, and relocate the flight deck tramline for flight safety....

Source: http://www.navytimes.com/story/military ... /25011309/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2015, 02:29
by popcorn
Probation a distant memory. Counting the days to IOC and a new age of USMC Aviation.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2015, 12:12
by spazsinbad
This recent article about V-22s in USN I presume may be relevant however I will not know because I ain't signed up:

http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/nav ... t-1.336199

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2015, 15:21
by spazsinbad
PICK a number between 6 & 9 for USMC UnFunDead F-35B purchase request? Whatever floats your boat.
Marine Corps Has More Than $2b in Unfunded Requirements
23 Mar 2015 Tony Capaccio & Roxana Tiron

"(Bloomberg) — Marine Corps has ~$2.1b in requirements not funded in FY16 Pentagon budget request, according to list sent by Commandant of the Marine Corps to lawmakers.

• High among needs is $1.05b for 6 more Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighters; $24.5m for 3 Bell H-1 helicopters; $180m for 2 Lockheed KC-130J aircraft

• So-called unfunded requirements list requested by leaders of congressional defense cmtes

• Other military services also expected to send in their needs as Congress starts writing FY16 defense bills

• NOTE: FY16 budget requests funding for 9 F-35B Marine models"

Source: http://about.bgov.com/2015-03-23/marine ... uirements/

Marines Send Congress Unfunded Priorities List Worth $2.1B
24 Mar 2015 InSideDeFence.COM

"The Marine Corps has sent Congress an unfunded priorities list for fiscal year 2016 totaling $2.1 billion, the bulk of which would go toward the purchase of six additional Lockheed Martin-manufactured F-35B Joint Strike Fighters, according to a document obtained by InsideDefense.com."

Source: http://insidedefense.com/login-redirect ... ode/168305

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2015, 22:24
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:Some of this info may have been posted before OR..


...always room for more!

US Marines stick to F-35B dates despite new problems
By: Stephen Trimble

The.Corps has decided to stand-up the first operational F-35B squadron in July with known software, structural and logistical deficiencies that must be fixed later, says Lt Gen .Bogdan, ex. o. of the joint program office.

- That decision means the first F-35B unit will achieve its initial operational capability milestone on time in the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2015, but with some operational restrictions, maintenance workarounds and the possibility of an internal redesign of a critical bulkhead, .. In 2010, the USMC accepted that the first operational F-35 squadron would enter service in 2015 with a less capable version of software.. That lesser software version – dubbed Block 2B – will be incomplete at the time of IOC. The software performs the basic flight control functions well, ., but is unable to handle the most extreme challenge for the F-35’s vaunted “sensor fusion” capability.
- The F-35’s mission systems software processes data being collected by various onboard sensors into a complete operational picture that is presented to the pilot. In a scenario with four F-35s flying in formation against both ground and air threats, the sensor fusion system is designed to pass targeting information between aircraft using the multi-platform advanced data link (MADL). Recent testing has shown, however, that the software algorithms become confused with three or four aircraft sharing data about the same target, .. Each aircraft senses the target’s location and characteristics slightly differently, and the algorithms are unable to determine if there is only one target or more than one target. The F-35B’s pilots have learned to use various work-arounds, he says. For example, four-aircraft formations can be broken down into groups of two aircraft, where the sensor fusion algorithms have proven more reliable, he says. A completed version of the Block 2B software that fixes the problem should be available by October, ..
- ..he is worried about the integrity of the F-35B’s aluminium 496 bulkhead, which bears critical structural loads where the trailing edge of the wing attaches to the aft fuselage. In 2004, programme officials reduced the weight of the F-35B .. Those changes included switching the bulkhead material from titanium to lighter-weight aluminium. The lighter bulkhead has since proved susceptible to structural cracking, requiring a series of “patches” all over the 496 bulkhead. There are now so many patches that programme officials are concerned it may be necessary to redesign the bulkhead for production aircraft, ..
- .Lockheed’s autonomic logistics information system (ALIS) is not ready to support a growing fleet of operational and test aircraft, .. It will take a few years to resolve the ALIS deficiencies, and until then F-35B maintainers must use workarounds to inspect and repair the aircraft.

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ms-410518/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 03:49
by spazsinbad
Some extra problem details here with F-35B tyres yet to be designed/manufactured to specification:
The F-35 Program Boss’s To-Do List
24 Mar 2015 Marcus Weisgerber

"...The plane will not have all the bells and whistles originally anticipated, but it will still be more advanced than the old Harriers and Hornets in the Marine Corps inventory. And for the issues that aren’t fixed, they will use work-arounds, Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the F-35 program manger, said Tuesday....

...Here’s what’s still on Bogdan’s watch list:

Software
The F-35 has more than 8 million lines of code and is the most software intensive fighter jet ever built. Software “always has been the No. 1 technical issue on this program … and probably always will be,” Bogdan says. The software that runs the mechanical flight controls on the airplane is performing “very, very well,” Bogdan said. The mission software, which fuses data from the plane’s many electronic sensors, is a different story. “Fusion is by far the most complicated and worrisome, on my part, element of this program,” Bogdan said. One issue: A fusion algorithm sometimes misinterprets a threat, such as a surface-to-air missile site, as multiple targets when four jets are flying together. The Marines will initially deploy the plane with work-arounds to this and other issues.

ALIS.... Reliability & Maintainability...

...Aircraft Structure
The structure of the Marine Corps F-35 is much different than the Air Force and Navy version. That’s because there is a massive fan positioned behind the cockpit that allows the jet to land vertically, like a helicopter. During testing, machines stress the aircraft to determine structural limits. “You try to break the airplane and figure out where it’s going to break first,” Bogdan said. The Air Force and Marine [USN meant] versions have not had any major issues throughout testing....

...A titanium bulkhead, a central piece to the aircraft structure that essentially holds the plane together, was replaced with a thinner aluminum version. “What we thought was a good engineering judgment back then — turns out that we’ve got some issues now,” Bogdan said.

Tires
There are a number lesser issues that “we know we will be able to fix [and are] not technically challenging, they just require some time to do them,” Bogdan said. Among them, the Dunlop tires on the Marine Corps version. The tires are particularly difficult on this aircraft because they have to have enough give so they bounce on a vertical landing, but also enough durability to maintain their form during a 170 mile-per-hour [AFAIK it is KanNots] takeoff from a runway. Testers are evaluating a tire now that is performing better than its three predecessors, Bogdan said. “This is more of a manufacturing problem than anything else,” he said. “We know exactly what the tire needs to look like. Being about to manufacture a tire to those [specifications] is really hard.”

Engine
Engine problems have arisen throughout the F-35 program, most recently last year when a design flaw grounded the entire fleet for several weeks. The problem has been identified and an interim fix is in place, program officials say. A final fix will be completed by the end of the summer, Bogdan said, adding, “Still on the watch list … but I don’t lose sleep over that too much.”

Marine Corps Deployment
To meet the Marine Corps deployment schedule later this year, a number of objectives must be met.

Among them, 10 aircraft must be in combat configuration, meaning they could go to war. Two aircraft have received modification and a third will be done “soon,” Bogdan said.

Pilots need to undergo training on simulator software that is up to date with the software in the aircraft themselves. “Today we have software in those [simulators] that needs to be upgraded over the next month and a half to the latest version of the software that they’re going to use in enough time so that their pilots can train,” Bogdan said.

Also on the list are mission data files, little computers that plug into the airplane and depict threats in a region. The Marine Corps needs these mission data files for two specific areas of the world where they expect to fly.

Last on the to-do list for the Marine Corps deployment is the hardware for the plane’s complicated logistics system. The physical computer system itself needed to be scaled down and the software also needed modification to work on a smaller mainframe. The system is slated to deploy about 30 days late, Bogdan said."

Source: http://www.defenseone.com/management/20 ... ist/108322

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 11:18
by gabriele
The bulkhead is the (in)famous 496, isn't it...? Flightglobal makes it sound like it is a new issue and that the redesign is a new thing, but in April 2014 they said they already were redesigning it and hoped to have the new bulkhead integrated in production from LRIP 9 onwards.
Would be handy to have the record of what Bogdan exactly said, to see if there is any actual change from that.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 13:37
by maus92
Some more details about the limited capabilities of the 2B F-35B:

Stealth Jet's Slow, Half-Blind Debut
Dave Majumdar | Daily Beast | 3.25.15

"The $400 billion F-35 is supposed to be the key to American air superiority for decades to come. But when it rolls out to frontline pilots, the jet will be anything but imposing.

The U.S. Marine Corps is pressing ahead with plans deploy the stealthy F-35B jump jet to frontline fighter squadrons this July despite flawed software and very limited ability to maneuver. That’s despite fixes to the software that are already available to the $400 billion Joint Strike Fighter program...."

"The F-35B, when it becomes operational on July 1, won't be able to go as fast or be as maneuverable as advertised, either. Bogdan said that “not a whole lot” of the jet’s full flight performance will be available, but it will have what the Marines willing to live with.

A plane's ability to move is measured by how many "Gs" – units of gravitational force – it can function under. The steeper the climb, the tighter the turn, the more Gs the plane pulls. The F-35B was supposed to be capable of 7 Gs. But for now, it will be able to pull between 4.5 and 5.5 Gs, Bogdan said. By comparison, a present day F-16 can pull 9 Gs. It will also be supersonic—just barely. “I think the Marine Corp at IOC will be able to go supersonic,” Bogdan said. “It might be like 1.1. Mach.”

It’s won’t be able to go its promised 1.6 times the speed of sound until later—but even then—other modern aircraft are capable of flying at more than twice the speed of sound."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... debut.html

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 15:15
by bring_it_on
So Dave finally figured out that the F-35 has a mach 1.6 top speed. Well good for him, I'm sure the JPO had to grant him special security clearance to allow him access to that info ;). He also needs to be properly educated on who decides IOC and who has to live with that decision. It surely isn't a reporter but then I may be wrong.

Anyhow, back to actually discussing some of what was said by the JPO boss.

“Workarounds” for F-35B IOC
JOHN A. TIRPAK3/25/2015

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... 25%202015/“Workarounds”-for-F-35B-IOC.aspx

Despite recently discovered deficiencies in the 2B iteration of software, the Marine Corps will likely declare initial operating capability with the F-35 in July as planned, Joint Strike Fighter Program Director Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said Tuesday. Speaking to reporters at his Arlington, Va., office, Bogdan said the “fusion” software can falsely interpret multiple detections of the same target by a four-ship F-35 package as multiple targets. “The sensitivity of the fusion model has to be tweaked,” Bogdan said, adding that a final fix may not be in hand until several months after the planned IOC date of July 1. There are operating “workarounds” available—such as treating the package as two two-ship flights instead of a single four-ship flight—that solve the problem, he said, and those are “good enough for the Marines” to go ahead with IOC. “They feel confident they can go to war with it,” he said.

The program office doesn’t technically have to fix the problem until a later software increment, and Bogdan said, “I’m going to take the heat” for having a fix in work when IOC is declared, but it’s being dealt with now “because it won’t get any better” with age. Even so, the software, as it stands, will work well and give the Marine Corps much more capability than they have now with “old Harriers and Hornets,” he said. “I won’t put anything out there that’s unsafe,” Bogdan asserted. As for Air Force F-35A IOC, now just 496 days away, “I know for a fact the fixes will be in” by then, he added.



Fixed and Waiting to be Fixed
JOHN A. TIRPAK3/25/2015

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... Fixed.aspx


Most of the problems critics have trumpeted as indications of the “failure” of the F-35 program are fixed or nearly so, and are “not even on my top-10 worry list,” Joint Strike Fighter Program Director Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said Tuesday. Talking with reporters at his Arlington, Va., office, Bogdan said the list of things that are “fixed” include the fuel dump issue, the carrier-model tailhook, lightning strike protection, the aftermath of last year’s engine fire, and the jittery helmet displays. Though all those corrections have not yet been “fielded and tested,” Bogdan said he’s convinced they’re fully understood and being resolved; the engine problem that caused a jet to burn last year will be fully resolved “this summer,” he said. “My big list” of real worries, he added, are software, the ALIS (autonomic logistics information system) reliability, and maintainability. While the A and C versions are “close to where they’re supposed to be” on the R&M learning curve, the B model “not so much,” he said. (See also Bogdan: F-35 Schedule Low Risk)



The F-35 Lifetime Channel
JOHN A. TIRPAK3/25/2015

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

Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, Joint Strike Fighter program director, said all three versions of the F-35 will be durability tested to three lifetimes because it’s almost certain the jets will serve longer than the planned 30 years. Speaking with reporters in Arlington, Va., Bogdan said the F-35A and C models “are doing pretty darn good” in the torture test, which bends and twists the jets. Even though computer models “predicted major findings for the A and C, we have not had any … that would require significant structural change,” Bogdan said, noting each has survived 1.5 lifetimes of stress so far. The B model is “a different story.” Because the short takeoff and vertical landing model was too heavy early in the program, engineers “pulled about 3,000 pounds” out of the structure,” Bogdan explained. That decision “came back to bite us” in cases like the 496 bulkhead, which was changed from a titanium part to aluminum. It’s cracking under strain. He also said there have​ been so many changes to the F-35B that the jet in the test rig may no longer be representative of the operational model. The durability test is one “we do … on purpose … to break it,” Bogdan said. He’s frustrated that such events are treated in the press as program failures. “If you don’t have breaks, it means you didn’t set up the test right,” he said. The failures show engineers what parts either need to be beefed up or replaced after a certain number of flying hours.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 15:41
by spazsinbad
That AFM website is for sure just weird but hey it seems to be more freely available - or am I hallucinating? Anyway...
The F-35 Lifetime Channel
25 Mar 2015 John A. Tirpak

"Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, Joint Strike Fighter program director, said all three versions of the F-35 will be durability tested to three lifetimes because it’s almost certain the jets will serve longer than the planned 30 years. Speaking with reporters in Arlington, Va., Bogdan said the F-35A and C models “are doing pretty darn good” in the torture test, which bends and twists the jets. Even though computer models “predicted major findings for the A and C, we have not had any … that would require significant structural change,” Bogdan said, noting each has survived 1.5 lifetimes of stress so far. The B model is “a different story.” Because the short takeoff and vertical landing model was too heavy early in the program, engineers “pulled about 3,000 pounds” out of the structure,” Bogdan explained. That decision “came back to bite us” in cases like the 496 bulkhead, which was changed from a titanium part to aluminum. It’s cracking under strain. He also said there have​ been so many changes to the F-35B that the jet in the test rig may no longer be representative of the operational model. The durability test is one “we do … on purpose … to break it,” Bogdan said. He’s frustrated that such events are treated in the press as program failures. “If you don’t have breaks, it means you didn’t set up the test right,” he said. The failures show engineers what parts either need to be beefed up or replaced after a certain number of flying hours."

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... nnel-.aspx

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 16:39
by bring_it_on
I think I was still signed in when I copied the links but I guess all the 3 articles are available to everyone.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 17:03
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Breaking news! At IOC the F-35B will still be better than the Harrier in all ways except max G available. Will have "As promised" performance a year later with a SOFTWARE UPDATE! Bulkhead failure was found in Durability testing and will not effect the early service F-35Bs before it can be replaced at depot level (if they decide they still need the first few dozen at that time, when they have a few hundred more). Sorry, I just fail to see any doom and gloom with these reports. The first Wasp deployment was far more telling to me, that the first LHA landing was made by a Hornet pilot with no Harrier experience and he stated the challenge wasn't the approach or landing or touchdown, but nailing a 1ft^2 box with the nose gear.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 17:55
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: Thanks for that - I feel better now. :mrgreen:

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 18:48
by XanderCrews
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Breaking news! At IOC the F-35B will still be better than the Harrier in all ways except max G available. Will have "As promised" performance a year later with a SOFTWARE UPDATE! Bulkhead failure was found in Durability testing and will not effect the early service F-35Bs before it can be replaced at depot level (if they decide they still need the first few dozen at that time, when they have a few hundred more). Sorry, I just fail to see any doom and gloom with these reports. The first Wasp deployment was far more telling to me, that the first LHA landing was made by a Hornet pilot with no Harrier experience and he stated the challenge wasn't the approach or landing or touchdown, but nailing a 1ft^2 box with the nose gear.


This is what I have been screaming.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't:

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/dec/15 ... -harrier15

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 19:08
by bring_it_on
:bang: There is a reason why DAVE is angry. Its not like the USN or the Marines have encountered cracking in the past or had to restrict there cutting edge fighter aircraft from exploring its envelope or performing as " designed". This "HALF BLIND" stuff is something thats brand new. :doh: :doh:


A year after IOC (1984) -

Image

I wonder if "Little Dave" was there at the briefing and asked about tails falling off and hitting folks on the ground ;)

Image

Image

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2015, 23:38
by XanderCrews
bring_it_on wrote::bang: There is a reason why DAVE is angry. Its not like the USN or the Marines have encountered cracking in the past or had to restrict there cutting edge fighter aircraft from exploring its envelope or performing as " designed". This "HALF BLIND" stuff is something thats brand new. :doh: :doh:


A year after IOC (1984) -

Image

I wonder if "Little Dave" was there at the briefing and asked about tails falling off and hitting folks on the ground ;)

Image

Image


What a POS. Phantoms Phorever


Thanks for that 8)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 03:49
by spazsinbad
NO MORE 'DEATH OF A SALESPERSON' or DeFSpiral - SirNoSir!
‘I Am Not A Salesman For F-35:’ Lt. Gen. Bogdan, F-35 PEO; 2B Software Delayed
25 Mar 2015 Colin Clark

"...First off, the 2B software won’t ready by June, when the Marines plan to declare Initial Operational Capability (IOC). They need to “tweak” it, Bogdan said, so the final version of the software won’t be ready until early fall. But it isn’t ready, so he’s late. That’s not a huge deal, except for the dark optics.

Almost since officials stated talking about the F-35’s capabilities, they have touted its fusion engine as perhaps the plane’s most remarkable tool. This bit of mathematical formula (algorthymns and software) takes data from the plane’s sensors, looks at the threat library and tells the pilot what he faces and recommends the right tools to destroy it. It’s the fusion engine that needs fixing.

The F-35 is designed to fly in groups of four and they are all supposed to share their data with each other. The military doesn’t like to talk about it, but the planes do not fly in a tight formation. It’s more like a diamond spread out over dozens or hundreds of miles. During December testing, the program found there were problems with the fusion engine’s results. When one F-35 is using its sensors to look at ground targets the fusion engine works extremely well. When two planes are sharing data, all goes well. When three planes share, things are pretty good. When four planes share, the system can report ghost targets and other anomalies that Bogdan did not offer details about....

...For those who care, here are the latest cost figures per plane in LRIPs six, seven and eight:

◾F-35A $117 million; $112 million; $108 million
◾F-35B $145 million; $137 million; $134 million
◾F-35C $134 million; $130 million; $129 million"

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2015/03/i-am ... e-delayed/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 11:12
by Dragon029
Seen in the comments of that post:

snafu_solomon • 10 hours ago

Bulkhead cracking, software delayed and now the Lt. General hinting that he will happily wind the program to a close. Things are happening as I predicted. I give the program another 60-90 days. Hopefully the technology developed can be incorporated into the F/A-18 and F/A-18E/F.


:wink:

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 11:49
by popcorn
When all else fails, there's always delusion.
Conan O'Brien

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 12:05
by mk82
Dragon029 wrote:Seen in the comments of that post:

snafu_solomon • 10 hours ago

Bulkhead cracking, software delayed and now the Lt. General hinting that he will happily wind the program to a close. Things are happening as I predicted. I give the program another 60-90 days. Hopefully the technology developed can be incorporated into the F/A-18 and F/A-18E/F.


:wink:


That is a new depth of stupidity and confabulation :devil: . Let see me.....in 60 to 90 days time....what!!! The F35 is still alive in rude health.....cue impotent rage from Solomon bwahahaha :mrgreen:

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 15:29
by KamenRiderBlade
mk82 wrote:
Dragon029 wrote:Seen in the comments of that post:

snafu_solomon • 10 hours ago

Bulkhead cracking, software delayed and now the Lt. General hinting that he will happily wind the program to a close. Things are happening as I predicted. I give the program another 60-90 days. Hopefully the technology developed can be incorporated into the F/A-18 and F/A-18E/F.


:wink:


That is a new depth of stupidity and confabulation :devil: . Let see me.....in 60 to 90 days time....what!!! The F35 is still alive in rude health.....cue impotent rage from Solomon bwahahaha :mrgreen:


What next, the global climate isn't changing drastically?

He's probably a climate denier too.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2015, 22:11
by bring_it_on
Well the comment section is getting exciting :). I've put up the F-18 tail crack clipping as well :)

ELP

Thus far, the F-35 is no threat to those forces. In fact it is likely to get shot down.





EricP_Fanclub

Ideally that sentence should include a link to your own blog where you have a collection of a few dozen links back to your own blog entries from the past that you use to substantiate your claims.

If you are going to pretend to be an analyst (without providing any sort of indication on your background, technical abilities, qualification, experience or knowledge on the subject matter at hand ) you must carry that over to the forums when you wake up in the morning and do a round of the web to find F-35 articles to comment upon. That way those reading your BS won't get a different impression.

Before you accuse me of being a Pentagon/JPO paid troll, I'll admit it myself. You are apparently so darn important that there is a 15 member team at Fort Meade tasked with following you around the internet.



Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 07:00
by quicksilver
US Marines stick to F-35B dates despite new problems
By: Stephen Trimble



None of the items Bogdan talked about (and breathlessly reported so as to generate website hits) are 'new' except the multi-ship fusion tweaks. None.

The cracking he referred to occurred in the durability test article well over a year ago (at the equivalent of something over one simulated lifetime), and not in the aircraft that are flying around at Yuma and Beaufort. News flash: the patch for the fusion tweaks will be delivered to the fleet in the fall.

Some real news for those who have never flown in more recent TACAIR (Hornet, Viper, Mud Hen, Harrier -- each to a different degree) nor in software-driven jets -- these kind of 'tweaks' will go on for the life of a jet.

I also note that in another report on the same media round table by Bogdan, that the much bally-hoo'd 55-year O&S estimate that spawned the 'trillion dollar jet' meme is actually something on the order of 530B in constant-year dollars. In other words, aboout 40% of the 'trillion dollar' headline is actually inflation dollars.

But what's a half-trillion dollar difference between friends...right? :roll:

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 07:55
by spazsinbad
Some more detail about the software issue workarounds: LONG POST BEST READ at SOURCE
Why the Marine Corps Is Rushing to Deploy an Imperfect Combat Aircraft
26 Mar 2015 Sandra Erwin

"...Marines insist that they would much rather take an incomplete F-35B than continue to fly their antiquated fighters.

The F-35B would eventually replace all AV-8B Harriers, F/A-18 Hornets and the EA-6B Prowlers. One of the shortfalls in the new airplane is that its mission software, called Block 2B, is still not able to perform “sensor fusion” functions that allow pilots to identify targets and share the data across a network of multiple F-35s. Fusion is one of the attributes that distinguish “fifth generation” fighters like the F-35 from older models developed during the Cold War.

The Marine Corps intends to start flying the F-35B in combat duties some time in July, a milestone called “initial operational capability,” or IOC....

...The full-blown F-35 mission software would not come until 2017, but the Marine Corps is looking at this in perspective: A less-than-optimum F-35B is still far more desirable than what they have now.
“The Block 2B software configuration that the Marine Corps will IOC with brings an immediate increase in combat capability compared to legacy aircraft,” said Marine Corps spokesman Maj. Paul Greenberg. “Most of the deficiencies we track are deficiencies when compared to the F-35's full combat capability in 2017.”

What matters, he said, is whether the aircraft can meet the basic needs of Marines at war, he said. In its current state, the F-35B can launch missiles, engage other aircraft in dogfights and drop bombs. “At IOC the F-35 will be able to target in real time, talk to forward air controllers over the radio and data-link, put weapons on target and do all of that in contested environments and in bad weather,” Greenberg said. The electronic attack features of the current F-35B, he added, represent a “transformation in electronic warfare spectrum management, and this is not possible with legacy aircraft.”...

...Bogdan said the Block 2B software development was finished in February — four months after its original October 2014 deadline — but there are still glitches to be fixed over the course of this year. The next version, Block 3i for the Air Force, is scheduled for completion in 2016, and the one the Navy is waiting for, Block 3F, would be ready in 2018. F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin stands to lose $300 million in incentive fees if those deadlines aren’t met.

The software that will be delivered to the Marines in June is “good enough for IOC” and the Marines understand its limitations, Bogdan said March 24 during a meeting with reporters....

...Software in general “always has been the number-one technical issue on this program. And always will be,” Bogdan said. The highly computerized aircraft runs on eight million lines of code. Much of that software manages the basic functions of the aircraft, such as flight controls, valves, fuel systems and radars. That software is working as intended, or the airplane would be unsafe to fly. The issues are with the so-called “fusion engine” that was designed to create a unified picture of the potential threats in the airspace so multiple F-35s can fight as a single information network.

The fusion engine combines the input from the F-35 sensors — radar, electro-optical targeting system and distributed aperture system — to create a single track on the location of enemy targets in the air and on the ground. The data then is shared across the network. The software today cannot display accurate data to more than two aircraft at a time. “Fusion is by far the most complicated and, in my mind, worrisome element of this program,” Bogdan said.

When four F-35s flew during a test exercise in recent months, the fusion engine created a confusing and inaccurate picture. Instead of identifying an air-defense missile battery on the ground, the software would “see” double or misread the location. “What we found is that when you have more than one F-35 looking at the same threat, they don't all see it the same,” Bogdan said. “When there's a slight difference, the fusion model can't decide if it's one or more threats.”
The fusion algorithms have to be tweaked, and that could take months. “This is not something you can test in a lab,” Bogdan said.

Marines are not losing sleep over this, at least not for now. They have come up with “workarounds” so they can use the F-35B in close-air support and air-to-air combat missions. “There are ways in which, with the software we have, pilots can work around those problems,” Bogdan said. One option is to only use certain sensors and turn off others. Targeting data would have to be acquired individually by each pilot instead of sharing it across the network. Pilot workload would increase.

Bogdan insisted that the glitches will be fixed, but he would back the Marines if they chose to delay IOC between now and July. “The aircraft will be able to do everything the Marine Corps needs it to do for IOC, it just require pilots to do workarounds.”...

...Another hiccup in the F-35B have been the tires. An aircraft that takes off from short runways and lands vertically requires tires with enough bounce but also must be sufficiently rugged to maintain their form in 170 mph takeoffs. “We have been working hard to find the right balance between float and durability for vertical takeoff,” Bogdan said. “Our fourth tire is now in test. It appears to be working better than any of the others.” Tire manufacturer Dunlop has had difficulties producing the correct specs, he added, “But we’re moving in the right direction.”...

...Marine officials recently have somewhat softened their stance on a July IOC, suggesting that it is not a hard deadline.

“We won't declare IOC unless we meet all of our targets,” Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, deputy commandant of the Marine Corps for aviation told the Senate Armed Services Committee March 25.

The F-35B with the current software provides “tremendous capability that we don't have today,” Davis insisted. “I have no fusion in the airplanes I operate today.” The pilots who fly it today “love the F-35B and they wouldn't go back to their original platforms.”

On the software, Davis said he would withhold judgment for now. If the squadron is not ready to declare IOC, he said, the Marine Corps will respect that. “The decision to declare IOC will be event-based and conditions-based, based on us achieving what we have to do to deliver a combat capability to our Marines,” he said. “If conditions are met, I will make a recommendation to [Commandant] General Dunford that we declare our IOC.”

Source: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... a2&ID=1784

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2015, 22:47
by quicksilver
Maybe the Marines should have bailed out of the Hornet program after this beauty of a report --

"F/A-l8 Naval Strike Fighter:
Progress Has Been Made But
Problems And Concerns Continue"

http://archive.gao.gov/f0102/114371.pdf

Note the section on bulkhead cracks on page 6 of the report.

Then, of course, there was the minor matter of two crashes.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2015, 03:21
by smsgtmac
And lest we forget the F-18 Center Barrel replacement program(s) for the legacy Hornets....
http://www.fatigue2014.com/presentations/wednesday-5march-2014/36146.pdf
http://www.navair.navy.mil/frcsw/docs/almanac_v5_issue4.pdf
http://www.dau.mil/pubscats/ATL%20Docs/Sep-Oct10/Boone%20sept-oct10.pdf

Those F-18s were to have a service life only 75% (6K hrs vs 8k hrs) of the F-35. This stuff is hard. If it wasn't, mouth-breathing "liberal arts' and 'J school' graduates (i.e. 'average specimens') would at least be ABLE to comprehend what its required. But then they'd have a harder task: 'faking' their ignorance instead of living it. :twisted:

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2015, 20:42
by bring_it_on
More clarity on what Lt. General Bogdan mentioned to reporters and other activities prior to IOC (Also some engine discussion)


Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2015, 23:22
by spazsinbad
Thanks for that. "CAS better than Legacy (USMC) at moment." Way to go IOC.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2015, 05:20
by neptune
quicksilver wrote:Maybe the Marines should have bailed out of the Hornet program after this beauty of a report --...


Not likely, the Navy buys the Corps a/c for them. They were not about to let the Corp escape with their F-18 quantity discount??!

This time (F-35B), strangely the Corp has been allowed to tag along (340 -B) with the Air Force program for their F-35A (2,000+ -A) and the Navy has dragged their feet by hanging onto the SBug (which hasn't been provided to the Corp).

The last of the Corp's EA-6Bs are effectively being replaced by the additional Growlers for the Navy. Oh Yeah!, eventually the Corp may resurrect their EA/ EW capability with the F-35B but in the interim they will depend on the Navy Growlers (so the story goes). :wink:

IMHO

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2015, 06:13
by spazsinbad
'neptune' you 'invent' some odd theories I reckon: "...SBug (which hasn't been provided to the Corp)...." It has been made clear to me (if not to you) over many entries in this forum. over the last several years, that the USMC did not want the Super Hornet - the USMC have wanted to have an all F-35B force - replacing all their legacy aircraft eventually. Only reluctantly it seems were they dragooned into replacing some of their F-35Bs - with F-35Cs - so as to fulfil a long standing agreement to have some of their FJs on CVNs (required by Congress) [these USMC FJs only Legacy Hornets]. :mrgreen: Why no F-35Bs on CVNs (in an all F-35B USMC?) you will have to ask the USN (it seems the weak siblings in this arrangement). :devil: :doh: :mrgreen: I can guess easily because the USN have made it very clear they do not want F-35Bs messing up their LUVerLy flight decks by any means whatsoever. HoHum - now they will have to contend with V-22s - so ROLL ON THE Bs BABY! [and muckup their flightdeckfinish] :mrgreen:

Even so the original number of USMC F-35Cs has declined slightly over the last two years - the TOTAL of F-35s [Bs & Cs] for USMC has not changed however.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2015, 07:51
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:... that the USMC did not want the Super Hornet ...


The 500 SBugs have been flying in the Navy since 1999 (15 yrs); the last "D" model delivered in 2000.
Of the 35+ Navy squadrons, only 8 still fly the C Hornet, all others are SBugs.

USMC (USN "stepchild") hasn't been offered the SBug because....the Navy was still trying to "upgrade" their remaining "F/A-18Cs". Now that time has run out on the SBug production line, those will become the new F-35Cs.

The Corp has only 15 squadrons of the "older" Hornets (not SBugs) mostly C/Ds, flown off the carriers; as below-

CURRENT DEPLOYMENT:
CVN-71 Theodore Roosevelt, CSG-12: nine embarked aircraft squadrons of Carrier Air Wing 1: strike fighter squadrons VFA-11 (USN F/A-18F), VFA-211 (USN F/A-18F), VMFA-251 (USMC F/A-18C), VAQ-136 (USN E/A-18G), VAQ-137 (USN E/A-18G), VAW-125 (USN E-2D), VRC-40 (USN C-2), HSM-46 (USN MH-60R), HS-11 “(HH-60H)

IMHO :wink:

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2015, 09:10
by spazsinbad
You are reinventing history AFAIK IMHO. The USMC have said they do not and will not upgrade (in the past) to Super Hornets because?....? They wanted an ALL F-35B fixed wing force - thwarted as we know but still ALL F-35s. It is a simple as that. AND... from the current USMC Aviation Plan (thread title) we have this:
"...The Marine Corps will procure a total of 353 F-35Bs and 67 F-35Cs...."

TOTAL USN & USMC F-35Bs/F-35Cs = 680

And back in the dim dark past of machinations...
US Marine Corps to become 2nd F-35C customer
09 Mar 2011 Stephen Trimble

"...[Senator Joe] Lieberman: General, can you give me your reaction to this? Is that mix at this point acceptable to the marine corps? Am I wrong that you had originally hoped for a pure STOVL variant fleet?

[Biggest USMC Dog] Amos: Senator, you are correct that was the initial plan. Let me back up just a little bit. We've always been fans of TacAir integration [tongue in cheek eh]. As the secretary said, we have had marine squadrons on the navy carriers -- on the Enterprise right now, we have Marine F/A-18s. We do that. We like that. It's good for both our services and the naval force. But when we set the requirement in for STOVL aircraft our hope was we would be able to some day fly some of those aircraft off CVN aircraft carriers. That's yet to be seen whether that would be possible. So in the meantime it would seem prudent that we should buy some number of C variants even early on so we can begin to transition our force there. But it will be a proportional number to our overall buy of STOVL.”..."

http://armed-services.senate.gov/statem ... -08-11.pdf

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... e-2nd.html

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2015, 12:00
by popcorn
Yeah, I think the Navy would have been thrilled, if back in the day, the Corps had expressed interest in SH. They would have prioritized USMC SHs IMO, if only to lock the Marines into the platform soonest.
But AFAIK the Marines were commited to JSF STOVL from day one and were willing to run their Classic jets ragged until it arrived.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2015, 14:14
by spazsinbad
Here is the text in more fullness than above - probably if the original link is still online there will be more:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=15247&p=192517&hilit=Lieberman#p192517

ORIGINAL: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... ecome-2nd/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2015, 15:05
by spazsinbad
Some more unfun unfunded fun: http://news.usni.org/2015/03/31/navys-2 ... craft-buys
USN-USMC unfunded priorities 2016
27 Mar 2015 USN/USMC

"USN
F/A-18F Super Hornet Fighter Aircraft (+12 Aircraft)
The Navy remains challenged in managing the Strike Fighter inventory predominantly described by the balance between the end-of-life planning for F/A-18A-D legacy aircraft, and the requisite integration of F-35C aircraft. The risk is considered barely manageable in PB-16, and is based upon the success of the service life extension programs for F/A-18A-D legacy aircraft. Procuring 12 additional F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft will reduce near-term Strike Fighter inventory gaps and risk, and address a long term inventory by assuring aircraft with useful life to 2035. The F/A-18F aircraft can be manufactured with the required wiring and infrastructure to be converted to an EA-18G aircraft, the only Department of Defense (DoD) tactical aircraft for Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA). This option would provide Navy with future flexibility to increase the EA-18G inventory as we continue to analyze the Joint AEA mission requirements in a DoD study this Spring.

F-35C Lightning II JSF Aircraft (+8 Aircraft)
Fiscal constraints compelled us to reduce F-35C Lightning II, the carrier-based variant of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), procurement by 16 airframes (from 54 to 38) across the FYDP (when compared to PB-15). The F-35C, with its advanced sensors, data sharing capability, and ability to operate closer to threats, will enhance the air wing's ability to find targets and coordinate attacks. Procuring eight additional aircraft in FY 2016 will mitigate transition risk to the F-35C IOC in 2018, while also assuring the transition timeline of the next two JSF squadrons, by returning their stand up from FY 2021 and FY 2022 to FY 2020 and FY 2021, respectively.

USMC
AVIATION PROCUREMENT, NAVY (APN) F-35B Aircraft Procurement (Quantity 6) $ 1,050.0

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY (OMN) F-35B Visual/Optical Landing System (OLS) $ 3.5 "

Source: http://news.usni.org/2015/03/31/documen ... ities-list (PDF 2.3Mb)


http://i1.wp.com/news.usni.org/wp-conte ... .07-AM.png

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2015, 22:42
by neptune
Marine Corps Identifies $2.1B in Unfunded Priorities, Mostly in Aviation
By: Megan Eckstein
March 31, 2015

The Marine Corps would purchase 10 new aircraft, improve the digital interoperability of existing aircraft and boost connectivity through additional communications systems and unmanned aerial vehicles if Congress provided additional funding..Fiscal Year 2016 Unfunded Priorities List, .items .would “further enhance our combat readiness and effectiveness should additional funds above those already requested … be made available.”

The contents of the UPL .
1- . six Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters (JSF),
2- two Lockheed Martin KC-130J tankers,
3- one Bell Helicopter H-1 attack helo
4- one Hawker Beechcraft UC-12W Huron transit plane.
5- .Link 16 digital interoperability upgrades for the Boeing AV-8B Harriers and Sikorsky CH-53K heavy lift cargo helicopter
6- .digital interoperability, ballistic protection and integrated aircraft survivability upgrades for the . MV-22 Osprey.

In the research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) account,
1- $17 million for CH-53K Link 16 improvements
2- $10.7 million for MV-22 digital interoperability upgrades.

In total, . $1.4 billion in aviation procurement projects and $52.7 million in aviation-related RDT&E ...

1- .$49.5 million in aviation-related O&M funding,
2- .$33 million of that going to a general “aviation readiness” line item.
3- .$25 million for aviation readiness in the RDT&E account.
4- . RDT&E request - $9 million for work on BAE System’s Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) rocket guidance kit..

little more at the jump.

http://news.usni.org/2015/03/31/marine- ... more-11894

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2015, 00:20
by popcorn
USMC
AVIATION PROCUREMENT, NAVY (APN) F-35B Aircraft Procurement (Quantity 6) $ 1,050.0


Those cost-reduction measures are starting to pay off.. :D

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2015, 16:06
by USMilFan
quicksilver wrote:I also note that in another report on the same media round table by Bogdan, that the much bally-hoo'd 55-year O&S estimate that spawned the 'trillion dollar jet' meme is actually something on the order of 530B in constant-year dollars.

Hello, quicksilver. I'm interested to look at this report about $530B because it's the first report I've heard about that estimates O & S in constant-year terms. As you probably know, the media fixates on those utterly meaningless trillion-dollar figures like drug addicts jonesing for that next fix. I would deeply appreciate if you would please provide a link to the 530 estimate. Thanks in advance for your help here.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2015, 16:19
by quicksilver
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /70392734/

I was a little off...535B

The un-reported reality is that even the DoD SAR for 2014 showed a decrease in the O&S estimate -- from 617B to 597B in base-year dollars. At this link, somewhere around pg 95 -- http://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/u ... 13-SAR.pdf

CAPE and JPO differences are explained in the SAR.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2015, 09:00
by spazsinbad
I wonder if USMC Brass Sent BS an RSVP? Bring all you can eat including lunch (BSs).
Pacific seabasing exercise will highlight new ships
06 Apr 2015 Hope Hodge Seck

"...The exercise will serve as a proof of concept for Navy and Marine Corps officials, who have hailed seabasing as a way to expand global reach, improve crisis response and enhance the capabilities of amphibious platforms.

I am pretty excited, and so is the commandant of the Marine Corps," Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert said of the seabasing concept during a round-table discussion with Military Times in late March. "This is why I feel really good about Marine Corps/Navy integration. We are going to have an exercise with the JHSV with an MLP and with an ARG, to work out their concept of ship-to-shore, and the connector's piece in the future. We are going to get a really good look at that."

Rotklein said the exercise will be schedule-driven, rather than scenario-based, although details of what would take place during the exercise were still being developed...."

Source: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/m ... /70851664/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2015, 23:33
by spazsinbad
How Marines Plan To Survive Littoral Warfare
08 Apr 2015 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"...The Marines will also be the first service to field the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, although when their F-35B first goes to sea in 2018, Fanta noted, it won’t boast all of its capabilities. Add ongoing upgrades to the amphibious ships themselves, especially self-defense systems, sensors, networks, and other command-and-control. Finally, add escorting Aegis destroyers for wide-area air and missile defense, and the amphibious squadron goes from a method for delivering Marines to a means of dominating sea- and airspace. Such an enhanced amphibious task force won’t have the reach of an aircraft carrier battle group, Fanta said, but it will be much more capable of operating close to shore.

In such littoral areas, it’s artificial to divide operations at sea from operations on land, said Rear Adm. Cynthia Thebaud, commander of East Coast-based amphibious forces, who oversaw last fall’s Bold Alligator wargames. In one recently revised field manual, for example, she said, “it’s a Marine general that’s in there saying, ‘my concerns are mines, missiles, and subs'” — all traditionally seen as the Navy’s problem. The Marines can’t get ashore if their Navy ships get sunk en route, and the Navy’s best way to destroy an anti-ship missile battery may be to launch Marine raiders in V-22s.

“We are joined at the hip,” Thebaud said. “We’re realizing that it is not either ‘land’ or sea’ [and] looking at it as a single integrated naval battle.”

“That is a slow process,” Fanta said, “a reeducation process” for the officers of both services. (There’s a very old joke that the Marine Corps and the Navy are like brothers — specifically Cain and Abel). “Marines naturally tend to save their bullets to protect Marines on the beach and Navy guys tend to not worry about something once it hits the shoreline… but in a high end fight you don’t survive without each other.”

Fixing Up The Fleet
The Navy’s amphibious warships need significant upgrades to execute these concepts fully. Those modifications range from improved command-and-control networks to reinforced flight decks to handle V-22 Ospreys and F-35B jump jets.

“A lot of it is structural flight deck work,” said Rear Adm. David Gale, the Navy’s program executive officer for ships. Based on F-35B testing aboard the USS Wasp, the Navy will spend 40 weeks modifying its newly commissioned USS America (LHA-6) by, for example, removing recently installed piping, lighting, and so on in order to weld reinforcements underneath the flight deck.
As inefficient as this sounds, interrupting production of America in the shipyard would have been worse, Gale said. The future USS Tripoli (LHA-7) will have the necessary accommodations for F-35B built in from the start.

Amphibs also need new electronics to accommodate the F-35, which can fly farther from the ship and send back vastly more data than the AV-8 Harriers it will replace. The F-35 itself has years to go before its software is fully capable. So in the F-35B’s first deployments in 2018, “we will not be able to bring that data fully aboard,” Fanta cautioned. In fact, when the F-35B and other aircraft are sending back the amount of intelligence the military envisions, he said, there’s a danger with some older classes of “driving the ship to its knees.”...

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/mari ... l-warfare/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2015, 08:22
by spazsinbad
Information Overload Could Complicate F-35 Deployments Aboard Ships
08 Apr 2015 Sandra I. Erwin

"The Marine Corps is eyeing the first real-world deployment of F-35Bs aboard big-deck ships around 2018. Marine and Navy officials are confident the ships will be ready to handle the next-generation aircraft, but there are still questions about how the fleet will manage the massive loads of data that will be generated by the joint strike fighter.

The F-35 has been called a flying supercomputer, as it is underpinned by 8 million lines of code, in addition to several more million lines of code associated with its support systems, notably the software that manages fleet logistics.

“The systems are eye watering,” said Rear Adm. Peter Fanta, the Navy’s director of surface warfare. Fanta is a key member of a high-level team that is overseeing the daunting task of making sure big-deck amphibious ships are properly equipped for F-35B operations....

...Marine aviation will be jumping ahead several generations of technology.

New ships will be built with the necessary bells and whistles to be F-35 compatible. The USS Wasp was used for F-35B development testing and received new upgrades for upcoming operations tests. One of the Navy’s brand-new amphibious assault ships, the USS America, will be retrofit beginning next month. It will spend 40 weeks in the shipyard to receive F-35-specific modifications, including a host of advanced new weapons, sensors and flight deck upgrades, said Rear Adm. David Gale, Navy program executive for ships. The next ship in the class, the LHA-7 USS Tripoli — now under construction and due for delivery in 2019 — is being built with F-35-specific features.

Ships will require vastly improved information and communications systems so they can receive and process unprecedented loads of data — not just from the F-35 but also from new Marine helicopters that are being equipped with advanced targeting and data collection systems. “I need to integrate more data, that’s what I’m going to concentrate on next,” Fanta said. “We are in the early phase of studying how to integrate that.” A group of Navy and Marine Corps officials from across the aviation and surface warfare communities have formed an “F-35 integration council” to deal with these issues....

...Fanta said he is certain that there will be “disappointments” in those first deployments as the fleet goes through a learning curve. “And we will not be able to bring that data completely onboard in that first deployment,” Fanta said. “We will learn where our holes are in our first deployment.” Aircraft will “talk to each other, will pass data back and forth to the ship,” but there will be many information-intensive operations that “we have to figure out how to do without driving the ship to its knees.”

Marine aviation experts said that a potentially huge challenge for F-35 operations at sea will be the integration of the aircraft maintenance support system, known as ALIS, or autonomic logistics information system. It is a highly complex system that also requires massive bandwidth, which is a tight commodity aboard ships. ALIS, regardless of where a ship might be at sea, would have to continuously update and talk back to F-35 maintainers in the United States. If ALIS is not properly integrated aboard ships, industry sources told National Defense, it could create crushing maintenance headaches for the fleet. They caution that Marines should address this problem so they don’t relive the painful early deployments of the V-22 Osprey, which had many logistics and readiness problems because the support systems were not in place and the logistics system was not mature enough to handle operations."

Source: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... px?ID=1794

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2015, 22:32
by spazsinbad
U.S. Marines vow tough review of F-35 combat readiness
08 Apr 2015 Andrea Shalal

"(Reuters) - The U.S. Marine Corps plans to carry out a tough, separate "inspection" before declaring the first squadron of 10 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets ready for initial combat use, the Marine Corps' top aviator said on Wednesday.

Deputy Commandant for Aviation Lieutenant General Jon Davis told Reuters he was keeping close tabs on 13 items required to approve combat use of the jets, now ready after years of delays and cost overruns. He said he remained optimistic that the service would meet its July target date for the milestone.

"We're targeting July 15," Davis said in an interview. "We're hell-bent on getting this airplane into service correctly. We're not going to declare IOC unless they're ready and they can do all the things that they've said they can do."...

...Davis said the Marines planned to deploy the first F-35 squadron to Japan in January 2017, but it could respond to crises around the world as soon as the IOC declaration was made.

He said he planned to carry out an unprecedented "operational readiness inspection" before approving the first squadron for combat use, including academic tests for officers and enlisted personnel, simulator flights and test flights.

"I want to prove to people that we are very serious about this, and that we have no intention of putting an airplane in a combat theater that's not ready to go," he said, adding that the inspection would likely take "a couple of weeks."

He said the biggest issues still to be resolved included the purchase of sufficient spare parts to allow deployment of the new jets; completion of modifications to the first 10 jets to incorporate design changes; and additional work on software, mission data files and a few dozen test points....

...By July, the Marines will have over 50 trained F-35 pilots and more than 400 maintenance personnel, a spokesman said."

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/ ... C220150408

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2015, 11:42
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: I think I know my limits with USMC concepts/jargon whilst this article pushes me over the edge there are some great bits in it that even I can understand. :doh: Again this is a long article with a tonne of links for your delectation.
2d Marine Expeditionary Brigade: Shaping the Scalable Modular Forces for 21st Century Operations
11 Apr 2015 Robbin Laird

"Two documents released over the last year provide a clear direction for the US Navy-Marine Corps team in 21st century operations.

The first is Expeditionary Force 21, which provides a concept for the Marine Corps (MC) to build, equip and train their forces for 21st century operations.

The MC is enabled by the US Navy (USN) amphibious fleet, which is equipped and trained for the ROMO (Range of Military Operations).

To do so, the Marines are focusing on evolving their capabilities beyond the PHIBRON (Amphibious Squadron) or ARG (Amphibious Ready Group)/MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit) level by bringing forces together from across the theater of operations to composite forces.

The goal is to “provide timely and scalable forces for crisis response, allowing commanders to tailor forces to evolving missions and effectively composite modular MAGTFs (Marine Air Ground Task Forces) by combining forward-deployed forces with rapidly deploying forces.”

EF21_USMC_Capstone_Concept: http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... oncept.pdf (3.4Mb)

The second is the periodic Seabasing report highlighting the modernization and evolution of the amphibious task forces from where C2 (Command and Control) and the projection of power is crafted and executed.

Seabasing Annual Report: http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... ow+Rez.pdf (3.6Mb)

The concepts in these documents are being tested and shaped today by the 2d Marine Expeditionary Brigade.

2d MEB’s innovative approach to experimenting with scalable and modular forces requires a core focus on innovations in C2 throughout all phases of force projection....

...The first dynamic is the change in MC aviation, whereby the Marines have become an Osprey enabled assault force with the F-35B bringing C2 and airborne lethal and non-lethal capabilities to an extended-range operational mission set...."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/2d-marine-expedi ... perations/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2015, 22:10
by spazsinbad
WOT AMERICA has been doing lately and WOT she will do soon (not only but also related to F-35Bs/V-22s OPs).
USS America (LHA 6) Amphibious Assault Ship Successfully Completes Final Contractor Trials
09 Apr 2015 NavyRecognition

"The Navy's newest amphibious assault ship, USS America (LHA 6), completed final contractor trials (FCT) April 3. FCT, ran by the Navy's Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV), is part of a series of post-delivery tests the ship has been preparing for since before commissioning. During the trials, the ship and its major systems are exercised, tested and corrected as required....

...The four-day trials began March 30 with pre-underway and material condition checks, followed by at-sea demonstrations of a variety of systems including main propulsion, engineering and ship control systems, combat systems, damage control, food service and crew support....

...After successfully completing FCTs, the ship will head into a maintenance period known as post shakedown availability (PSA) beginning late Spring. During this time the discrepancies that were noted will be resolved. [Upgrade for F-35B/V-22 usage also]

America is the first ship of its class, replacing the Tarawa class of amphibious assault ships, and is optimized for Marine Corps aviation."

Source: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... rials.html

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 12:48
by spazsinbad
USMC INNOVATE - has anyone heard that before? Well here they go agin.... BUT we know this already because it is OLD news.
Tablets & Tomahawks: Navy, Marines Scramble To Innovate
13 Apr 2015 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"...“[Gen. Joseph Dunford said] One of the things that we’ve adjusted to over the last few years without spending a lot of money — although we definitely will spend more on command and control systems in particular — is the nature of distributed operations,” Dunford went on during his own panel, citing “remarkable” innovation in coordinating far-flung forces....

...“It exists, we bought it, what can do to that warhead to adjust it?” Rear Adm. Kevin Donegan said. That principle of getting more missions out of existing missiles doesn’t just apply to Tomahawk, Donegan told me after a panel at the conference: It holds for the Harpoon, historically an anti-ship weapon but capable of land attack; for the Standard Missile, designed for air defense; and even for torpedoes....

...The high cost of warships has the Navy exploring new uses for non-combat ships. For example, it’s installing or upgrading helicopter landing pads strong enough to take the V-22, the Marine Corps’ favorite transport and now the Navy’s new shore-to-ship delivery aircraft. The Marines have also worked with allies to get the V-22 certified for landing on French and Spanish warships, Bailey said, further expanding the potential platforms.

Of course, the Marines would prefer to operate off US Navy amphibious warships, not off foreign or non-combat vessels. While ships like the new Afloat Forward Staging Base, derived from a civilian tanker, can fill in for amphibs in many peacetime missions, said Dunford, in even modestly dangerous scenarios, they will need a lot of careful handling and protection. But the Navy has 31 amphibious ships while theater commanders have missions enough for 50, a number the shipbuilding budget will never reach. Given that gap, said Dunford, “we can sit and admire the problem or we can take a look at the tools that we have available to us.”"

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/tabl ... the-cheap/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2015, 22:49
by spazsinbad
:devil: Will BillyBoyBobSweetiePie be invited to the events below? Maybe he will just read about them from other invitees missives? :doh:
Dunford: Marine Corps Must Strike Readiness Balance
13 Apr 2015 Yasmin Tadjdeh

"NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — With budgets getting tighter, the Marine Corps is struggling to keep its forces ready for unexpected contingencies, the service’s commandant said April 13.

“When I look at our ability to respond to the unexpected or to a major contingency, I have some concerns. The overall state of our non-deployed unit readiness, particular aviation units is below what we want it to be,” Gen. Joseph Dunford said in a speech at the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space Conference....

...“We need to rebalance out efforts to prepare for the future,” he said. “Underinvesting in modernization is going to result in us maintaining older or obsolete equipment at higher cost and [with] degraded capabilities. It’s eventually going to erode our competitive advantage I think we would all agree we don’t ever want our Marines and sailors in a fair fight.”

Key modernization priorities include the F-35 joint strike fighter, the joint light tactical vehicle, the amphibious combat vehicle and improved command-and-control systems, Dunford noted.

Additionally, the Marine Corps will need to invest in anti-access/area denial technnology, he said.

“Given the importance of maintaining a viable sea-based forcible entry capability our service level exercise priorities for 2015 and 2016 are going to focus on how we fight from the sea in an anti-access area denial environment,” he noted. “We want to protect our ability to use the sea as maneuver space in an environment where access is increasingly contested by state and non state actors.”

Source: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... px?ID=1798

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2015, 03:43
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: Pesky Gyrenes just experimentin' and experimentin' all the damn time - when are they goin' to STOP! :mrgreen:
Navy Created Auxiliary Platforms and Payloads Council to Coordinate Experimentation
14 Apr 2015 Megan Eckstein

"NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. – The Navy has stood up an Auxiliary Platforms and Payloads Council at the Pentagon to look at “new, innovative methods to fulfill the missions” the Navy and Marine Corps struggle to efficiently meet with current platforms, director of expeditionary warfare Maj. Gen. Robert Walsh said Tuesday....

...Walsh offered as an example, flying a Bell-Boeing NV-22 Osprey from the LMSR Large Medium-Speed Roll-on/Roll-off Ship]. Not only would Naval Air Systems Command and the Marine aviation community be involved, but the PEOs for Integrated Warfare Systems and for Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Information (C4I) and the OPNAV N2/N6 information dominance directorate would also be looped in to work the command and control piece of the effort.

Walsh said there was no money set aside for experiments, but the chief of naval operations and the commandant of the Marine Corps have give[n] their authority to move forward on these innovation efforts and find money where possible to quickly develop tests and determine if these alternative operations ideas are viable."

Source: http://news.usni.org/2015/04/14/navy-cr ... imentation

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2015, 06:30
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote::.. Will BillyBoyBobSweetiePie be invited to the events below? ..]


BS will be the guy in a firesuit, carrying a fire extinguisher!!...melted decks and all that tripe..... :)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2015, 01:12
by spazsinbad
What will become of their dreams? Dunno. Yet they will try and try again. Go USMC:
Killea: Dept. of Navy Innovation Push Should Streamline USMC Experimentation Efforts
17 Apr 2015 Megan Eckstein

"NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. – The Navy’s renewed focus on innovation will help the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab find ready and willing participants to both host and shape its live-force experiments, the lab’s commanding general told USNI News.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus created an Office of Strategy and Innovation last fall and released a Navy Innovation Vision this week at the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space 2015 Exposition to help create a climate in which sailors and Marines are encouraged to develop and try out new ideas without fearing failure....

...For the Navy’s part, deputy chief of naval operations for fleet readiness and logistics Vice Adm. Philip Cullom said during the panel presentation that the Navy has the same problems for testing out technologies like its Laser Weapon System and Electromagnetic Railgun. Finding “white space” within the ships’ testing and training schedules is difficult, particularly under the more disciplined Optimized Fleet Response Plan that outlines maintenance and deployment schedules. But he said there are plenty of lieutenants, captains and even young flag officers at the strike group level who see opportunities in their schedules and want to be a part of driving the Navy forward through innovative testing.

“They are willing to try, want to try and are actually in the process of drilling those things in,” Cullom said, adding that the rest of the Navy needs to support them by encouraging them to be bold without fearing a failed experiment."

Source: http://news.usni.org/2015/04/17/killea- ... on-efforts

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2015, 23:41
by spazsinbad
Those USMC 'Twisted Sisters' are at it again. GolDarnIt GeeGoshGolly (don't tell BS). Several same versions available:
Nevada range supports first F-35B integration into USMC’s weapons school exercise
23 Apr 2015 Staff Sgt. Siuta B. Ika, 99th Air Base Wing Public Affairs

"NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. (AFNS) -- The Nevada Test and Training Range was part of history April 21, when four Marine Corps-assigned F-35B Lightning IIs participated in their first Marine Corps' Final Exercise (FINEX) of the Weapons and Tactics Instructor (WTI) Course on the NTTR.

The FINEX is the capstone event to the Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron 1's seven-week WTI course and is a semi-annual, large-force employment exercise held throughout the NTTR.

This particular evolution of FINEX employed the F-35Bs as part of the "Blue" strike package, whose objective was to degrade, depress and destroy integrated air defense systems and other ground targets on the NTTR, which were guarded by "Red" adversary aircraft from Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona, and Nellis Air Force Base.

Marine Corps Maj. Geoff Franks, a MAWTS-1 weapons school instructor and F-18 Hornet instructor pilot, explained the importance of integrating the F-35B into exercises like FINEX and the role the Air Force has played in helping MAWTS-1 generate tactics, techniques and procedures for Marine pilots of the fifth-generation aircraft.

"What we've done is, we've leveraged the Air Force heavily because the Air Force is way ahead of the game in terms of fourth to fifth integration -- integrating fourth-generation assets like the F-15 (Eagle) with fifth-generation assets like the F-22 (Raptor)," Franks said. "Now as the F-35 has come along, which for the Marine Corps, the F-35 is going to (initial operational capability) around July, we need to be postured to teach tactics to the F-18 (Hornet) community so the Marine F-18 fleet will be able to start integrating with the F-35s.

"In order to do that, we have leveraged heavily the proven, published TTPs that the Air Force has been using for about a decade," Franks continued. "One of the limiting factors of fifth-generation assets is they can't carry as much ordnance (as fourth-generation assets), so if you can maximize the lethality of fifth-generation assets using fourth-generation, we will become a very lethal and survivable force." [internal carriage M'Lud]

Franks also explained why MAWTS-1 WTI cadre love exercises on the NTTR.

"We do it on the NTTR because of the unique nature of what we can do there -- the NTTR offers a unique opportunity for students and the F-35 to operate in a heavily-contested environment," Franks said. "I will always bring in Air Force assets because it further increases our learning for our students. If they learn to (operate in) that heavily contested, very difficult mission set like what we can provide them in the NTTR, they see the benefit."..."

Sources: http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... rcise.aspx OR http://www.nellis.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123445957 OR http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20150422_NTTR.pdf (50Kb)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2015, 01:04
by mrigdon
There's an awful lot of words in parentheses in those quotes. There's no video or audio linked, so I wonder what was really said, especially as regards that comment about fifth gen assets not being able to carry as much ordnance. If you're willing to forgo stealth, even the F-35B can carry about as much total ordnance as a Super Hornet, right? And the F-35 doesn't need tanks to get as much fuel in the air.

The article makes it sound like major is saying that fourth generation planes can carry more ordnance all the time, which isn't true. The reason they carry more is that they aren't stealthy at all, so you might as well hang everything. They only carry more than an F-35 when the F-35 is rigged for stealth.

Obviously, developing tactics that take advantage of fourth and fifth gen assets operating together will benefit you even when all those fourth gen planes are gone and you send up a mix of F-35s with internal and external loads. However, this article makes it sound like there's some inherent disadvantage for the F-35. They can carry just as much ordnance (especially compared to the Marine Hornets); they just aren't stealthy if they do it.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2015, 01:45
by spazsinbad
Agree with points noted - p'raps just an outcome of the editing process - I doubt there is any bias - but I don't claim to know. Just one of those things maybe.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2015, 09:35
by spazsinbad
Not just the USMC but the others - however the USMC go first in this regard so the artickle is plonked here. BEST READ at source of course and not overly long.
The F-35 and the Fifth Generation Warfare Ecosystem
01 May 2015 Ed Timperlake SLDinfo etc.

"...A core element of working the evolving future is understanding that even with a disruptive change platform like the F-35, it is intersection of the training and tactics for the platform with the overall capabilities of the force which will drive change, And it is the squadrons and the squadron pilots who are the heart of shaping innovation.

As Lt Col. Berke had highlighted, change was a significant part of what the F-35 was all about for the pilots and their roles.

Timperlake underscored that in visits to the core warfighting centers in the United States associated with airpower – Nellis, Fallon and MAWS-1 – the warfighters had embraced change and were working across the services and with the allies in shaping new combat approaches.

As one who had met John Boyd and sat through his lectures a couple of times, Timperlake focused on how the famous OODA loop was being re-shaped with the coming of the F-35 fleet whereby the “Decide-Act” part of the OODA loop was increasingly important....

...Timperlake argued that the warfighting centers were interactively working together and with allies to shape the way ahead.

Each center has an evolving special focus that will carry forth innovation across the entire warfighting enterprise.

MCAS Yuma, MAWTS-1, VMX-22 and the F-35 squadron, were working together to shape an innovative approach to 21st century close air support within which the cockpit display gave the pilot a constant read of the AA and GA threats and in which electronic warfare was part of the CAS capabilities of the aircraft. And with the integration with the Osprey and with the MAGTF, the Marines were shaping a whole new approach to assault forces.

Visiting the Warfare Center at Nellis, Timperlake learned of the central importance of shaping a fleet wide mission data set correlated with the F-35 sensors in shaping wide ranging SA and engagement force decision making. With Red Flag exercises the USAF was leading the way in shaping the intersection of the F-35 with other combat assets to shape an air combat revolution that will help reshape an ecosystem that would evolve with the F-35 fleet.

At Fallon, the Navy is looking to lead the way on shaping a live virtual constructive range which will allow the complexities of a modern battlefield to be both inclusive and wide-ranging.

He saw the new carrier air wing evolving under the influence of the F-35 extending its reach and expanding the capabilities of the maritime force to deliver distributed lethality....

...He concluded that “countless evolutionary and revolutionary aspects of 21st century combat will be in the hands of the squadron pilots – as it should be!” "

PDF: http://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/timperlake-denmark-april-2015?ref=http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-and-the-fifth-generation-warfare-ecosystem/ (6Mb)

Source: http://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/t ... ecosystem/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2015, 17:47
by spazsinbad
Unsurprisingly there is a lot about USMC Aviation and what the F-35B BRUNGs in this video to new shipping for SeaBasing (NOPE - NOT FREE BASING) but some insist the USMC are on CRACK about Aviation. 1.3 Mil Gals of Fuel on USS America.
Improving USMC Amphibious Capabilities VIDEO
04 May 2015 Vaguely Meridian DefNewsCom

"Maj. Gen. Robert Walsh, director of Navy expeditionary warfare, on how the Marine Corps is improving its amphibious skills."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/videos/defen ... /26838991/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2015, 21:32
by spazsinbad
Can't stop those gyrenes - fuzing stuff everywhichwaybutloose. ALL of IT best read at Source.
Marines’ Aviation C2 System Finishes Operational Assessment
06 May 2015 Megan Eckstein

"MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO, Va. – The Marines’ Common Aviation Command and Control System (CAC2S) wrapped up its operational assessment in Arizona and will have a busy year finalizing software and hardware tweaks before heading to initial operational test and evaluation a year from now.

CAC2S will modernize the Marine Corps’ 30-year-old air command and control (C2) system, integrating all radar and data feeds into a single operating picture.

“Before, in a lot of our obsolete C2 systems you’d have three or four different screens on the board,” Lt. Col. Richard Owens, aviation command and control branch head for the Marines’ Capabilities Development Directorate, told USNI News in an April 24 interview at Marine Corps Base Quantico. “Now, this system incorporates radar data, tactical datalink data, …. Blue Force Tracker, and we’ll take all that data, fuse it and put it on one screen now.”...

...The operational assessment was conducted as part of the Weapons and Tactics Instructor Course at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz., in March and April. The three major air centers used CAC2S in the exercise – the Tactical Air Operations Center (TAOC), Direct Air Support Center (DASC) and Tactical Air Control Center (TACC) – and the system successfully supported all three in their missions.

Just prior to the assessment, CAC2S passed its Milestone C review on February 28, allowing it to enter into production and paving the way for operational testing....

...“We’re on the cusp in the next few years of making some huge advances in the command and control architecture of the MAGTF (Marine Air Ground Task Force),” Col. Gregory Breazile, director of the C2 and cyber and electronic warfare integration division, said in the same interview. “Getting something more modern and more agile … it’s just going to take us a giant leap forward.”"

Source: http://news.usni.org/2015/05/06/marines ... assessment

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2015, 21:03
by bring_it_on

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2015, 23:53
by spazsinbad
Thanks for that - nice find. At the end we see the desert STO with a cloud of moondust off the concrete at the end. I would extend the concrete to help keep the dust off the rest of the concrete. Perhaps futile in the desert winds probably.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2015, 00:05
by bring_it_on
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks for that - nice find. At the end we see the desert STO with a cloud of moondust off the concrete at the end. I would extend the concrete to help keep the dust off the rest of the concrete. Perhaps futile in the desert winds probably.


Yeah can't keep dust out in the desert.

The photos for this training are here -

https://www.flickr.com/photos/77258709@N06/16685668353/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2015, 00:27
by spazsinbad
Thanks again 'brungItBack' - and :mrgreen: LOOKit the green Fuel Trucks IN THE DESERT! Oh lordylordy me OH my! STOP STOP! :devil: That would be the LSO we see in the tower.
"ermaleksandr 150427-M-SJ585-789 https://www.flickr.com/photos/77258709@ ... otostream/
An F-35B Lightning II with Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121, based out of Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz., performs a vertical landing while an air traffic controller observes from a mock air control tower, as part of required flying field carrier landing practices (FCLP) at the auxiliary landing field, Monday, April 27, 2015. The landing field simulates an aircraft carrier flight deck to prepare pilots for landing and taking off at sea."

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2015, 10:11
by mrigdon
spazsinbad wrote:At the end we see the desert STO with a cloud of moondust off the concrete at the end. I would extend the concrete to help keep the dust off the rest of the concrete.


Maybe if you extend the concrete all the way to the nearest pasture. :wink:

A quick search didn't come up with anything, but isn't the lift fan in the F-35B designed in such a way as to reduce the possibility of debris getting sucked into the intakes? Or was it just that the lift fan creates a kind of thermal buffer so the intakes don't suck in any hot exhaust?

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2015, 10:16
by spazsinbad
My thinking was more just about FOD on the concrete STO runway - however I'll guess that is under control with sweeper machines. In what situation are you concerned about ingesting the dust - VLing or STOing?

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2015, 10:33
by mrigdon
spazsinbad wrote:In what situation are you concerned about ingesting the dust - VLing or STOing?


I would only think it might be an issue when landing (since you're not moving laterally and dust might blow upward). Planes of all manner take off in deserts all the time, so I don't figure that's an issue.

I'd noticed in pictures, though, that the base of the lift fan appears to have something like slats, so I thought it might be directing the flow of air backwards to some degree, so that even if there is debris underneath the plane, it would be blown away from the intakes.

It's been awhile, but I remember there being some advantage to having a lift fan rather than a lift jet. However I think it may only have to do with heat. A jet engine up by the intakes caused problems with the intakes taking in too much hot air and the rear engine losing thrust?

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2015, 10:42
by popcorn
Well, there was an article stating that the Marines were planning to test the jet on dirt and grass surfaces. Nothing reported AFAIK.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2015, 10:52
by spazsinbad
'popcorn' probably the 'dirt/grass' was protected by AM-2 matting - if it was not stated as such. For sure there has been a lot going on the STOVL world that we have yet to hear about. :mrgreen: I BLAME LAZY JOURNOs! :doh:

Through the long gestation of the STOVL aspects of the F-35B with input from the various Harrier Users the problems of the past have been if not eliminated at the very least greatly ameliorated with the layout of the LiftFan and the main engine exhaust. As I recall 'quicksilver' and I had some discussion about this in relation to SRVLs on CVFs in that SRVL thread. However some of that info is repeated in other forum sections here. I have no STOVL experience and rely on what is public information with some input from ex-A4G pilots who went to the SHAR world in the mid 1980s. Give me a min to find link.... Start of SRVL thread is here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=230592&hilit=SRVL#p230592

Search that SRVL thread for words such as 'ingestion' to reveal this for example: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=265126&hilit=ingestion#p265126

The slats in the LiftFan exhausts can power the aircraft backwards in STOVL mode at 30 KIAS if required.

A graphic in the thread: download/file.php?id=18426&mode=view

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2015, 10:59
by popcorn
No matting was mentioned but you're likely correct Spaz. The jet would gouge some impressive furrows in unmatted ground and make quite a mess of things.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2015, 11:36
by mrigdon
spazsinbad wrote:
The slats in the LiftFan exhausts can power the aircraft backwards in STOVL mode at 30 KIAS if required.


So the slats do move. I've only seen still shots of the slats.

The graphic shows how the ground sheet during landing can throw debris up and into the intake, especially if you're moving forward (like in a SRVL). I was just curious whether the lift fan vent could be canted in such a way during takeoffs to create a ground sheet that would "clear" debris from in front of the plane, reducing the risk of injection. Or maybe it just makes it worse.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2015, 11:48
by spazsinbad
I think the SRVL thread is worth reading from go to whoa. I did say that some aspects of previous Harrier HGI Hot Gas Ingestion were ameliorated with the layout of the F-35B. Risks are every where in aviation and they are lessened by good design. Believe me I'm not going to replicate the information in the SRVL thread here again. Take the time to read the thread.

The LiftFan exhaust/vent will be canted rearwards a little to help with the forward motion of the aircraft initially before becoming part of the lift (also generated by wings) before lift off in a STO. Even the roll posts are shut off during the first part of a STO to allow more thrust to the thrusty bits. Then the roll posts open to enable control at below stall speeds in said STO.

A Creeping VL is one way to alleviate the effect of the exhausts on the ground - there is such a thing and has been tested; although the details about what constitutes a slow landing, creeping landing etc. have not been defined to my knowledge.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2015, 12:31
by mrigdon
In this case, there was discussion about dust and how it affected the F-35B. Digging into the SRVL thread, in particular jumping over to pprune.org and reading the posts by John Farley, the ability to hover (in his analysis) eliminated FOD as a concern. He was discussing rolling out of a hanger, hovering over to a fuel truck, then taking off vertically. This was in regards to an air field with craters in war time. You may give up ordnance, but you're still able to function. So it seems that operating out of a desert area with lots of dust and sand shouldn't pose too much of a problem.

Now that the Marines are deploying V-22s as tankers, I'm curious as to whether they are looking into launching F-35Bs vertically with minimal fuel, then tanking them up and sending them off to perform missions. This would seem to expand their basing options immensely. Perhaps there aren't enough V-22s to make this a viable option (I don't know how much fuel a V-22 can carry in the tanker role).

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2015, 12:52
by spazsinbad
Have not thought about that aspect. Certainly the V-22 will carry significant fuel - at least the USMC think so. There is a possibility that uprated engines will help in the 'carry that load' aspect. Also remember they plan to use the V-22 fuel on ground to fuel other machinery (that can use jet fuel) and not just F-35Bs.

This URL has 'up to 12,000 lbs of fuel carry: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=23690&p=260944&hilit=Osprey+Tanker#p260944

I think is it easier to know stuff about the Harrier in all the forms however less so to know about the F-35B. There is no direct comparison one to the other. They are quite different in many aspects of their operation; especially their flyability ease. This aspect (to me) appears to be overlooked. Yes the F-35B has terrific flexibility for landing and taking off options, with or without all the fuel or ordnance, and in the case of fuel it can be fuelled in flight or at another lilypad site on land or afloat and the beat goes on. The Bee could be fully fuelled at one site then travel quickly via an appropriate short take off to circumstances (not a VTO if fully fuelled) to another appropriate landing site to be fully armed to then etc etc. Might sound a little too much but who knows. Sure it would be convenient to have the fuel and armament in the same place but...

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2015, 13:21
by mrigdon
spazsinbad wrote:Sure it would be convenient to have the fuel and armament in the same place but...


Ah, Ares. Thou hast confounded the best laid plans of mice and MEFs.

Your previous post was from 2013. I know since then that the Navy has selected the V-22 for carrier delivery duties and there were some recent articles about the Marines putting a tank inside the V-22 for refueling duties (in addition to whatever could be hung outside?), so hopefully you can get more than just 12,000 pounds of fuel now. That's barely enough to top off a single F-35B (although, to be fair, the F-35B takes a h*** of a lot of fuel internally).

I'm totally on board with the superiority of the Bee to the Harrier. There's all manner of negative articles about the JSF, but they all compare the JSF with the F-16, the A-10, or the F-22 (the latter of which is a bogus comparison). When you compare the F-35B to the Harrier, the Harrier might as well be the Wright Flyer. :notworthy:

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2015, 18:42
by spazsinbad
Well then you might know that the USN has said this (however we all know they will sponge off whatever the USMC do - which is probably fair enough because they have 'apparently' different priorities and money is tight): [USMC tanker V-22 by 2017 and USN equivalent in the never never]
Navy Not Following Marines’ Lead in Developing V-22 Osprey Tanker
04 May 2015 Sam LaGrone

"The Navy has no immediate plans to explore using its planned fleet of V-22 Ospreys carrier onboard delivery aircraft to refuel its carrier aircraft, while the Marines are actively looking to include a tanking capability in its own tilt-rotor V-22s by 2017, service officials told USNI News on Monday....

...For its part, the Marines are currently developing the V-22 Aerial Refueling System (VARS), which is being developed in parallel with the planned first Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter deployment in 2017, according to the Marine Corps’ 2015 aviation plan.

Similar to the Harvest HAWK roll-on weapons kit for the Marine’s Lockheed Martin KC-130J, the system will be able to roll on and off the aircraft as needed, USNI News understands.

The goal of VARS is to include an organic tanking capability to the Marine Air Combat Element (ACE) of an embarked Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) starting with tactical fighters and then moving into other aircraft....

...The service [USN] didn’t include an aerial refueling capability in its COD requirements, USNI News understands....

...Unmanned aircraft, could eventually take over the role, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said last week.

The NAVAIR’s preferred set of requirements for the Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) also includes the ability for the unmanned aerial vehicle to tank other aircraft."

Source: http://news.usni.org/2015/05/04/navy-no ... rey-tanker

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2015, 22:35
by gabriele
I'm surprised the US Navy fakes non interest in the V-22 tanker kit, even while everyone can see they need and want an alternative to "wasting" lots of Super Hornet sorties and hours in expensive buddy tanking...

I can't imagine a single scenario in which they would let the tanker kit for V-22 slip by without using it. Can't say they will because it is a USMC idea, and they don't want to be seen as following instead of leading...? :D

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2015, 00:47
by mrigdon
gabriele wrote:I'm surprised the US Navy fakes non interest in the V-22 tanker kit, even while everyone can see they need and want an alternative to "wasting" lots of Super Hornet sorties and hours in expensive buddy tanking...


For all sorts of reasons, the Navy wants to keep the Super Hornet production line going. Building another tanker would take pressure off the Super Hornet, making it harder to get Congress to allocate funds for more Super Hornets. If the budget makers would actually just let the Navy do what they need to do, they wouldn't need all this PR jujitsu. The HASC basically spent late April calling the Navy a bunch of liars, so that kind of shows the state of the relationship.

http://news.usni.org/2015/04/29/hasc-votes-to-cut-cruiser-modernization-timelines-in-half-despite-navy-concerns

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2015, 01:20
by XanderCrews
gabriele wrote:I'm surprised the US Navy fakes non interest in the V-22 tanker kit, even while everyone can see they need and want an alternative to "wasting" lots of Super Hornet sorties and hours in expensive buddy tanking...



I'm betting that happens its just a matter of time.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2015, 02:08
by popcorn
Just be glad they've finally acquiesced to operating a STOVL aircraff off of their flattops. V-22 will develop it‘s own little tribe of converts and advocates who will want an expanded role for their mount.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2015, 13:54
by madrat
Look at the speeds one operates behind each option and it's obvious why they don't. That leaves both platforms very vulnerable.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2015, 14:31
by spazsinbad
'madrat' are you referring to having a Hornet C & D get behind the drogue from a V-22 when both pilots said it was more than OK?

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... a2&ID=1346


Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2015, 16:50
by madrat
The speed is high above stall speed, but I'd be worried about threats to the MV-22(K). A buddy tanker can get out fast, the MV-22 might be too far out to get protection.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2015, 17:37
by spazsinbad
'too far out' from where? There is a PLAN to arm V-22s with forward firing rockets. How 'bout some air to air missiles for the tankers - probably takes away fuel carry but anyway question 'where' still stands? Probably fanciful but....

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2015, 22:12
by XanderCrews
madrat wrote:The speed is high above stall speed, but I'd be worried about threats to the MV-22(K). A buddy tanker can get out fast, the MV-22 might be too far out to get protection.


Buddy tankers aren't usually "getting out fast" as it is-- and they tend not to go in at all either. Marines also don't usually use organic fighters for buddy tanking.

We use this guy primarily:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 070205.jpg


Harriers can't really buddy refuel and Marine Hornets are using whatever the USN (like the same buddy fueling hornets the USN utilizes) or USAF provides or if the herky birds are around.

TLDR?

Marines don't generally use fighters for AAR

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2015, 00:24
by madrat
Other than from a sea-based platform, why would they want MV-22 delivering fuel? Surely you'd rather use KC-130's over MV-22 any day of the week. Using MV-22 to refuel from a flattop is a gold-plated solution that would probably work just as well from a buddy tanker.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2015, 00:30
by spazsinbad
'madrat' you seem to be confused about how the V-22 tanker will be used, as envisaged by USMC. Not only MIGHT it refuel F-35Bs both in the air AND on the ground but refuel appropriate ground vehicles also - where ever these combined assets might be. Shirley that is a bonus compared to any other refueller.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2015, 00:49
by madrat
They can already tote around fuel bladders in a sling. I wouldn't think keeping the bird stationary to refuel ground vehicles to be wise. Get in, get out. No lingering. Stationary targets get hit.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2015, 01:32
by spazsinbad
Well then as long as you know better than the USMC - you will be happy.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2015, 02:14
by madrat
I remember Beruit. The marines don't always adapt with the times. Sometimes they do it the 'marine way', which doesn't always work without much effort.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2015, 02:32
by XanderCrews
madrat wrote:Other than from a sea-based platform, why would they want MV-22 delivering fuel? Surely you'd rather use KC-130's over MV-22 any day of the week. Using MV-22 to refuel from a flattop is a gold-plated solution that would probably work just as well from a buddy tanker.


not really no.

madrat wrote:I remember Beruit. The marines don't always adapt with the times. Sometimes they do it the 'marine way', which doesn't always work without much effort.


what do you "remember" about Beirut? Don't know why you bring something like that up here, and what it has to do with aerial refueling--Especially considering that as mentioned AAR is a Purple job and the V-22 AAR is probably going to be used by both USN and USMC and probably other Allies.

So the Beirut quip is downright offensive to be honest with you. I would also point out that the USMC didn't select the tactics and ROE there, but details don't seem to be your strong suit

And rest assured from your posts in this subject the Marines know more than you do. Thanks for your concern though

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2015, 03:55
by KamenRiderBlade
http://phasezero.gawker.com/we-dont-kno ... 1702507472

General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., The Commandant of the Marine Corps is Obama's nominee to be the next Chairman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Yet, William Arkin is paranoid about him

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2015, 13:11
by madrat
Wait, aren't you the same Xandercrews that thought Superhornet stealth pods need Patriot missiles and F-35B doesn't need its gunpod?

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2015, 17:35
by XanderCrews
madrat wrote:Wait, aren't you the same Xandercrews that thought Superhornet stealth pods need Patriot missiles and F-35B doesn't need its gunpod?


You must have me confused with someone else. you are welcome to post what you think I said but Again details are not your strong suit, and rather than admit you were wrong you decide to keep being obnoxious.


patriot missiles was Geogen, which I dismissed:

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=26234&p=285203&hilit=+patriot#p285203

Looks like you remembered that as well as you did Beirut. Nice attempt at trying to discredit me though, 4 stars.

I couldn't find anything I had written about the Gunpod. post what you find. I'm able to admit I'm wrong instead of making quips. but I would appreciate if you stuck with what I actually said. Looking forward to your apology feel free to PM, so we can quit cluttering up this thread with your stupidity.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2015, 18:04
by neptune
madrat wrote: ... Surely you'd rather use KC-130's over MV-22 any day of the week. Using MV-22 to refuel from a flattop is a gold-plated solution that would probably work just as well from a buddy tanker.


MV-22B Osprey, F-35B Lightning II are becoming available from the LHA/ LHD ships. The Gator Navy "can" be out of the range of the KC-130s; thus the onboard MV-22B RO/RO tanker.

To reduce wear and tear on the USN carrier SBugs as "buddy tankers"; the onboard COD HV-22 with (USMC) RO/RO tanker (12K lbs./ 1750 gals.)....with the usual Navy "Gold-plate"...

:)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2015, 13:10
by quicksilver
mrigdon wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:In what situation are you concerned about ingesting the dust - VLing or STOing?


I would only think it might be an issue when landing (since you're not moving laterally and dust might blow upward). Planes of all manner take off in deserts all the time, so I don't figure that's an issue.

I'd noticed in pictures, though, that the base of the lift fan appears to have something like slats, so I thought it might be directing the flow of air backwards to some degree, so that even if there is debris underneath the plane, it would be blown away from the intakes.

It's been awhile, but I remember there being some advantage to having a lift fan rather than a lift jet. However I think it may only have to do with heat. A jet engine up by the intakes caused problems with the intakes taking in too much hot air and the rear engine losing thrust?


They do FOD sweeps but dust and such is always getting blown around at these locations. However, during the approach and landing, the jet essentially self-prepares the landing area (like one might do at home with a leaf blower). On takeoff, both the VAVBN nozzles and the main engine exhaust are directed sufficiently aft to keep the jet efflux aft of the intakes.

RVL FOD mechanisms are a little different because the VAVBN nozzle angle is far enough forward (ie toward the vertical) to move the jet efflux forward of the exhaust below certain groundspeeds and the aircraft attitude for landing is relatively flat.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2015, 18:33
by mrigdon
XanderCrews wrote:Harriers can't really buddy refuel


Do you mean Harrier to Harrier? Is the strict definition of buddy refuel mean the exact same model of aircraft? Or would Hornet to Harrier be considered buddy refueling? Harriers can refuel in air (I just saw a photograph), but perhaps they have issues with hooking up with something like a Hornet? I know the Harriers have limited hardpoints, but are there other reasons they can't carry a tank and drogue?

The photograph I mentioned came from a photography site. It's got quite a lot of photos, as well as a short writeup about the Marine Corps latest WTI. Definitely worth a look just for the pictures. He only managed to snap two F-35 photos, though. :(

http://aviationphotodigest.com/wti-2-15-raising-the-bar/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2015, 22:42
by spazsinbad
'QS' said: "...RVL FOD mechanisms are a little different because the VAVBN nozzle angle is far enough forward (ie toward the vertical) to move the jet efflux forward of the exhaust below certain groundspeeds and the aircraft attitude for landing is relatively flat." Would be nice to know more about this issue for SRVLs on CVFs for example where 60-70 KIAS is the intended approach speed (probably at lower end).

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2015, 05:22
by XanderCrews
mrigdon wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Harriers can't really buddy refuel


Do you mean Harrier to Harrier? Is the strict definition of buddy refuel mean the exact same model of aircraft? Or would Hornet to Harrier be considered buddy refueling? Harriers can refuel in air (I just saw a photograph), but perhaps they have issues with hooking up with something like a Hornet? I know the Harriers have limited hardpoints, but are there other reasons they can't carry a tank and drogue?

The photograph I mentioned came from a photography site. It's got quite a lot of photos, as well as a short writeup about the Marine Corps latest WTI. Definitely worth a look just for the pictures. He only managed to snap two F-35 photos, though. :(

http://aviationphotodigest.com/wti-2-15-raising-the-bar/


Good question. I wasn't clear. A harrier shouldn't have a hard time refueling from a hornet that I know of. I meant a harrier equipped with a buddy fueling pod wont happen. There are a few reasons. Weight for take off being one. There wouldn't be much of a fuel yield from a harrier. Harriers don't really need a buddy refueling harrier because they can land on the ship pretty much anywhere including around areas that are fowled And they don't need but one pass normally.(this was a big point of friction with the Royal Navy when they were forced to go to theF-35c by the bean counters-- what would be the organic tanker?)

One of the reasons CVN have organic tankers is so they can refuel aircraft in the landing pattern for extra landing attempts and to keep aircraft aloft in the event of a fouled landing aRea or other emergency. They don't really exist to take strike packages out. its just not feasible in that sense. Maybe one of the squids can confirm or say I am off. But that is really the primary reason for oganic tankers in the CVN. I think a lot of folks see them and think you can "daisy chain" a strike package and that's not really the case that I have seen.

A lot of people suspect that the V-22 will take up this mission for the CVN relieving the super hornets of the duty And freeing up another combat plane while reducing wear and tear. Usn needs to preserve their super hornets

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2015, 07:24
by spazsinbad
'Squid'? I wondered about me extra tentackles. Anyways from what I have read about USN tanker today what is said is the case with Supers taking the role of buddy tanker around 'the boat' (I had to go wash me beak out saying that). However long ago when I was 'a birdie' things in the USN with LARGER Tankers such as WHALES then fings were different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A- ... _1960.jpeg & http://s1303.photobucket.com/user/Mark_ ... 5.jpg.html A-4D Skyhawk VA-172 refuels an A-3D Skywarrior Heavy Attack Squadron VAH-10
Douglas A-3 Skywarrior

"...Vietnam
"Skywarriors saw some use in the conventional bombing and mine-laying role (A-3B) during the Vietnam War from 1964 through 1967, often to deliver 2000 lbs bombs. The A-3 found subsequent service in the tanker (KA-3B, EKA-3B), photographic reconnaissance (RA-3B), electronic reconnaissance (EA-3B), and electronic warfare (EKA-3B) roles. Equipped with a drogue refueling hose and basket that was compatible with "probe and drogue" refueling systems, the Skywarrior would not only extend the range of a strike force, but save returning pilots short on fuel, in a similar role to the Air Force's Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker...."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-3_Skywarrior

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2015, 07:45
by madrat
It's amazing that Skywarrior was so big, yet engine power so meager.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2015, 10:06
by spazsinbad
Some of this article already posted on the forum however worth repeating this part here.
The Fuel Light’s On in My F-35. Now What?
22 April 2015 LM

"...Once the F-35 pilot locates the tanker, they make contact with the pilot and initiate intercept. The flight lead will join closest to the tanker while the wingmen line up in an echelon formation. Next, while the planes are in what is called “pre-contact,” the fighter pilot will adjust mission systems to ensure their radar isn’t interfering with the tanker. In legacy fighters, this involves pushing a few buttons and turning a few knobs. But in the F-35, explains F-35 Contract Instructor Pilot Oscar “Speedy” Alvarez, “it’s simply a matter of selecting the “pre-contact” option selection button (OSB) on the cockpit’s touchscreen, which puts the radar into standby mode.”

Refueling
Once in position, and still in communication with the tanker pilot, the F-35 pilot selects the “Refuel” OSB from his flight control display. On the F-35B and F-35C variants, which use a probe-and-drogue system, this will deploy the refueling probe so that it can connect to the basket on the end of the hose. Once contact is made, the fighter pilot will move the basket up about 10 feet or so and the refueling begins.

For the F-35A variant, which uses a flying boom aerial refueling, the pilot flies in a tight formation with the tanker. An operator at the back of the tanker and the F-35 pilot work together to ensure the boom aligns with the aircraft and is inserted directly into the fuel tank opening.

From there, it’s just a simple matter of starting the fuel flow.

Training
Aerial refueling is “part of the basic training pilots go through,” Speedy says. Before going on a refueling mission, the pilots have already been through most of the learning syllabus at the Pilot Training Center, and have already flown the jets to get some experience. After a lecture explaining the basics of aerial refueling mission planning, aircraft limitations, tanker rendezvous and departure procedures and tanker-specific capabilities, the pilots are sent back to their squadrons to give it a try.

“One of the hardest parts of aerial refueling is learning to fly the probe into the basket smoothly. At times when there is turbulence it’s not as easy as it looks as the basket is relatively light and moves around,” explains Bugsy. “It takes some practice to learn to fly the probe into the basket without too much closure [how fast you are approaching the basket] or angular rates (up/down, left/right) which could damage the basket or the probe on the aircraft.”

Pilots have to complete six “plugs” to achieve their initial “qual” – or qualification – for aerial refueling."

Source: https://www.f35.com/news/detail/the-fue ... .-now-what

Naval Aviation News Vol.94, No.1, Winter 2012: http://nanarchive.omnitecinc.com/20102012.aspx

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2015, 18:43
by spazsinbad

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2015, 01:33
by spazsinbad
Again OOoops - wrong thread - go here: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=20468&p=291039&hilit=APPROACH#p291039

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2015, 04:55
by 35_aoa
If you guys want to talk probe-drogue tanking, I can talk all day.....

but seriously, that is funny to me that the -35 has a "pre-contact" mode. In the Hornet, you just turn the radar knob to STBY.....that's it, other than making sure you have the master arm switch in safe, which it should be already. AF does tanking a lot differently than we do in the USN (at least shipboard organic tanking). We do it comm out, and it is very procedural. On the AF side, you typically have a tanker that is intent on either flying right into the nearest storm, and/or they are continually trying to point their nose at you, which in either case makes for a really annoying and inefficient join-up (or "re-join" in your lingo). Don't get me wrong, there are some good ones out there, but over Afghanistan and Iraq, I probably spent more time talking to the tanker than anyone else, just trying to get them to do something predictable that actually made some semblance of "sense". /AF rant :)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2015, 02:59
by spazsinbad
Sure - :mrgreen: make my day :devil: - tell us about the hazards of the IRON MAIDEN (not the band) PUHLEEZ - there are lots of terrifying stories out there of that basket rotating/barrel rolling like a whirling dervish. Meanwhile the most experienced 5th gen pilot good ole boy CHIP has his say in Copenhagen.
7. David 'Chip' Berke: 5th Gen Experience
Published on May 11, 2015 Centre for Military Studies

"In April 2015 Centre for Military Studies and the Williams Foundation hosted a symposium on "Integrating Innovative Airpower" in Copenhagen. The symposium was attended by international scholars, military practitioners, and representatives from the defense industry."


Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2015, 05:07
by popcorn
Great presentation. The written accounts don't do justice to his message.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2015, 05:53
by spazsinbad
'popcorn' said over page about COL BERKE F-35 / 5th Gen presentation video:
"Great presentation. The written accounts don't do justice to his message."

Agree. :mrgreen: I wanna be a 'berserker' F-35B pilote! :devil:

Some words from presentation here: http://www.sldinfo.com/at-the-vortex-of ... evolution/
& Here:
The Fifth Generation Experience: Getting on With Combat Transformation [QUOTES from BERKE VIDEO cited]
30 Apr 2015 SLDinfo

"...Berke described the challenge he faced going from being a very successful pilot in 4th generation aircraft to confronting the disruptive change associated with fifth generation.

He faced a situation where pilots with much, much, much less experience than he had were able to excel against him as he brought fourth generation mindsets to the F-22.

I showed up with guys about half my experience, who were just annihilating me in the airplane.

They just understood things way better than I did.

It was a very difficult transition for me.

So much of what you knew as a pilot didn’t apply.

It was very frustrating to make fourth generation decisions – my Hornet brain – inside an F-22.

A lot of those times, if not most of the times, those decisions proved to be wrong.

One might note, given the high cost of pilot training and the key role of the combat pilots in the air combat force that learning to fly yesterday’s airplanes creates a mind set that actually can undercut the capabilities to use 5th generation aircraft such as the F-35 effectively.

It is not just about wasting time, effort and resources; it is about undercutting the speed with which the F-35 can have an impact upon the combat force.

When he was able to grasp how to think differently as a combat pilot in the F-22, he recovered his ability to perform combat dominance.

You have so much more to offer the three-dimensional world than you did prior to really figuring it out.

When you realize that your contribution to air warfare is about that, and you’re doing it much better than you can in any other platform, you start to recognize your contribution on war fighting as a Fifth Gen aviator.

And what made the F-22 different suggests how the F-35 is different.

The F-22 is a very fast and maneuverable aircraft, but that is not where it excels.

It is an information dominant aircraft, a characteristic that the F-35 takes to another level.

“The F-22 is the fastest, the most powerful fighter ever built.

The least impressive thing about the Raptor is how fast it is, and it is really fast.

The least impressive thing about the Raptor is its speed and maneuverability.

It is its ability to master the battlespace is where it is most impressive.”

Rather than focus on speed is life and more is better, the Raptor has started the rupture in air combat whereby information dominance in the battlespace is the key discriminator.

Berke believes that the replacement mentality really gets in the way of understanding the air combat revolution that fifth generation capabilities have introduced and that will accelerate with the F-35 global fleet.

He argues for the need really to accelerate the leap into fifth generation-enabled combat forces for the US and its allies.

“When you look back a decade from now, what will the F-16 be in 2025? Or the F-18 in 2025?..."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/the-fifth-genera ... formation/


PDF of some slide notes: http://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/t ... formation/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2015, 14:05
by mk82
spazsinbad wrote:Sure - :mrgreen: make my day :devil: - tell us about the hazards of the IRON MAIDEN (not the band) PUHLEEZ - there are lots of terrifying stories out there of that basket rotating/barrel rolling like a whirling dervish. Meanwhile the most experienced 5th gen pilot good ole boy CHIP has his say in Copenhagen.
7. David 'Chip' Berke: 5th Gen Experience
Published on May 11, 2015 Centre for Military Studies

"In April 2015 Centre for Military Studies and the Williams Foundation hosted a symposium on "Integrating Innovative Airpower" in Copenhagen. The symposium was attended by international scholars, military practitioners, and representatives from the defense industry."



Lt Col Berke killed it in that presentation. He really makes Kopp, Bill Sweetiepie, Sprey and their ilk look like total fools!!!

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2015, 14:54
by cantaz
Don't forget to go through the rest of the presentations of the symposium.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2015, 15:37
by popcorn
2 telling questions LTC Berke poses toward the end of his talk - What is it like to be part of the 5Gen ecosystem? What is it like to be excluded from it?

C'mon Canada... get off the fence. :D

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2015, 20:25
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:'QS' said: "...RVL FOD mechanisms are a little different because the VAVBN nozzle angle is far enough forward (ie toward the vertical) to move the jet efflux forward of the exhaust below certain groundspeeds and the aircraft attitude for landing is relatively flat." Would be nice to know more about this issue for SRVLs on CVFs for example where 60-70 KIAS is the intended approach speed (probably at lower end).


The slower the jet is expected to fly, the more the nozzle angles (thrust vector) of both the VAVBN and the main engine move toward the vertical. In the case of RVL FOD mechanisms (shipboard or otherwise), one would be most interested in the VAVBN exhaust since it is closest to the conventional intakes. At higher VAVBN angles and as the jet descends into closer proximity with the ground, there is more ground sheet that moves forward from the exhaust point as it impinges upon the ground. Depending on the landing surface, that ground sheet will pick up lotsa stuff and it will be circulated progressively forward as the jet flies slower. Unlike a VL where the jet essentially cleans the landing spot in the hover before it descends, in an RVL the jet keeps descending forward toward surfaces that may or may not be clean, and thus the potential for whatever is on the ground to be picked up and circulated forward is very high. At some ground speed, that ground sheet circulation will move far enough forward to be reingested by the mass flow into the main intakes. IIRC, for Harrier the critical ingestion speed for RVLs is about 55KGS. I dont know what it is for F-35B.

There are some mitigations that F-35B enjoys that Harrier does not -- the VAVBN exhaust is channeled somewhat by the lift fan exhaust doors; the main engine intakes do not supply the greater portion of mass flow to the main engine during mode 4 flight; and, the physical geometry of main intakes makes it less likely (vav Harrier) that 'stuff' is going to get sucked up into them.

See first 8 seconds of video at the link. Also, from ~1:53-1:56.
https://www.f35.com/media/videos-detail ... ding-tests

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2015, 21:47
by cantaz
popcorn wrote:C'mon Canada... get off the fence. :D


Like it was said in the Netherlands video, picking anything other than the F-35 is a political decision. If it were just up to the RCAF, we'd have committed years ago.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2015, 22:06
by spazsinbad
'QS' thanks for explanation. Any word on these slow landing tests, ski jumping and SRVL tests? The ski jumping was supposed to have started and finished by now but nothing in the news by cub reporters.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2015, 22:39
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:'QS' thanks for explanation. Any word on these slow landing tests, ski jumping and SRVL tests? The ski jumping was supposed to have started and finished by now but nothing in the news by cub reporters.


Not to my knowledge, but I havent asked.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2015, 22:55
by spazsinbad
This PDF from SLDinfo looks to transcribe some of the videos from Copenhagen including the Berserker example above. I have yet to watch the other videos - will do so soonish. Anyway go here to download a 64 page PDF (7.8Mb):
Integrating Innovative Airpower: A Report from the Copenhagen Airpower Symposium
recent SLDinfo

"On April 17, 2015, two of our partners, the Williams Foundation (Australia) and the Centre for Military Studies (University of Copenhagen) hosted a seminar in Copenhagen on airpower innovation.

In this Special Report, an overview to the Symposium as well as the speaker’s presentations are highlighted and summarized.

Related material published on Second Line of Defense augments the focus on coalition operations is also included...."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/integrating-inno ... symposium/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2015, 02:51
by spazsinbad
More 'Marines From the SEA with F-35Bs and V-22s' - potential not yet realised - planning sessions via Dunford.
Dunford announces plan to rebalance the MAGTF
15 May 2015 Hope Hodge Seck

"The Marines' combat organization is out of balance, the Marine Corps commandant said Thursday, announcing a new working group designed to modernize the force and better use its ground combat element.

In his first public address since he was nominated to succeed Army Gen. Martin Dempsey as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford [said]...

...The working group, he said, will be organized in the coming week and formally announced soon. Between now and October, the group will examine lessons learned from combat deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, and from Marine expeditionary unit deployments aboard Navy ships. They will analyze the budget outlook through fiscal 2017, plus the priority and allocation of resources, he said....

...To explain what prompted the initiative, Dunford cited a question he fielded from an infantry captain during a visit to the Expeditionary Warfare School in Quantico, Va. The officer wondered whether the cutting edge MV-22 Osprey and F-35B aviation platforms had drawn attention and resources away from the Marines' rifle squads and its larger ground combat element. Should the Corps' ground contingent, he asked, have a dedicated general officer as an advocate, the way the aviation combat element did?

"The solution is not to create stovepipes and cylinders of excellence and begin to compete, element of the MAGTF-by-element of the MAGTF," Dunford said. "The solution is for us to have a clear vision of the Marine air-ground task force. That's who we are."

For the ground combat element, he said, that means finding ways to do more with the Corps' high-tech air platforms, and to innovate beyond traditional infantry assault methods. Dunford called on a favorite example of 21st Century MAGTF operations: February 21 of this year, when the Marines' crisis response unit in the Middle East found itself operating in six countries simultaneously, between rifle companies and air elements....

...Platforms like the F-35, expected to reach initial operating capability this summer, represent vast untapped potential for the ground combat arms units as well, Dunford said.

"We're nowhere near capable of fully realizing or leveraging the kinetic and non-kinetic capabilities of that particular aircraft," he said
....


...Oversight of this working group could well be one of Dunford's final accomplishments as commandant. Pending confirmation of his nomination in the Senate, Dunford is expected to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs when Dempsey officially retires this fall."

Source: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/mili ... /27388225/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2015, 17:28
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:More 'Marines From the SEA with F-35Bs and V-22s' - potential not yet realised - planning sessions via Dunford.
Dunford announces plan to rebalance the MAGTF
15 May 2015 Hope Hodge Seck

"The Marines' combat organization is out of balance, the Marine Corps commandant said Thursday, announcing a new working group designed to modernize the force and better use its ground combat element.

In his first public address since he was nominated to succeed Army Gen. Martin Dempsey as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford [said]...

...The working group, he said, will be organized in the coming week and formally announced soon. Between now and October, the group will examine lessons learned from combat deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, and from Marine expeditionary unit deployments aboard Navy ships. They will analyze the budget outlook through fiscal 2017, plus the priority and allocation of resources, he said....

...To explain what prompted the initiative, Dunford cited a question he fielded from an infantry captain during a visit to the Expeditionary Warfare School in Quantico, Va. The officer wondered whether the cutting edge MV-22 Osprey and F-35B aviation platforms had drawn attention and resources away from the Marines' rifle squads and its larger ground combat element. Should the Corps' ground contingent, he asked, have a dedicated general officer as an advocate, the way the aviation combat element did?

"The solution is not to create stovepipes and cylinders of excellence and begin to compete, element of the MAGTF-by-element of the MAGTF," Dunford said. "The solution is for us to have a clear vision of the Marine air-ground task force. That's who we are."

For the ground combat element, he said, that means finding ways to do more with the Corps' high-tech air platforms, and to innovate beyond traditional infantry assault methods. Dunford called on a favorite example of 21st Century MAGTF operations: February 21 of this year, when the Marines' crisis response unit in the Middle East found itself operating in six countries simultaneously, between rifle companies and air elements....

...Platforms like the F-35, expected to reach initial operating capability this summer, represent vast untapped potential for the ground combat arms units as well, Dunford said.

"We're nowhere near capable of fully realizing or leveraging the kinetic and non-kinetic capabilities of that particular aircraft," he said
....


...Oversight of this working group could well be one of Dunford's final accomplishments as commandant. Pending confirmation of his nomination in the Senate, Dunford is expected to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs when Dempsey officially retires this fall."

Source: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/mili ... /27388225/



That will make Sol happy. just kidding nothing makes him happy

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2015, 17:28
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:More 'Marines From the SEA with F-35Bs and V-22s' - potential not yet realised - planning sessions via Dunford.
Dunford announces plan to rebalance the MAGTF
15 May 2015 Hope Hodge Seck

"The Marines' combat organization is out of balance, the Marine Corps commandant said Thursday, announcing a new working group designed to modernize the force and better use its ground combat element.

In his first public address since he was nominated to succeed Army Gen. Martin Dempsey as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford [said]...

...The working group, he said, will be organized in the coming week and formally announced soon. Between now and October, the group will examine lessons learned from combat deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, and from Marine expeditionary unit deployments aboard Navy ships. They will analyze the budget outlook through fiscal 2017, plus the priority and allocation of resources, he said....

...To explain what prompted the initiative, Dunford cited a question he fielded from an infantry captain during a visit to the Expeditionary Warfare School in Quantico, Va. The officer wondered whether the cutting edge MV-22 Osprey and F-35B aviation platforms had drawn attention and resources away from the Marines' rifle squads and its larger ground combat element. Should the Corps' ground contingent, he asked, have a dedicated general officer as an advocate, the way the aviation combat element did?

"The solution is not to create stovepipes and cylinders of excellence and begin to compete, element of the MAGTF-by-element of the MAGTF," Dunford said. "The solution is for us to have a clear vision of the Marine air-ground task force. That's who we are."

For the ground combat element, he said, that means finding ways to do more with the Corps' high-tech air platforms, and to innovate beyond traditional infantry assault methods. Dunford called on a favorite example of 21st Century MAGTF operations: February 21 of this year, when the Marines' crisis response unit in the Middle East found itself operating in six countries simultaneously, between rifle companies and air elements....

...Platforms like the F-35, expected to reach initial operating capability this summer, represent vast untapped potential for the ground combat arms units as well, Dunford said.

"We're nowhere near capable of fully realizing or leveraging the kinetic and non-kinetic capabilities of that particular aircraft," he said
....


...Oversight of this working group could well be one of Dunford's final accomplishments as commandant. Pending confirmation of his nomination in the Senate, Dunford is expected to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs when Dempsey officially retires this fall."

Source: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/mili ... /27388225/



That will make Sol happy. just kidding nothing makes him happy

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2015, 20:29
by spazsinbad
SLDinfo weighs in on the new CAS paradigm. BEWARE the MOVING text....
The USS America, CVN-78 and HMS Queen Elizabeth: Crafting Capabilities for 21st Century Operations
09 May 2015 Robbin F. Laird

"...With the coming of the F-35B to the USS America, the tiltrotar-enabled force adds significant capability. This can work a couple of different ways.

The ship can hold more than 20 F-35Bs, but more likely when F-35Bs are being featured would have a 16 F-35B flying with 4 Osprey combinations. The Ospreys would be used to carry fuel and or weapons, so that the F-35B can move to the mission and operate in a distributed base. This is what the Marines refer to as shaping distributed STOVL ops for the F-35B within which a sea base is a key lily pad from which the plane could operate or could move from.

Alternatively, the F-35B could operate as the ISR, C2 and strike asset to work with the rest of the assault force. The beauty of the F-35B for the Marines is that it allows them to operate off of an amphibious ship with a plane which can do C2 or provide forward leaning ISR.

In other words, the F-35 working with an Osprey-enabled insertion force operating off of the USS American could well re-define the meaning of Close Air Support (CAS).

The F-35 could enter the objective area prior to the arrival of the combat landing team or CLT, push data back to the incoming force, and then provide fire support, “kinetic” and “non-kinetic,” C2 and ISR support during the insertion and operation...."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/the-uss-america- ... perations/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2015, 02:17
by neptune
[quote="spazsinbad"]... This is what the Marines refer to as shaping distributed STOVL ops for the F-35B within which a sea base is a key lily pad from which the plane could operate or could move from... the F-35B could operate as the ISR, C2 and strike asset to work with the rest of the assault force. The beauty of the F-35B for the Marines is that it allows them to operate off of an amphibious ship with a plane which can do C2 or provide forward leaning ISR... could well re-define the meaning of Close Air Support (CAS). The F-35 could enter the objective area prior to the arrival of the combat landing team or CLT, push data back to the incoming force, and then provide fire support, “kinetic” and “non-kinetic,” C2 and ISR support during the insertion and operation.....quote]

With the USMC F-35B pilot familiar with the job of the 0311, they will be able to assist, protect and direct having shared a C2 brief prior to launching from the same LHA and manage from altitude other assets like the MQ-8C (vertical UCAV) with it's ISR and 12 hr. endurance.
:)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2015, 09:22
by hornetfinn
The Fifth Generation Experience: Getting on With Combat Transformation [QUOTES from BERKE VIDEO cited]
30 Apr 2015 SLDinfo

And what made the F-22 different suggests how the F-35 is different.

The F-22 is a very fast and maneuverable aircraft, but that is not where it excels.

It is an information dominant aircraft, a characteristic that the F-35 takes to another level.

“The F-22 is the fastest, the most powerful fighter ever built.

The least impressive thing about the Raptor is how fast it is, and it is really fast.

The least impressive thing about the Raptor is its speed and maneuverability.

It is its ability to master the battlespace is where it is most impressive.”

Rather than focus on speed is life and more is better, the Raptor has started the rupture in air combat whereby information dominance in the battlespace is the key discriminator.


I think this quote excellently tells us what really is different in 5th gen fighters like F-22 and especially F-35. They have very good basic fighter characteristics when compared to earlier designs, but that's not really what makes them different. There are advanced 4th gen fighters which have very good speed, maneuverability and range and might have some equal or maybe even better characteristics than 5th gen fighters.

I think both professional and especially non-professional people generally fail to understand how much better understanding of the surrounding world a pilot in F-35 will have compared to any 4th gen fighter pilot. Even bigger difference will be how much better understanding of the whole combat area the force equipped with 5th gen fighters will have. Of course the challenge is to be able to use all that information to best effect. Even gathering the available information can be problem if the force is tasked like a 4th gen force. I think this is also why public people don't get why F-35 is great leap forward in capability. It's not the speed or maneuverability that makes it great, it's the information dominance it gives that makes it great. F-22 is easier to understand as it's really fast and really maneuverable aircraft.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2015, 10:16
by 35_aoa
to be honest, I preferred the maiden as long as it wasn't bumpy and the sun wasn't setting. Easy to get into......basket is heavy so it doesn't move when you get close and the "bow wave" of your nose cone hits it. The hard part was staying in.....which really was just a good healthy goose of the throttles, quickly stand them up to stop your forward movement, and then just little corrections after that. I liked to line up the "knuckle" (where the hose meets the metal boom) with the inboard right motor, and that kept me in a good spot with the requisite "kink" in the hose to keep the gas flowing. The best thing about the maiden once you mastered that, was the fuel flow rate. You got in and out quickly. On a bumpy day, or a dark night? I'll take a KC-10 or MIPRS KC-135 thanks :)

And you are right, I'm sure the Maiden has probably ripped off a million dollars of Navy probes in the last 10-15 years. If you respect it, things are ok. If you don't, you are going to divert somewhere at a minimum, likely with a FOD'd right motor.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2015, 10:21
by spazsinbad
Thanks '35_aoa'. Did the maiden have a habit of barrel rolling the basket when the probe was a near miss? Never seen one so thanks for description.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2015, 10:26
by popcorn
It‘s going to take Hollywood to help educate public perception on the whole "Information is Life" theme'. Only thing is it might come across as science fiction. :D So no giant robots and aliens please.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2015, 11:31
by hornetfinn
popcorn wrote:It‘s going to take Hollywood to help educate public perception on the whole "Information is Life" theme'. Only thing is it might come across as science fiction. :D So no giant robots and aliens please.


That's true. I'm wondering how on earth could somebody make "Information is Life" theme sexy and exciting as would be required for Hollywood? Maybe enemy has a horde of evil looking black UCAVs and it takes Tom Cruise in F-35 to kill them all after epic combat...

I'd also like to see Bollywood version of Top Gun with HAL FGFA.... :P

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2015, 15:58
by XanderCrews
hornetfinn wrote:
popcorn wrote:It‘s going to take Hollywood to help educate public perception on the whole "Information is Life" theme'. Only thing is it might come across as science fiction. :D So no giant robots and aliens please.


That's true. I'm wondering how on earth could somebody make "Information is Life" theme sexy and exciting as would be required for Hollywood? Maybe enemy has a horde of evil looking black UCAVs and it takes Tom Cruise in F-35 to kill them all after epic combat...

I'd also like to see Bollywood version of Top Gun with HAL FGFA.... :P


http://www.criticalcommons.org/Members/ ... eH264.mov/

Look at Maverick go!!

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2015, 00:15
by spazsinbad
Gen. Davis Hopes To Keep F-35B Out Of War Zones Right After IOC
19 May 2015 Colin Clark

"WASHINGTON: As the Marines started doing operational testing of the F-35 aboard the USS Wasp, the head of Marine Aviation is visibly and demonstrably confident the aircraft will meet the date for the plane’s Initial Operational Capabiiity.

“To me the F-35 program is right on track where it should be,” Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, the head of Marine aviation, told reporters this morning. But, while the plane would be ready to go, he’d like to forego the usual Marine practice of sending a new weapon into harm’s way as soon as it’s available. “If I had my druthers, I’d rather not deploy it right away, because I’d like to build some momentum in the program and build the instructor base,” Davis told us at a Defense Writers Group breakfast.

Davis made it clear he has no reservations about the plane going into combat. He just wants a chance to ensure there are enough trainers and maintainers to keep the fleet flying. To illustrate how important maintenance and readiness are to deploying the F-35Bs, Davis said after breakfast that Marines are flying an engine module out aboard a V-22 to demonstrate it can done as part of the tests aboard the Wasp. One of what had looked like the biggest obstacles to IOC, the ALIS system used to track and assist maintenance, is working well enough, Davis said. He said F-35Bs were being turned around in about two hours, which he told me after breakfast is about 15 minutes longer than for F-18s....

...Here’s the basic requirement that the F-35B must meet to go to IOC. There must be 10 to 16 planes ready and there must be enough Marines “trained, manned, and equipped to conduct CAS, Offensive and Defensive Counter Air, Air Interdiction, Assault Support Escort, and Armed Reconnaissance in concert with Marine Air Ground Task Force resources and capabilities.”"

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/gen- ... after-ioc/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2015, 02:20
by popcorn
Looking forward to pics of the F135 engine core in it's new traveling case being offloaded from Osprey. A nice duak slap in the face to detractors of both programs.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2015, 03:49
by 35_aoa
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks '35_aoa'. Did the maiden have a habit of barrel rolling the basket when the probe was a near miss? Never seen one so thanks for description.


it is less of a barrel roll, than just a very rapid pitch down into your radome. The basket is stable enough that you aren't normally getting big misses and "stabbing" at it like an F/A-18E/F or maybe KC-130 soft basket, so normally it happens when you hit it just off center. That normally happens when you don't have quite enough closure and you time your play for it wrong. If you hit the thing even a couple inches off center of the "hole", it is kind of like hitting a spinning dredle (spelling?) with your finger. Hit it on the right or the top and it is going into your jet, hit it on the left or bottom and it will probably just slap your probe. Either way, idle, boards/speedbrake, and get out of there.....you don't want to see what the next couple seconds brings if uncorrected :) I think my worst was at night over Iraq, left motor had a known gripe where it would just stagnate at 80% rpm until you jockeyed the throttle......so jet wasn't approved for new guys and I ended up in it. Sure enough as I'm getting ready to plug, the bastard starts giving me trouble. So I have to simultaneously go min burner on the right, slam the left to mil and back to idle and then back to mil (this was the "fix" for this annoying condition), take the right out of burner, and then stabilize in the basket. Not fun, 4 times that night. The other was over Afghanistan, but that is a story for the bar and the "stupid things I did when I was young and somehow survived" line of conversation.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2015, 04:35
by spazsinbad
Thanks. Twin Engines huh. Aaah the joys of NavAv in a single. :mrgreen: I have plenty of these: "... "stupid things I did when I was young and somehow survived" line of conversation." :mrgreen:

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2015, 04:58
by madrat
So they can steer supersonic bullets to hit laser spots, but nobody can figure out a smart basket to steer to the probe at 99% success rate? Couldn't be too tough to prototype one at DARPA. So many simple ways to steer, feather controls, brake on cue, etc. Has to be simpler than landing on a deck.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2015, 14:58
by bring_it_on

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2015, 16:04
by spazsinbad
The chippa berk video may be seen earlier at the BTM of page 15 of this thread - with quotes at the top of the next page 16 from said vid.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2015, 00:04
by quicksilver
Meanwhile, out on the pointy end of the spear --

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/past ... lear-iraq/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2015, 02:02
by spazsinbad
UK RN/RAF Test Pilot Pete 'Wizzer' Wilson comments on ARF in the Bee (drogue for probey)
Blue Sky OPS
26 April 2012 Mark Ayton AIR International F-35 Lightning II Special Edition

"Mark Ayton spoke with Peter Wilson, a former Royal Navy Sea Harrier pilot and now STOVL lead test pilot at NAS Patuxent River...

...The ride quality of the F-35 is also different, especially the precision with which the pilot can manoeuvre the aircraft
using the side stick to put it exactly where he or she wants. “It’s most noticeable when you’re trying to do a tightly controlled formation task, like air refuelling. I’ve plugged into a tanker many times with a remarkably high success rate, higher than I would have had on the Harrier, and with a different technique. The pilot formates the air refuelling probe directly onto the basket of the tanker, sits behind it, and just plugs it when it’s steady and level...."

Source: AIR International F-35 Lightning II 26 April 2012

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2015, 03:33
by bring_it_on
Hill's Helping Hand to Lightning’s IOC
—ARIE CHURCH5/20/2015


The Air Force's Ogden Air Logistics Complex at Hill AFB, Utah, is upgrading and modifying two of the Marine Corps' F-35B Lightning IIs to help the service hit its F-35 initial operating capability target in July. "The F-35 program is tracking the way it needs to right now at this stage, and I don't worry too much about IOC," USMC aviation boss Lt. Gen. Jon Davis said at a roundtable in Washington, D.C., May 19. "If there's one thing that I'd be worried about, it would be the modifications that need to be done … so the Air Force offered their facility at Hill," Davis said. The two aircraft undergoing retrofit there will "be done ahead of schedule," while the bulk of the fleet is processing through MCAS Cherry Point, N.C. Six F-35Bs flew to the USS Wasp this week to demonstrate that "they can do all the things that they say they can do," including armed shipboard day and night operations ahead of IOC, he said. Though the F-35 "could have a very great capability" against ISIS immediately after IOC, Davis said he would prefer to "build some momentum" in training and maintenance before a combat debut.


http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... -Lightning’s-IOC.aspx

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2015, 12:05
by spazsinbad
ALIS seems to feature here the most so I'll keep it up. For the fast food generation I guess waiting some extra minutes for the info will be difficult. :devil: My take? Be Patient Grasshoppers. :mrgreen: "...The same information can be obtained once the F-35 lands..."
F-35 Maintenance Support System Advances Without Downlink
27 May 2015 Bill Carey

"The maintenance and logistics support system for the F-35 Lightning II is about two-thirds of the way toward completion, but it will initially operate without a planned data link capability that would enable the fighter to transmit information to the ground while airborne. The so-called Prognostics and Health Management downlink has been deferred for later development to better secure the data stream, according to the Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO).

Prime contractor Lockheed Martin has introduced the second of three major software releases it will deliver for the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) that will support U.S. and international F-35s once they are fielded. The company describes ALIS as the “operations management backbone,” of the fifth-generation fighter, an information technology infrastructure that captures and analyzes health and maintenance data for individual airframes as well as for the larger fleet. The system is designed to support F-35 operations, maintenance, fault prognostics and parts deliveries over the lifecycle of the fighter, providing maintainers with timely information over a distributed network.

The system’s third major software release is planned in 2017 with the conclusion of the F-35 system development and demonstration phase.

At least initially, ALIS will operate without the radio frequency downlink that would enable the F-35 to send health monitoring data to the ground while the fighter is airborne. The system now saves information to a data storage device on the aircraft. When the fighter lands, the pilot takes the data storage device to a maintenance control facility, where the data is extracted.

In a recent interview with AIN, Jeff Streznetcky, Lockheed Martin’s ALIS program director, said deferring development of the Prognostics Health Management downlink was “a joint decision” of Lockheed Martin and the government, but he referred questions to the JPO.

The JPO provided the following statement: “The Prognostics and Health Management data downlink provides F-35 maintainers with an advanced look into aircraft diagnostics, consumables and weapons status prior to landing. Testing of the downlink revealed the need to upgrade it with enhanced security measures. Those improvements will be completed in follow-on development; specific timelines for all Block 4 capabilities are under program review. The downlink has no bearing on the aircraft’s diagnostics performance. The same information can be obtained once the F-35 lands.”"

Source: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... t-downlink

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2015, 23:12
by spazsinbad
More about ALIS and WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN - we'll see I guess....
Congress’ money for F-35 program may come with strings attached
02 Jun 2015 Ana Radelat

"Washington – Congress has moved to condition funding for the F-35 fighter plane, whose engines are made by Pratt & Whitney, on guarantees that a sophisticated support system for the plane will work.

The latest flak to hit the F-35 program is a provision in the $579 million House defense appropriations bill that would limit the number of planes to be built next year to 36 unless the Pentagon certifies the problem-plagued logistics system is glitch-free. The system, manufactured by the plane's maker, Lockheed Martin, coordinates maintenance, parts supply, operational support and other functions for the F-35.

The Pentagon had requested 57 planes and the House Armed Services Committee authorized funding for 65.

The defense spending bill, approved by a voice vote Tuesday in the House Appropriations Committee, says, “The committee is concerned that despite action taken by the Department of Defense to improve the management of the Autonomic Logistics Information System, the system is not proceeding at a pace that will ensure capability to support demands for data and information for rapid aircraft turnaround and efficient maintenance operations.”

Pratt & Whitney sold 51 F-135 engines to the Pentagon last year and 16 so far this year.

“If the quantity of jets were reduced, it would similarly lead to a reduction in engine orders,” said Pratt & Whitney spokesman Matthew Bates. “However, we do not anticipate a reduction in the planned quantities of either the aircraft or engine. The program remains a top priority for the government, partner nations and international customers, and we remain committed to delivering an affordable and dependable product.”

Joe DellaVedova, public affairs officer for the Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office, said he is confident the Department of Defense will be able to certify the computer's software is combat-ready by the bill’s deadline, the end of 2016.

“We welcome Congress’ oversight and we will do all we can to support the Defense Department and the warfighter and meet our obligations,” DellaVedova said.

Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, said Congress’ practice of attaching strings to F-35 funding has become “an annual ritual” that may slow the program, but won’t derail it.

“Through its history, Congress has imposed limitations on how much can be spent until certain problems are fixed, and this is just the latest,” Thompson said.

But the challenges facing the F-35 program are mounting.

A recent Pentagon inspector general report on the engine determined oversight by the Joint Program Office was insufficient and safety requirements were not met. The program office “did not ensure that Pratt & Whitney proactively identified, elevated, tracked, and managed (engine) program risks, in accordance with the risk management plan,” the inspector general report said.

That report came on the heels of an April 14 Government Accountability Office study that detailed a series of problems with the planes, beside the “software challenges.”

“The F-35 engine reliability is not improving as expected and will take additional time and resources to achieve reliability goals,” the GAO report said

In response, the House Armed Services Committee is seeking another study of the F-35 engine. The Senate has not begun work on it's defense spending bill, but it is expected to also set conditions on the F-35 program....

...The defense spending bill, which is expected to come up for a vote in the House of Representatives this month, is usually easily approved with bipartisan support.

But the fate of the bill is less certain this year because it has provoked a veto threat from the White House because it would boost a war-funding account by $38 billion to get around the military budget’s spending caps.

Busting the caps would result in across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration. The White House wants the Republican-led Congress to renegotiate the 2011 budget agreement that established the budget caps and sequestration.

In a letter to Congress this week, Office of Management and Budget Director Shaun Donovan wrote that "the decision to circumvent rather than confront sequestration harms national security" by lowering available money for State Department and other nondefense security agencies."

Source: http://ctmirror.org/2015/06/02/congress ... -attached/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2015, 11:15
by neptune
bring_it_on wrote:Hill's Helping Hand to Lightning’s IOC
—ARIE CHURCH5/20/2015


The Air Force's Ogden Air Logistics Complex at Hill AFB, Utah, is upgrading and modifying two of the Marine Corps' F-35B Lightning IIs to help the service hit its F-35 initial operating capability target in July. "The F-35 program is tracking the way it needs to right now at this stage, and I don't worry too much about IOC," USMC aviation boss Lt. Gen. Jon Davis said at a roundtable in Washington, D.C., May 19. "If there's one thing that I'd be worried about, it would be the modifications that need to be done … so the Air Force offered their facility at Hill," Davis said. The two aircraft undergoing retrofit there will "be done ahead of schedule," while the bulk of the fleet is processing through MCAS Cherry Point, N.C. Six F-35Bs flew to the USS Wasp this week to demonstrate that "they can do all the things that they say they can do," including armed shipboard day and night operations ahead of IOC, he said. Though the F-35 "could have a very great capability" against ISIS immediately after IOC, Davis said he would prefer to "build some momentum" in training and maintenance before a combat debut.


http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... -Lightning’s-IOC.aspx


http://www.hill.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123451460

Ogden ALC completes test flight after F-35B STOVL mods

Micah Garbarino
75th Air Base Wing Public Affairs

6/19/2015 - HILL AIR FORCE BASE, Utah -- After the Ogden Air Logistics Complex completed depot-level modifications on two F-35B STOVLs for the Marine Corps, the Air Force completed the aircraft's first functional check flight June 18.

Lt. Col. Kevin "Sonar" Hall with 514th Flight Test Squadron - the first depot test pilot in the Air Force qualified in the F-35B - took off from Hill Air Force Base and zoomed to altitude before heading to the Utah Test and Training Range for a functional check. As he returned to base, Hall converted the versatile aircraft for Short Take Off Vertical Landing operations and performed a "short" landing and a "rolling" take off. Witnessing the successful flight was "eye-watering" said Lt. Gen. Lee Levy II, commander of the Air Force Sustainment Center.

The Ogden Air Logistics Complex accepted two F-35Bs from the Marine Corps on Feb. 2 for depot-level modifications. The jets came to Hill from the Marine Corps with less than a week's notice. Work necessary for the aircraft's initial operational capability was completed on the first jet in just over four months, with workers putting in 24,000 hours to complete the modifications.

"The work accomplished by the men and women of the 570th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron has been nothing short of amazing," said Brig. Gen. Carl Buhler, Ogden Air Logistics Center commander. Completing the modifications on time required the maintainers to overcome numerous challenges, said Buhler. They removed sections of the aircraft that many thought would never be removed, they strengthened wing ribs and worked in areas that required rare "micro-tolerances."
"In the process, the maintainers developed techniques that will be used as benchmarks in a variety of depot operations in the future," said Buhler. "The accomplishments of the members of the squadron - in concert with our Lockheed Martin teammates, with the support of the 75th Air Base Wing - have been remarkable." The second F-35B is scheduled to be completed in the coming days.

"I couldn't be prouder of you and the support we're providing to our joint partners. The Marines were counting on us and you delivered," Levy said in a message to the workforce."

:)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2015, 22:39
by spazsinbad
I always like commenters on the interrabble saying that the USMC need to use old gear (and not the F-35B) that they have 'suffered' so well with over all the millennia. This is a long article suggesting that the Marines are ever resourceful in these straightened times and it fits with the 'AVIATION PLAN 2015' at the start of this thread. :devil: GoGyrene and GoMean. :mrgreen:
Marines Testing Operating from Foreign Ships, Near-Forgotten Platforms to Bring Units Back to Sea
23 Jun 2015 Megan Eckstein

"The Marine Corps is experimenting with the interoperability of its Marine Air Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs) with various non-traditional platforms, including rarely-used 1980s logistics ships and foreign navies’ amphibious ships, to help get its land-based units back out to sea.

As the Navy and Marine Corps are working to grow the size of the amphibious ship fleet, the Commandant’s Planning Guidance from January includes a section requiring the Marines to “aggressively develop concepts of employment for alternative platforms that are consistent with mission requirements and platform capabilities. Our priority will be to develop immediately a concept of operations for SPMAGTFCR Africa (Special Purpose MAGTF – Crisis Response) and Marine Rotational Force-Darwin that employs alternative sea-based platforms to enhance flexibility and compensate for the shortfall of amphibious ships.”

Marine Corps Seabasing Integration Division director Jim Strock told USNI News on June 18 that he and others in the Marine Corps are taking that guidance seriously, plotting out ways to use the military’s newest platforms – as well as some older and forgotten ones, and those belonging to allies – to bring Marines where they are needed....

...Foreign Amphibs
Among the concepts the Marines are trying out now is putting U.S. Marine Corps units onto NATO allies’ ships. Allies including Spain and Italy already host SPMAGTF units on the ground, and “the Allied Maritime Basing Initiative is designed to cover gaps in available U.S. amphibious ships by leveraging our European allies’ ships, just as we leverage our allies’ land bases,” U.S. Marine Corps Forces Europe & Africa spokesman Capt. Richard Ulsh told USNI News....

...Marines will first head to sea on an Italian ship this fall, followed by a British amphib and eventually French, Spanish and Dutch ships, the Marine Corps Times reported. [ http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/m ... /28707497/ ] Ulsh told USNI News that the Allied Maritime Basing Initiative is still in the proof-of-concept phase and that the Marines would have to go aboard allies’ ships to more fully understand how well the Marines could operate from them....

...Strock said there has been speculation about the Marines using the Maritime Administration’s vehicle cargo ships Cape May (T-AKR-5063) and Cape Mohican (T-AKR-5065) – delivered in 1972 and 1973, respectively – as connector station ships after testing several years ago proved they could work with current surface connectors.

“These are vessels are not amphibious ships as we know them, but quite frankly Marines, we’ve been operating off these ships in varying degrees for years,” he said. “Everyone thinks, ‘well, we’re going to make these connector station ships,’ which we’re thinking about doing, ‘because we know we can put LCACs on them because we tested that back in 2008. This is a new and bright idea.’”

“In 1994, Col. Strock moved his battalion from Okinawa to Korea … onboard the Cape Mohican,” he said, referring to his earlier career as a Marine officer.
“A lot of these are just old ideas that are fresh and new. A lot of it’s back to the future. But we’re aggressively pursuing that because that’s what it says to do here,” he said, referring to the Commandant’s Planning Guidance.

Strock said that, given the resources to insert experiments into exercises and to obtain NAVAIR and other certifications, the sky is the limit in terms of creating combinations of ships, connectors and aircraft that are technically interoperable. What will be interesting to watch in the coming years, he said, will be the larger packages of those platforms that deploy to bring Marines around the littorals and across combatant commands.

“What we’re really going to have to look at in the future is, we have a variety of platforms out there that are all designed for primary missions, be it MPF or be it a primary mission of 30 years ago with the T-AVB. I think the challenge will be in how do we assemble the right mix of these types of platforms to generate the ability to support a MAGTF at sea?” he said.“And it’s no single platform that can do it. … What’s the right mix of non-amphibious ships to do that? I don’t know. Do you need three JHSVs plus an MLP plus a tug boat? What’s the right mix? And I think over time we’re going to have to sort that out. … The ARG/MEUs sail out with a pre-defined mix: a big-deck, an LPD and an LSD. That’s pretty routine. But if you are able to get three or four platforms together to support a 90-day patrol for the rotational force out of Darwin, if you did that a year from now with three or four ships, the time they did it after that I doubt if it’s going to be the same three or four types of ships. What’s the right mix? I think that will be exciting over time to capture the lessons learned and be able to go back to the operating forces with some decent data.” "

Source: http://news.usni.org/2015/06/23/marines ... ack-to-sea

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 08:36
by spazsinbad
Some MORE on Distributed STOVL Ops by CSBA Jun 2015 report - two PDFs. Graphic attached from this PDF:

http://csbaonline.org//wp-content/uploa ... -Notes.pdf (3.8Mb)

There is this POINTer to the CSBA report story and then the CSBA main report URL below it
Better Defenses Change Nature of Precision Strike Warfare
29 Jun 2015 Christopher P. Cavas

"...Long-range, 2,600-mile strike missions in turn lead to opportunities for cluster basing, Clark said, referring to a US Air Force concept of airfields located close enough to provide mutual air and missile defenses.

Another approach involves operating ship-based US Marine Corps F-35B short-takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) joint strike fighters from small, expeditionary airfields, relocating those forces every few days. STOVL fighters could also take advantage of small forward air refueling points for further dispersed operations. [Do Not Tell BS]

Problems with cluster basing or distributed STOVL operations, Clark said, include more complex logistics to support more bases, and command and control of dispersed forces in degraded communications environments.

Gunzinger and Clark also offered up a tunneling concept, where stealth platforms such as submarines or stealth bombers move in to deliver large numbers of small, short-range decoys and inexpensive PGMs that would temporarily deplete an enemy's defenses. More effective PGMs carried by less stealthy platforms could then swarm in to deliver strikes before an enemy can recover.

"We need to look at both kinds of PGMs — expensive and cheap," Clark urged, noting that approach "is not something DoD does well."

The chief challenge with the tunneling concept, Clark said, would be coordinating strike operations across a variety of platforms, domains and individual weapons...."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /29334345/

CSBA Report PDF: SUSTAINING AMERICA’S PRECISION STRIKE ADVANTAGE 19 Jun 2015

http://csbaonline.org/publications/2015 ... advantage/

http://csbaonline.org//wp-content/uploa ... antage.pdf (1.8Mb)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2015, 10:21
by popcorn
More learning stuff.

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... ourse.aspx



First Marine graduates Air Force’s F-35 intelligence course

EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (AFNS) -- The first Marine Corps officer graduated the Air Force’s F-35 Lightning II Intelligence Formal Training Unit course here June 24.

The formal course combines fifth-generation, fighter-specific and general intelligence academics applicable to the F-35 and the low-observable global strike mission. Completion of the course curriculum fulfills all initial qualification training requirements, and students are assigned basic qualification status...

"It’s our job to help students understand what the F-35 can do and what it brings to the fight,” said Staff Sgt. Jeffrey Miskin, a 33rd Operations Group F-35 IFTU instructor. “We have to change and modify our lessons so we can incorporate those changes program-wide as the F-35 program approaches initial operational capability.”...

"Having Lieutenant Winsted here is significant because the Marine Corps doesn’t have a course equivalent to our F-35 IFTU course,” said Lt. Col. Bradley Turner, the 33rd Operations Support Squadron commander. “It will absolutely increase their capability.”

Winsted will serve in a critical role assisting the Marine Corps’ F-35 program at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona, as it becomes the first operational F-35B base.

“Now that I have my basic qualification status, I can provide the right information, scenario development and mission integration to the F-35B to the Marine aircrews at MCAS Yuma,” Winsted said.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2015, 10:26
by spazsinbad
:doh: Dare I say "BS needs a similar intel course - but only cleared to DUMBO status" - youse can decide what DUMBO means - big ears. :devil:

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2015, 01:15
by zerion
Davis: V-22 Aerial Refueling System Should Be Ready For Early F-35 Operations Despite 1-Year Delay
The Marine Corps expects to have its V-22 Aerial Refueling System (VARS) ready for early F-35B operations despite a one-year delay in securing funding, the Marines’ top aviator told USNI News.

The F-35B, which is awaiting an initial operational capability (IOC) declaration by commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford any day now, has great capability built into it – but the MV-22 will give it even greater range, Deputy Commandant for Aviation Lt. Gen. Jon Davis told USNI News in a July 8 interview.

VARS is a roll-on/roll-off capability that allows the MV-22 to refuel other aircraft in flight. It can carry up to 10,000 pounds of gas and, if brought along on an Amphibious Ready Group (ARG)/Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) deployment, would allow the MV-22 to operate as a tanker for the F-35B when needed and shed the equipment easily when taking on transport missions.

Davis said the Marines are developing a program of record for the Bell Boeing-built VARS and are hoping to get it funded in the Fiscal Year 2017 budget after failing to secure funding in the 2016 budget request to Congress.

“I screwed up the way I sold it, I’ll take the blame for that. We tried to sell it as an F-35 capability. But it’s like, hey, you’re not going to sea in the F-35 … [Fiscal Year 2018] is your first shipboard deployment, so you don’t need it right away,” Davis said of the budget request negotiation process.

“But you can do it for AV-8s, for V-22s, for everything,” he continued. “We couldn’t get it into this funding cycle, but we’ll get it in the next one. It makes such great sense, there’s a lot of support for it. Right now we don’t have enough tankers out there, so this is again multi-missionizing something that we have. And I think the other nations that are going to power project from the seabase have the same problem. So it could be other nations are going to look at this like, hey, we need to get an airplane like this.”

The first F-35B squadron, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121, will move to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni in Japan in a permanent change of station in January 2017, Davis said. According to the 2015 Marine Aviation Plan, VARS was “being developed to align the fielding of the system with the F-35B WESTPAC deployment in summer 2017,” the first time the squadron would go to sea after the change of station. It is unclear how that schedule will be affected by the one-year delay in funding for a program of record.

The aviation plan notes that VARS will first be fielded for use by tactical aviation platforms, followed by other MV-22s and helicopters. The MV-22 is also expected to receive enhanced defensive weapons and upgrades to perform casualty evacuations.

http://news.usni.org/2015/07/29/davis-v ... year-delay

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2015, 15:15
by popcorn
Marines waste no time. The tech was tested in Jan 2014 during simulated long range raids with troops in Ospreys receiving updated intelligence including video feeds from Litening pods on escorting AV-8Bs, displayed on handheld tablets. Mission plannjng on the fly. The F-35B will provide even greater SA to the troops.


http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/08/18/marin ... 22-osprey/
Gen. Davis also talked about ongoing efforts to network the Osprey with what’s called “digital interoperability,” an effort to provide Marines in the back of the aircraft with a high-tech tactical picture of their landing zone. The technology is currently being used by the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit and is slated to be operational in 2017, Greenberg added.

The MV-22 will be the first Corps aviation platform to be equipped with this technology.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2015, 16:06
by spazsinbad
From the same 'popcorn' article above is this bit:
"...The Marines are also engineering the Osprey to conduct operational aerial refueling missions by 2018. The V-22 Aerial Refueling System, or VARS, will be able to refuel the Marine Corps variant of the F-35 with 4,000 pounds of fuel, Greenberg explained.

MV-22B VARS capacity will increase to 10,000 pounds of fuel by 2019. This will significantly enhance the F-35B’s range, as well as the aircraft’s ability to remain on target for a longer period,” he said...."

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2015, 23:44
by hurricaneditka
I saw the bits about VARS and have to admit, I was a little disappointed? 4,000 lbs? F-35B internal capacity is 13,000 lbs, right? Assuming a four-ship flight, just 1,000 lbs per F-35 doesn't seem like it's going to boost the range much.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2015, 00:01
by spazsinbad
So you missed the updated increase in capacity later? UhOh.... the story of the F-35 itself and now the V-22 VARS - so disappointing - so near and yet... so far. Any thought of more than one VARS. No? Thought so. Oh well - maybe next time.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2015, 00:43
by popcorn
The Marines actually own more than one MV-22 :D

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2015, 00:45
by quicksilver
If we assume 10nm/minute and 5000#/hr at max range cruise, 1000# is another 60 miles of radius.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2015, 03:30
by neptune
popcorn wrote:The Marines actually own more than one MV-22 :D

160+ in the A/B versions. Just now beginning to receive the B/Block C; -new radar, avionics, environmental.
C model is to implement several of the HV-22 upgrades for the Navy's new COD, so far the additional fuel tanks (extra range), and a new internal comm. system in the back for updating the "legs". :)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2015, 04:33
by popcorn
If they can fund it, the A & B will be upgraded to the C standard.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2015, 20:30
by hurricaneditka
spazsinbad wrote:So you missed the updated increase in capacity later? UhOh.... the story of the F-35 itself and now the V-22 VARS - so disappointing - so near and yet... so far. Any thought of more than one VARS. No? Thought so. Oh well - maybe next time.

I realize the capability will grow in the future, and I'm certain they can and will use multiple VARS, but can't a "five wet" Super Hornet give away like 15,000 or 20,000 lbs of fuel?

(I know the concept is a moving target, but ...) Rear Adm. Mike Manazir. speaking of the UCLASS a couple of years ago, said "They’ll be able to give away something like 20,000 lbs. of gas and still stay up for seven-and-a-half hours."

A couple of years ago, the VARS prototype was talked about as being able to give 12,000 lbs of gas (http://aviationweek.com/blog/new-pics-mv-22-hornet-refueling-tests), so 4,000 now and 10,000 in the future seems like a bit of a downgrade.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2015, 20:36
by SpudmanWP
A superhornet can't deploy from an LHA or Austere basing.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2015, 11:02
by gabriele
Moreover, using 20% of Super Hornet sorties from a CVN in the buddy tanker role is a waste of airpower. Probably the Super Hornet tanker won't go away entirely, but reducing tanker sorties by 10 or 15% would already be a net gain. More strike missions out of same size air wing, less airframe life "wasted" on non combat use, etcetera.

Plus, for the USN carriers, remember that the V-22 COD will be modified with larger sponson tanks. More fuel and, one would think, more giveaway.
The V-22 tanker can bring whole new capability to the USMC, and also bring a lot of good effect to the CVNs.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 11:16
by spazsinbad
I have not heard about any thoughts of having an AV-8B tanker or two onboard an LHA fitted out as shown for the F-35Bs. Is that something on the centreline where a buddy tanker fitout could occur? Or has that been thought about and discounted long before now? I was impressed by the tankage capacity shown in this photo. :mrgreen: MudderTrucka indeedy. :mrgreen:

PHOTO from: http://www.iq199.com/Proceedings201205.pdf (55.5Mb) Has Falklands War 30th Anniversary info in it.


Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 19:53
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:I have not heard about any thoughts of having an AV-8B tanker or two onboard an LHA fitted out as shown for the F-35Bs. Is that something on the centreline where a buddy tanker fitout could occur? Or has that been thought about and discounted long before now? I was impressed by the tankage capacity shown in this photo. :mrgreen: MudderTrucka indeedy. :mrgreen:

PHOTO from: http://www.iq199.com/Proceedings201205.pdf (55.5Mb) Has Falklands War 30th Anniversary info in it.



Juice isn't worth the squeeze

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 20:24
by spazsinbad
Firstly I do not know if the centreline station could take an ARF AirRefuelTank (small tank probably but with the ARF gear inside). Then I do not know the overall fuel capacity with the largest underwing tanks. However times will be different soon. Probably not worth AV-8B tanking AV-8Bs to increase range in the olden days. In these new tymes, with increased stand off range required before hitting the beach, then having a couple of AV-8B tankers with the F-35Bs on an LHA can increase the F-35B range by some margin; when the AV-8B tanker goes high at range speed to pass that gas and return to the LHA for the usual VL (overall relatively close to the LHA). However I will concede the USMC have likely looked at this scenario already and passed (no gas). :mrgreen:

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 20:52
by mrigdon
I can't find the thread now, but I thought in one of the external tanks for F-35 threads someone talked about how the Navy uses the budder tankers to give returning Super Hornets enough fuel to make multiple passes on landing, if needed. Not so much for additional range. The F-35B shouldn't have to "wave-off", right? Buddy tanking wouldn't really be very useful for the Marines, would it?

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 20:59
by spazsinbad
That is why I explained the scenario. Yes VLers do not need overhead tankers the way USN needs them as you describe. So forget about that aspect for F-35Bs. This has been explained a few times here I believe and is the same same for Hairiers worldwide (when they were). The STOP then LANDers will always land VL if they have the ship in sight and enough fuel to get there.

The moaners moan about the lack of F-35B range. There seems to be a case for more flat deck stand off from shore distance. My scenario attempts to account for this extra range needed perhaps. ALPHA strikes from USN carriers did this all the time albeit with much different aircraft and assets in Vietnam era. In my small world we would slingshot A4Gs on their way using the technique described in my earlier post. It proved to be very beneficial. However overall the way the assets used needs to be useful; and if not then it is a no go. I accept that. And yet I do not have the figures for the F-35B in the same way I can point out such figures from an A4G NATOPS fuel/range chart. And I am not going to do that either.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 21:24
by mrigdon
Every Harrier you put onboard is one less F-35 available. It doesn't seem like the Harrier could loft enough fuel for buddy tanking to make up for the 5000 lbs less fuel the F-35B model carries (compared to A). So is it worth it to give up one airframe that can carry out combat missions in order to push the other airframes out another sixty miles or so (I'm relying internet estimate of combat range, so YMMV)? That's with just one Harrier. Presumably you'd want to keep two on board, so you always have one available for mission. Now you're down two F-35Bs. Your strike package is that much smaller, even if it has slightly longer legs.

Since LHDs and LHAs can get into much shallower waters than a CVN, it may be better to just get closer to shore. But that would only be the case where an emergency came up and there was no way to deploy a CVN and the F-35C with its superior range or scramble F-35As and tankers from a friendly airfield.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 21:42
by spazsinbad
Without numbers to fudge it is easy to fudge even more numbers. Fudge away. For example why not have two Harrier tankers and 6 F-35Bs. What happens when the new LHAs are jam packed with F-35Bs (I count 23 in this image for USS America). Without knowing more about the fuel possible and possibility of having a centreline ARF pod on the Harrier it all becomes too pie in the sky. My effort was to point out this possibility but without details it does not go far. (pun intended)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 22:07
by mrigdon
If there was an interim need, it might be worth it. If a package of four F-35Bs with a single Harrier alongside for tanking gave the Marines the 600nm combat radius of the A and C models, then you'd have be able to deploy fifth generation assets off a carrier now at those ranges, rather than having to wait until the F-35C comes online.

The thing is the F-35B doesn't carry any more ordnance than an F-22 at the moment, so I'm not sure where you would deploy the F-35B now that you couldn't already hit with F-22s. What advantage would the F-35B bring?

If there were no F-22, then maybe you pursue the buddy tanker as an option to close the range gap.

In the past, when each service functioned much more independently, you might see such capabilities pursued. But in recent years with reduced budgets, you see the services working with a lot more overlap. The Air Force gave up all of its EW aircraft, replying on the Navy for that service. The Navy gave up all their tankers, relying on the Air Force for that. The days of one service handling a mission exclusively seem to be over.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 22:22
by spazsinbad
Perhaps I have a different scenario in mind for an LHA off an alien shore at max range plus of the F-35B on the first day etc. where no USAF tanker will be going most likely. You have described benign scenarios of today with CVNs having their aircraft transit & return long distances over friendly skies mostly. As a generalisation a lot of distance is gained by topping up fuel at top of climb at best altitude for range at an averaged weight. And I'll repeat without the figures it all goes a bit gooey. My point being it was found useful in the past - with different aircraft however - such as the A4G.

The tanker Harriers could do double duty around the LHA to be ready for anything once refuelled (perhaps keeping the empty tanks for convenience). Like I said I wonder if this scenario has been considered - probably a thought bubble too far if no centreline ARF pod can be carried.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 23:10
by quicksilver
Harrier has some geometry problems with centerline stations and refueler options.

Refueler pod would have to hang low enough on the centerline station to avoid intersecting any trailing hose on the bottom of the tail of the aircraft. At the same, the pod cannot hang so low that it doesnt have adequate deck clearance upon landing.

Anything trailing a tank on an inboard station has to contend with proximity to the tailplane; from an intermediate station, lateral asymmetries will be a problem.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2015, 23:24
by quicksilver
mrigdon wrote:If there was an interim need, it might be worth it. If a package of four F-35Bs with a single Harrier alongside for tanking gave the Marines the 600nm combat radius of the A and C models, then you'd have be able to deploy fifth generation assets off a carrier now at those ranges, rather than having to wait until the F-35C comes online.

The thing is the F-35B doesn't carry any more ordnance than an F-22 at the moment, so I'm not sure where you would deploy the F-35B now that you couldn't already hit with F-22s. What advantage would the F-35B bring?

If there were no F-22, then maybe you pursue the buddy tanker as an option to close the range gap.

In the past, when each service functioned much more independently, you might see such capabilities pursued. But in recent years with reduced budgets, you see the services working with a lot more overlap. The Air Force gave up all of its EW aircraft, replying on the Navy for that service. The Navy gave up all their tankers, relying on the Air Force for that. The days of one service handling a mission exclusively seem to be over.


Oh c'mon...

How do you think F-22s get to/from a target area that is well beyond its combat radius? Tankers, bro...tankers.
Marines also use the same strat tankers that the others are using, and they have their own KC-130s when the circumstance allows. You also assume that there will be an F-22 everywhere a Gator goes...not so.

What advantage would an F-35B have? It would be there.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2015, 01:14
by mrigdon
quicksilver wrote:You also assume that there will be an F-22 everywhere a Gator goes...not so.

What advantage would an F-35B have? It would be there.


I didn't assume there will be an F-22 everywhere. I was referring to current deployments, not some future conflict. The only place we've deployed fifth generation assets so far is Syria, which was covered by the F-22. So we're clearly able to deploy F-22s to the Middle East if a fifth gen fighter is called for. We have plenty of airfields in Europe, there's no need for F-35Bs to deploy off carriers there. And F-22s have bases to operate from in the Pacific with plenty of tanker support. The Marines won't be deploying the F-35B to Japan until 2017. The Pentagon clearly believes that the F-22 can cover any fifth gen needs for the time being.

This part of the thread had to do with whether a buddy tanker would be useful enough for the Marines to keep a Harrier or two on each carrier in order to extend the range of the strike package.

I realize everyone can use tankers, even the Marines, although an F-22 can refuel much faster using a boom than the F-35B using a drogue. Either way, the F-22 has superior range to the F-35B. Going by publicly available figures, its combat radius is roughly two hundred miles more. That's quite a bit more reach after leaving the tanker, especially compared to the F-35B. And it will be on station sooner since it won't take as long to refuel. And the F-22 and F-35B at IOC are carrying the same bomb payload.

Another thing is that if the Marines need to have a tanker deployed to gain additional range for a strike using F-35Bs, then the Air Force could probably deploy F-22s with the tanker in the nearly the same amount of time. Would you launch a strike package before the tanker was on station to meet the returning fighters? In a dire emergency perhaps, but I'd think mission planning would want the tanker on station near the same time you launch, so you don't have to ditch four planes at the end of the mission if the tanker has an issue.

It's also worth noting that the F-35B isn't slated to deploy onboard a carrier until 2018. So all of this buddy tanking is kind of a moot point. The F-35B will be flying like any other Air Force jet: from an airbase. By the time they are out at sea, at least one squadron of F-35As should be available. And the F-35C won't be far behind at that point.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2015, 01:23
by popcorn
AFAIK F-22 combat radius is around 410nm vs 450nm for F-35B.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2015, 01:37
by mrigdon
popcorn wrote:AFAIK F-22 combat radius is around 410nm vs 450nm for F-35B.


There was discussion about F-22 combat radius here: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24198

I've seen other figures that show a combat radius around 750nm. The F-15C is quoted as having a combat radius close to 700nm and the F-22 was intended to replace it. The 410nm number seems a bit low, although a lot depends on how you define a combat mission. If it's fly out 400nm and then loiter for an hour, you'll get a very different combat radius than fly out 600nm, drop bombs, and then return home.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2015, 01:44
by popcorn
Indeed. I remember Dozer saying that fuel capacity was OK but in true fighter pilot fashion said he wished he had more. :D

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2015, 01:48
by spazsinbad
It seems we have very different scenarios in mind 'mrigdon'. I do not know how F-22s got into the equation of 'F-35Bs off LHAs perhaps with some organic tanker support' - bear in mind the V-22s are being prepped for this job - in the future. I was spitballing about whether an AV-8B could be adapted for the task also. It seems most likely not from the info given by 'QS' so it is all MOOT as far as an AV-8B tanker is concerned. So I'll stop responding to that idea. As for the future we know now that the V-22 tanker needs to have fuel capacity upgraded; so any discussion of that usefulness would be for that time - say 2018 when the chicks are roosting on an LHA? Then many mix'n'match games can be played about "whose on first" etc.

I'm not envisaging the USMC doing the USAF and USN jobs; but the USMC supporting their efforts to gain a foothold on a foreign shore - far from any other support - except for perhaps a CVN on a distant horizon. As 'QS' said " the B is there" - probably with a sea base nearby also.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2015, 02:24
by popcorn
I wonder if the Marines are considering adapting the CH-53K to the tanker role? Lotsa fuel that big boy can offload. Or are there any technical issues that preclude this? Also, what's going on with the Humvee?

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2015, 02:34
by mrigdon
spazsinbad wrote:
I'm not envisaging the USMC doing the USAF and USN jobs; but the USMC supporting their efforts to gain a foothold on a foreign shore - far from any other support - except for perhaps a CVN on a distant horizon. As 'QS' said " the B is there" - probably with a sea base nearby also.


You had wondered whether the Marines had considered the Harrier and I would imagine there was some research into the concept, but the Harrier doesn't provide much fuel.

If you're off the shore of some African nation, terrorists seize an airfield, and that airfield is within 300nm of the shore, then you just load up four F-35Bs and go. If you're off the shore of an African nation and the target is 500nm from the shore, you don't have the legs and it doesn't seem like the Harrier would address that. Now you're calling in tanker support, putting more pieces in motion, and in that case it seems like the Air Force would have time to deploy F-22s or even a B-2 to the same mission. Or you wait for the Navy to arrive with a squadron of F-35Cs, which have that sort of range. Depends on the timeframe. There will be a brief period of time in 2018-2019 when F-35Bs will be the only fifth gen assets at sea.

The Osprey would make a much better tanker, although the Ospreys the Navy will be buying are going to be different than what the Marines fly. They'll have increased internal fuel, as well as the capacity to carry a refueling system and extra tanks in that capacity. There was some discussion here about how much fuel the current Osprey can carry (wasn't it around 13,000 lbs? So enough to fully refuel one F-35B) compared to the future Navy version with refueling kit.

The thing is, if you're talking about a Marine LHA or LHD deployed on its own and an emergency situation coming up, the LHA is probably going to have just six F-35Bs, four Ospreys, and various helicopters. Those will be the Marine Ospreys, equipped for carrying troops onto the battlefield, not the newer models with increased fuel for the COD mission. So if you're looking at a situation where you have to strike that target 500nm inland, an LHA may not have the means immediately. That's why I was thinking about F-22s and other assets. Once you're bringing the big tankers into the picture, you're adding hours onto the mission time before you actual strike a target to get all those assets in place. If you don't (or can't) respond immediately, now F-22s and B-2s come into the picture.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2015, 03:02
by spazsinbad
'popcorn' I am wondering what it might be like trying to tank an F-35B behind that giant helo. What would their maximum airspeed be at what altitude for tanking from a CH-53K? What would the hose/drogue combo be doing under the single downwash of that beastie? It seems the V-22 does OK because it provides tanking NOT in helo mode. Perhaps that giant helo can transport fuel to a FOB and offload it there. I do not know if that is an role envisaged. What is that helo doing with the HumVee? Looks like a LIFT externally to me.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2015, 03:15
by spazsinbad
Just for the sake of clarity.... There are many instances of the USMC intention to operate from a SEA BASE OMFTS Operational Maneuver From the Sea. That is their role and has been for ever. And yet there was a recent time when the USMC were tasked as the 'second land army' in various desert places. That role has been left behind and they are back to business with their MARINE heritage - being first - and on the beach with the rest to follow. The USN and USAF can take care of what they know.

The USMC (as outlined in many, many examples now on this forum) are exercising and back in business as MARINES. And it is complicated for sure; however they require their air support to be there on the LHA and that is what they have for their specific use. With the F-35Bs and V-22s their range inland, perhaps once they are close enough to shore - not threatened - will increase. However their business is littoral - near the coast. The far inlands are the business of those other flyboys.

My scenario envisaged getting to shore in that first few waves to a defended shoreline which might keep the LHA at a large distance from it initially. After establishing a safe shore then the LHA can come closer to disembark Marines and other assets. Then the 'no longer possible Harrier tanker' becomes less relevant / redundant and a thought bubble not worth pursuing as has been determined to my satisfaction anyway. Otherwise the V-22 tankers (for the USMC - that has been outlined earlier) will provide fuel not only in the air but on the ground and not only for F-35Bs but for any machinery using the same fuel.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2015, 03:43
by quicksilver
mrigdon wrote:
quicksilver wrote:You also assume that there will be an F-22 everywhere a Gator goes...not so.

What advantage would an F-35B have? It would be there.


"...I was referring to current deployments, not some future conflict..."


Really?? I thought we were talking about buddy tanking STOVL jets and ship ops, and all of a sudden there are F-22s overhead.

I'm going back to the wardroom for an autodog and a card game... :wink:

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2015, 03:50
by quicksilver
mrigdon wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:
I'm not envisaging the USMC doing the USAF and USN jobs; but the USMC supporting their efforts to gain a foothold on a foreign shore - far from any other support - except for perhaps a CVN on a distant horizon. As 'QS' said " the B is there" - probably with a sea base nearby also.


You had wondered whether the Marines had considered the Harrier and I would imagine there was some research into the concept, but the Harrier doesn't provide much fuel.

If you're off the shore of some African nation, terrorists seize an airfield, and that airfield is within 300nm of the shore, then you just load up four F-35Bs and go. If you're off the shore of an African nation and the target is 500nm from the shore, you don't have the legs and it doesn't seem like the Harrier would address that. Now you're calling in tanker support, putting more pieces in motion, and in that case it seems like the Air Force would have time to deploy F-22s or even a B-2 to the same mission. Or you wait for the Navy to arrive with a squadron of F-35Cs, which have that sort of range. Depends on the timeframe. There will be a brief period of time in 2018-2019 when F-35Bs will be the only fifth gen assets at sea.

The Osprey would make a much better tanker, although the Ospreys the Navy will be buying are going to be different than what the Marines fly. They'll have increased internal fuel, as well as the capacity to carry a refueling system and extra tanks in that capacity. There was some discussion here about how much fuel the current Osprey can carry (wasn't it around 13,000 lbs? So enough to fully refuel one F-35B) compared to the future Navy version with refueling kit.

The thing is, if you're talking about a Marine LHA or LHD deployed on its own and an emergency situation coming up, the LHA is probably going to have just six F-35Bs, four Ospreys, and various helicopters. Those will be the Marine Ospreys, equipped for carrying troops onto the battlefield, not the newer models with increased fuel for the COD mission. So if you're looking at a situation where you have to strike that target 500nm inland, an LHA may not have the means immediately. That's why I was thinking about F-22s and other assets. Once you're bringing the big tankers into the picture, you're adding hours onto the mission time before you actual strike a target to get all those assets in place. If you don't (or can't) respond immediately, now F-22s and B-2s come into the picture.


Are you a screenwriter or something?

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2015, 03:59
by popcorn
Same thing concerned me re the rotor wash Spaz... perhaps thinking too far out of the box on my part :D and upon cloeer inspection, it looks like a lift... had a more fanciful idea in mind but your's is the right one.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2015, 08:11
by mrigdon
I do write, so I tend to think up situations that would never happen in the real world :)

In this case, I was trying to think of something that an LHA-based tanking asset would come in handy for. The primary mission for the Marines is to get troops ashore and the F-35B seems to have plenty of range to support that mission without a tanker. Going by Wikipedia (again, YMMV), the Osprey has a combat radius of 400nm. An LCAC only goes about 300nm. So if your LHA is operating any further from the shore than that, you can't land troops. If you're 500nm or so from the shore (presumably you're worried about some kind of anti-ship missile), an LHA is just a pocket carrier with relatively short-range fighters.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2015, 08:58
by spazsinbad
All good stuff however the V-22 tankers will come in handy as described earlier for air and ground refuelling on rapid go.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2015, 19:08
by XanderCrews
mrigdon wrote:I do write, so I tend to think up situations that would never happen in the real world :)

In this case, I was trying to think of something that an LHA-based tanking asset would come in handy for. The primary mission for the Marines is to get troops ashore and the F-35B seems to have plenty of range to support that mission without a tanker. Going by Wikipedia (again, YMMV), the Osprey has a combat radius of 400nm. An LCAC only goes about 300nm. So if your LHA is operating any further from the shore than that, you can't land troops. If you're 500nm or so from the shore (presumably you're worried about some kind of anti-ship missile), an LHA is just a pocket carrier with relatively short-range fighters.



Marines assign KC-130s to MEUs

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2015, 19:14
by XanderCrews
popcorn wrote:I wonder if the Marines are considering adapting the CH-53K to the tanker role? Lotsa fuel that big boy can offload. Or are there any technical issues that preclude this? Also, what's going on with the Humvee?



Speed, tail rotor concerns

Slinging the humvee. Never sling anything you aren't willing to lose. One of my friends with a triple 7 unit utterly refused to let them sling their pieces. "Truck it or F**k it"

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2015, 23:18
by geforcerfx
mrigdon wrote:I do write, so I tend to think up situations that would never happen in the real world :)

In this case, I was trying to think of something that an LHA-based tanking asset would come in handy for. The primary mission for the Marines is to get troops ashore and the F-35B seems to have plenty of range to support that mission without a tanker. Going by Wikipedia (again, YMMV), the Osprey has a combat radius of 400nm. An LCAC only goes about 300nm. So if your LHA is operating any further from the shore than that, you can't land troops. If you're 500nm or so from the shore (presumably you're worried about some kind of anti-ship missile), an LHA is just a pocket carrier with relatively short-range fighters.


Judging distances in the pacific and needing more airpower operating there it's not crazy to see us operating a LHA like a mini-carrier to help out the big decks. If that rile was ever explored/used/needed the tanker mv-22s would be almost necessary.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 05:48
by jessmo111
If your In the pac rim, and your threatened by Chinese missiles, and tac air, then really the F-35B is only going to provide
a 1/2 decent Cap for the 1st few days right? Are you really going to bring a LHA withing 400 Miles of the chinese coast?
How many Fighters does it take to keep a CAP on station? Yes the Big decks can do it, but I suspect they might be busy.
I also want to add that i would load the LHA in a pacific war senario, with the max amout of F-35Bs as possible.
I would use them in conjunction with the BIG decks, and primarily use the Hornets for buddy tanking.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 06:19
by geogen
With all due respect... If Marines are merely tasking an MV-22 escort requirement for LHD ops, it could probably better come from a modified A-29 Super Tucano. A reserve Super T detachment could be on standby on the 2nd LHD too, armed with Brimstone II/Spear III, etc to get the job done better than an IOC F-35B, if needed.

If Marines are requiring Air Superiority in a major conflict before conducting an air-assault... then there would likely be a required joint operation involving the best USAF Tacair can provide.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 06:41
by jessmo111
Geo, didnt the British, base there QE requirment on having no less the 30 F-35s, to ensure a 24 hours CAP?
I could be mistaken, but Im sure im close. 6 F-35s simply wont cut it in a high threat enviorment.
It would be fun to see a RIm pac senario, with a CVN playing the chinese and thier new carrier, versus a wasp, and F-35s.
Of course, the red forces wouldnt have our assets, but I think the F-35s coudl hold there own if they have enough.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 07:13
by spazsinbad
Probably a lot of words need to be spoken to address all the misinformation in recent posts here. Probably reading this thread from the beginning and other threads that mention OMFTS and Sea Base and Distributed Operations [most recent concept by USMC strategists] will perhaps defray the B/S here that seems to suggest a USMC LHA (not forgetting the other 'sea base ships') will somehow be attempting to be a CVN equivalent. Sure the 'LHA + others with it' may require the support of a CVN and other combatant USN ships but that far fetched 'CVN equivalent' scenario is likely best left to the USN - the USMC are not trying to do what is suggested by that overblown sabre rattling rhetoric. Otherwise the nonsense about TUCANOs on LHAs has been put to the sword long ago - so stop it 'geogen' - it is just silly and you know it.

Search this thread using 'distributed' to find lots of relevant info.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 07:25
by geogen
Jessmo -- I think we're talking a number of different things. If we're talking a requirement to escort MV-22 ops off a shared LHD deck... then a modified hypothetical A-29 detachment (rocket assist?) would more likely be the superior platform (over a detachment of F-35B).

If you're talking about a major future contingency though, then of course CATOBAR carriers will be a critical component in the equation.

QE should have been built with CATOBAR too, imho, with the option of being a helicopter deck carrier.

And no, you would likely not want a sole hypothetical QE deck acting as stand-alone F-35B launch pad... that is, unless it was within support range of ground-based EF Typhoons!

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 08:05
by mrigdon
spazsinbad wrote: will perhaps defray the B/S here that seems to suggest a USMC LHA (not forgetting the other 'sea base ships') will somehow be attempting to be a CVN equivalent. Sure the 'LHA + others with it' may require the support of a CVN and other combatant USN ships but that far fetched 'CVN equivalent' scenario is likely best left to the USN


Hey, didn't you post that diagram of an LHA with 23 F-35Bs embarked? :wink:

The Marines are obviously working on Ospreys as tankers, however the F-35B has more than enough range to keep up with the Osprey as a troop transport. As far as refueling, the F-35B can refuel in the air or on the ground, either way provided by Ospreys in some role. I don't know how quickly one method works over the other, I just know that drogue refueling is slower than boom. I'm just curious whether it's faster to refuel on the ground or in the air with the drogue? If the former, and if you're only worried about extending range once deployed on ashore, then it might be more advantageous to just have fuel delivered to the forward base and not worry about in-air refueling. Plus that fuel can be used for multiple vehicles.

It seems that a four ship contingent of F-35Bs with an Osprey in the tanker role would provide nearly the same combat radius as a four ship contingent of F-35Cs alone. There has been some planning for putting twenty F-35Bs on board an LHA. If you can get four Ospreys and 18 F-35Bs on the deck, you can provide nearly the same punch as a future F-35C squadron during that brief period when the F-35B will be the only JSF at sea. Sail alongside a CVN and you give the task force a fifth gen strike component.

Of course, considering the time it takes to get all those fighters assembled and sail the LHA, you might have been able to negotiate airbases or coordinated enough tankers to provide F-22s as a strike package alongside sundry Hornets. (I know I keep bringing up F-22s, but in my head I think of the F-35B as a three-quarter scale F-22 for the Marines, same A-to-G loadout but with lesser performance). It's unlikely to ever happen, but perhaps there's some fringe scenario that would call for it.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 08:13
by spazsinbad
'geogen' you have gone off the deep end as far as I'm concerned. No one has been mentioning escorting V-22s so stop right there.

Yes I posted a graphic showing 23 F-35Bs however it is just a graphic (more about showing the changes to the USS America class) and so what. No one here has until now suggested that an LHA (as normally configured and likely in future with a similar complement of F-35Bs compared to the current AV-8Bs) is saying the LHA is a substitute for a CVN. So stop right there.

It seems that some have not read much at all but would rather invent stuff out of thin air. That has to stop also. The USMC have made it clear that they intend to not only refuel F-35Bs in the air with their (still under development and yet to be certified) V-22 air refuel package but also refuel F-35Bs and other machines that use jet fuel - on the ground. The time taken is the time taken and that may well be factored in to whatever ops are ongoing at the time. If an aircraft cannot boom refuel then boom refuelling should not be mentioned. Are we clear?!

Yes the USMC have mentioned that they are looking at all the possible options of 'how many F-35Bs on an LHA [and what class]" however they will plan/exercise/embark whatever they deem necessary for the mission. Which mission is NEVER going to be a CVN substitute - however they may embark a maximum number of F-35Bs for a particular situation. Not forgetting that somehow other assets that are required/or not need to be embarked also (such as one or two SAR V-22s/helos & COD etc.). See how the F-35B numbers decrease. So stick a plug in this B/S about 'CVN replacement'. NOTHING replaces a CVN + usual air wing... however an F-35B equipped (however many required for the mission) LHA is going to be a future force to be reckoned with indeedy.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 08:20
by geogen
Spazs... I was replying for the most part to 'Jessmo' who was actually arguing such hypothetical requirements (i.e., MV-22 escort and LHD tacair decks).

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 08:29
by spazsinbad
YOU BOTH HAVE TO STOP THEN - DO IT NOW. Meanwhile the Russians and Chinese co-operate possibly in the same way the USN/USMC co-operate today - with some errors such as having the sea base just offshore for example - early days for them we can guess.
China, Russia Land 400 Marines in First Joint Pacific Amphibious Exercise
26 Aug 2015 Sam LaGrone

Source: http://news.usni.org/2015/08/26/china-r ... s-exercise

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 08:37
by mrigdon
spazsinbad wrote:If an aircraft cannot boom refuel then boom refuelling should not be mentioned. Are we clear?!


I only brought it up out of curiosity whether refueling on the ground allowed you to tank at the same rate as an Air Force jet would refuel from a boom. I only know that drogue refueling is much slower than boom, but not how much. If you're extending range and you'll be operating from forward bases on land, I was curious whether it was faster to land and refuel on the ground rather than tank in the air from a drogue.

also curious if the apparatus for in-air refueling is separate from the actual tank that holds fuel. If so, you could land the Osprey and leave just the tank behind at the base. If not, you have to decide whether you're going to deliver fuel for both land/air use or configure the Osprey just for in-air refueling.

Obviously, if you're operating in an environment where you can't get near enough the shore to land troops, you'd configure Ospreys for in-air refueling.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 08:42
by geogen
mrigdon wrote:
spazsinbad wrote: will perhaps defray the B/S here that seems to suggest a USMC LHA (not forgetting the other 'sea base ships') will somehow be attempting to be a CVN equivalent. Sure the 'LHA + others with it' may require the support of a CVN and other combatant USN ships but that far fetched 'CVN equivalent' scenario is likely best left to the USN


Hey, didn't you post that diagram of an LHA with 23 F-35Bs embarked? :wink:

The Marines are obviously working on Ospreys as tankers, however... If you can get four Ospreys and 18 F-35Bs on the deck, you can provide nearly the same punch as a future F-35C squadron during that brief period when the F-35B will be the only JSF at sea. Sail alongside a CVN and you give the task force a fifth gen strike component..


When will MV-22 be in-flight tanking F-35B at sea? Before F-35C is IOC?? Not sure about that.

Also, a single MV-22 'buddy-tanker' concept would probably more realistically tank only 2 F-35B at best, via extra 5-6k lb of gas each? So perhaps mix: 10x F-35B + 5 MV-22 tankers + S-60/drone MHQ?

Probably (LHA) wouldn't sail beside a CVN either -- just not fast enough... and with respect to 'next-gen' strike (Naval aviation)... one would probably go with JSOW/JSOW-ER, which means SH and eventual F-35C and of course, UCAV.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 08:55
by spazsinbad
It seems to me 'mrigdon' that you need to read up on a bunch of stuff before inventing your own scenarios that do not make much sense. TO me it is not clear how the roll on / roll off V-22 air refuel tanking equipment will be in the field. It is under development. Fuel bladders can be delivered by monster helos mentioned earlier. As far as I'm concerned an obsession with time is irrelevant. What is timely is getting fuel when required - by whatever means - in whatever situation. The USMC will be exercising this when the capacity is available. It seems to me that some here have not cottoned on to how flexible the USMC will be - and soon - when their assets are available. It will boggle the mind and let us assume any enemy mind about what the USMC will be doing and when and where etc. These things are alluded to in this thread and in the threads with 'Distributed STOVL Ops' in forefront particularly. Go check it out. I for one am tired of for ever finding links in this forum to things that can easily be found otherwise. Get to it.

And 'geogen' your strange ideas need to be muted - who is saying an LHA 'is sailing with a CVN'? These assets may or may not be in a task force - distributed over a wide area - not sailing in close formation. That is done for photo ops only.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 09:01
by weasel1962
mrigdon wrote:I only brought it up out of curiosity whether refueling on the ground allowed you to tank at the same rate as an Air Force jet would refuel from a boom. I only know that drogue refueling is much slower than boom, but not how much. If you're extending range and you'll be operating from forward bases on land, I was curious whether it was faster to land and refuel on the ground rather than tank in the air from a drogue.


For ground refuelling ops info, you can google "FARP", "HTARS" or the older "FARE". I think HTARS has 350 GPM capability, "FARE" significantly less. The bigger issue is not refuel rate but travelling, landing and taking off time. An air tanker stationed 250nm from base saves an hour for a 500 kt fighter there and back, not counting landing & taking off + the air-refuelled aircraft still has a full tank upon refuel. Air tankers in general should have a significant time advantage over ground refuel.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 19:59
by mrigdon
I don't know the source of the original slides in this post (the author doesn't link to it), but there are cutaway diagrams of the in-air refueling system, as well as some figures for amount of fuel carried, amount that can be delivered. It's referring to a Navy version, but should be applicable to the Marine Osprey as well.

http://warfaretech.blogspot.com/2014/12/v-22-texaco-according-to-marine-corps.html

The 'pocket carrier' notion didn't come out of nowhere. The Kearsarge basically functioned as a pocket carrier during Libyan operations, sending Harriers on strike missions against armored columns and air defenses. That doesn't mean you dump the big deck carriers (you really can't replace them), but over the last ten to fifteen years the Marines have been called on to do a lot of things that weren't a part of their 'traditional' mission. So long as civilians control the military in America, it seems that will continue to be the case.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 20:18
by spazsinbad
'mrigdon' perhaps if you read more on this forum (searched on keywords probably) you will find that - yes - we do know stuff here. What your posts show is that you are learning about things already posted here when that info became available. I note your first URL refers only to the USMC tanker (not USN as you say except the graphic says 'Navy'). The graphics are on this forum already and usually they are from BOING PR PDFs about the Osprey in USMC service and some of the graphics are repeated in SLDinfo presentations about same. Similarly KEARSARGE is mentioned at the time of the Libyan Conflict and afterwards for around 30 instances including the BOLD ALLIGATOR exercise when some sixteen AV-8Bs were onboard in 2012

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=218825&hilit=Kearsarge#p218825

16 F-35Bs and Osprey tankers mentioned here in 'Realising the F-35B Potential' thread:

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=27490&p=295724&hilit=Osprey+Tanker#p295724

USN NOT developing tankers yet according to this: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=26629&p=290779&hilit=Osprey+Tanker#p290779

Some variant V-22 graphics: http://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/v22-update

Boing/USMC V-22 info: http://www.boeing.com/ospreynews/2011/i ... debook.pdf (3.6Mb)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 22:06
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:
mrigdon wrote:
spazsinbad wrote: will perhaps defray the B/S here that seems to suggest a USMC LHA (not forgetting the other 'sea base ships') will somehow be attempting to be a CVN equivalent. Sure the 'LHA + others with it' may require the support of a CVN and other combatant USN ships but that far fetched 'CVN equivalent' scenario is likely best left to the USN


Hey, didn't you post that diagram of an LHA with 23 F-35Bs embarked? :wink:

The Marines are obviously working on Ospreys as tankers, however... If you can get four Ospreys and 18 F-35Bs on the deck, you can provide nearly the same punch as a future F-35C squadron during that brief period when the F-35B will be the only JSF at sea. Sail alongside a CVN and you give the task force a fifth gen strike component..


When will MV-22 be in-flight tanking F-35B at sea? Before F-35C is IOC?? Not sure about that.

Also, a single MV-22 'buddy-tanker' concept would probably more realistically tank only 2 F-35B at best, via extra 5-6k lb of gas each? So perhaps mix: 10x F-35B + 5 MV-22 tankers + S-60/drone MHQ?

Probably (LHA) wouldn't sail beside a CVN either -- just not fast enough... and with respect to 'next-gen' strike (Naval aviation)... one would probably go with JSOW/JSOW-ER, which means SH and eventual F-35C and of course, UCAV.


utter cluelessness^

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 22:08
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:Spazs... I was replying for the most part to 'Jessmo' who was actually arguing such hypothetical requirements (i.e., MV-22 escort and LHD tacair decks).


And you completely cocked it up with ignorance. you have no knowledge, experience, or authority in any these subjects that you repeatedly comment on despite the fact that others with all of the above and real world comparative knowledge tell you that you are full of crap, yet you persist in a condition known as "diarrhea of the lip" where sh*t just keeps pouring out.


geogen wrote:With all due respect... If Marines are merely tasking an MV-22 escort requirement for LHD ops, it could probably better come from a modified A-29 Super Tucano. A reserve Super T detachment could be on standby on the 2nd LHD too, armed with Brimstone II/Spear III, etc to get the job done better than an IOC F-35B, if needed.

If Marines are requiring Air Superiority in a major conflict before conducting an air-assault... then there would likely be a required joint operation involving the best USAF Tacair can provide.



You really have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

please go.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2015, 22:26
by bring_it_on
Navy, Marines and More .. Its long so you guys may want to grab a beer or two...


Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2015, 05:32
by jessmo111
Spaz, enlighten me. Im an ignorant wretch, and I admit it.
How does Geo plan on landing a Super Tacano on a wasp?

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2015, 05:59
by spazsinbad
Please - just forget you ever saw such text here - otherwise you can search the forum for 'Tucano' and see what you find.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2015, 20:43
by spazsinbad
Earlier 'mrigdon' was curious: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=26629&p=300148&hilit=curiosity#p300148
Meanwhile... viewtopic.php?f=57&t=20547&p=234404&hilit=equipped+refueling+drogue#p234404
Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue
05 Jun 2006 CRS Report for Congress

"Summary
Decisions on the composition of the Air Force aerial refueling fleet were made decades ago, when the primary mission was to refuel long-range strategic bombers. Modifications have been made to many of these tanker aircraft (KC-135s and KC-10s) to make them more effective in refueling fighter aircraft. This report, which will be updated, examines the balance between two different refueling methods in today’s refuelling fleet — “flying boom” and “hose-and-drogue.”...

...A single flying boom can transfer fuel at approximately 6,000 lbs per minute. A single hose-and-drogue can transfer between 1,500 and 2,000 lbs of fuel per minute. Unlike bombers and other large aircraft, however, fighter aircraft cannot accept fuel at the boom’s maximum rate. (Today’s fighter aircraft can accept fuel at 1,000 to 3,000 lbs per minute whether from the boom or from the hose-and-drogue.) Thus, the flying boom’s primary advantage over the hose-and-drogue system is lost when refueling fighter aircraft....

...Finally, it is argued, tankers with flying booms are in some ways more flexible than tankers with hose-and-drogue refueling. A tanker with a flying boom can be converted in the field to accommodate probe-equipped aircraft, if necessary. Hose-and-drogue tankers cannot be converted to accommodate aircraft with boom receptacles. To
accommodate fighter aircraft, tankers with flying booms can reduce the speed at which they dispense fuel. Tankers with hose-and-drogue refueling cannot increase the speed at which they dispense fuel to accommodate bombers and other large aircraft." [One may well ask: "How many 'large' aircraft use dem hoseydrogues?]

Source: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32910.pdf (0.7Mb)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2015, 15:58
by popcorn
Marines may have a new aerial robot taxi by decade's end.

https://youtu.be/V4T5krYgWHM
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/m ... nfigurable Embedded System, a futuristic-looking unmanned helicopter with twin turbine-style fans known as ARES, from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
Logistics officials said one or both platforms could make an appearance in a training exercise as Marines test new ways to transport gear from ship to shore.
With the ARES, Marines could send 3,000 pounds of gear in a single flight without having to task a massive CH-53E heavy-lift helicopter, saving fuel and manpower, said Roy Truba, deputy head for the logistics strategy and vision sections at Headquarters Marine Corps.
It allows units to get the gear they need to the field without tasking a crew since the platform be controlled from a tablet.
“That CH-53 can be used for something else, for assault support or something, because you don’t want a 53 hauling only 3,000 pounds … and you certainly don’t want to send 10,000 pounds to a unit that can’t handle 10,000 pounds,” Truba said.
Both the AACUS and ARES are still experimental platforms. But following more testing, Truba said the Corps plans to move forward with a prototype in 2016 that could deploy with a Marine expeditionary unit in three or four years.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2015, 16:07
by spazsinbad
An interesting quote from the above article:
"...New possibilities with F-35
The newly operational joint strike fighter has been touted as a catalyst to transform Marine aviation. But the platform may also yield an unexpected benefit for logisticians, officials said.

Because the aircraft requires less maintenance equipment than older planes, it will free up space aboard ships that is typically devoted to Marine aviation logistics support...."

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2015, 17:02
by popcorn
Obviously a key lesson learned from testing aboard the USS Wasp. Applies as well to quickly deploying to and operating and relocating from austere locations. The smaller the logistics tail, the more nimble the whole traveling circus.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2015, 07:03
by spazsinbad
Does this USAF Euro strategy look familiar? USMC DSO Distributed STOVL Operations
Russians ‘Closed The Gap’ For A2/AD: Air Force Gen. Gorenc
14 Sep 2015 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"...A medium-term solution is stealth aircraft: Russian missiles can’t kill what their radars can’t see. (The Navy, less sure of stealth, prefers to jam enemy radars). Two squadrons of the new F-35A will arrive at Lakenheath air base in England, but that doesn’t happen until 2020, and they won’t be equipped to strike ground targets for some years after that. Stealthy F-22s have already done their first deployment to Europe to do training and test whether local airbases could support them. The F-22s are back in the US now, but Gorenc emphasized he could get them back if needed.

But the vast majority of US and allied air forces are conventional “Fourth Generation” aircraft that show up on radar just fine. Their survival depends not on technology but on training.

“We’re going to have to extend the training that we do to allow for access into areas that are very well defended,” Gorenc said. “We’re going to have to develop TTPs [tactics, techniques, and procedures] and continue to develop requirements [for new technologies that allow us to address that modern long-range SAM array.”

Tactics and training are critical for protecting NATO’s own bases as well. Some Cold War-era bases have hardened hangers, but Gorenc’s focus is less on fortifying a few big bases to resist bombardment than on shuffling aircraft among many small ones to avoid bombardment. Recent training missions by F-15s and A-10s in 23 countries were essentially “micro-deployments,” he said, with small groups of aircraft moving from one airfield to another in for short visits.

That’s good practice for a wartime tactic: fly aircraft, ground crews, and support equipment into a bare-bones air base, conduct a quick operation, then move out before Russian bombers or missiles retaliate. Gorenc wants to further expand the number of NATO bases the Russians have to worry about through an initiative called “Rapid-X”, which would move combat aircraft in and out of unimproved airfields with minimal facilities. The goal, he said, is “to generate combat power just at the right time, just in the right place.”

To meet the new threat, said Gorenc, “it’s pretty clear we’re going to have go back and start exercising some of the same stuff we used to do in the Cold War.”"

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2015/09/russ ... en-gorenc/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2015, 07:18
by quicksilver
"Two squadrons of the new F-35A will arrive at Lakenheath air base in England, but that doesn’t happen until 2020, and they won’t be equipped to strike ground targets for some years after that."

What planet is Sydney living on? F-35As that arrive in Lakenheath in 2020 will be 1K/2K JDAM and SDB-capable and have the full 3F EW/EA capability.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2015, 08:10
by geogen
quicksilver wrote:"Two squadrons of the new F-35A will arrive at Lakenheath air base in England, but that doesn’t happen until 2020, and they won’t be equipped to strike ground targets for some years after that."

What planet is Sydney living on? F-35As that arrive in Lakenheath in 2020 will be 1K/2K JDAM and SDB-capable and have the full 3F EW/EA capability.


Interesting planning... will these 2 squadrons join the 2 F-15E squadrons and 1 F-15C sqn?? That would be quite a substantial deployment, no? Hopefully F-35A won't be replacing the F-15E squadrons, given their nearly half range and lessor weapons capacity/options. That would be quite a capability gap if they replaced the F-15E/C structure in Europe in 2020.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2015, 11:57
by spazsinbad
Seein' as how there is a bunch of ARF stuff in this thread - here's more...
"Cdr Brick Wilson piloting F-35B BF-04 during air-refuelling testing with an F/A-18F Super Hornet on August 31 [2015]. Michael Jackson/Lockheed Martin" Air International OCTOBER 2015 Vol.89 No.4

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2015, 01:40
by spazsinbad
USMC Sea Basing Plan Amended 14 Oct 2015: https://www.scribd.com/document_downloa ... ension=pdf (12Mb)

I'm looking for 'the bone' and so it goes: I'll guess it is the extra deck at the top/right outboard of the island - going forward from left to right? I see the top part of the graphic - OUTLINED IN RED - shows the extra space. DUH. :doh:
"...LHA 8 will feature a well deck...." http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_print ... t=4&page=2


OLD LHA DECK Diagram from V/STOL SHIPBOARD AND LANDING SIGNAL OFFICER NATOPS MANUAL:
download/file.php?id=20369 (PDF) - wot doan exist here no more? DUH. 1Mb 140 page PDF attached again.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2015, 06:29
by spazsinbad
More ON that PLAN... Which ARE complex so best read at source. GO THE NETWORK & Flexibility - Go MARINE (LHDs Oz).
Davis: Marine Corps Aviation Must Adapt To Become More ‘Value-Added’ to Naval Force
17 Nov 2015 Megan Eckstein

"...“There are many scenarios where we would want to have the L-class carrier loaded with F-35Bs – the full squadron, 16 airplanes or more, plus four to six V-22s with a tanker package,” Davis said. “And that could maybe be the way our ships sail for a contingency, or sail as a matter of principle in the future as we are part of a naval formation to go do Phase 0, Phase 1 strike operations. Augment the carrier strike group’s ability to project power with fifth-generation capabilities until that time when we don’t need the augment from the L-class carriers, and then you would flow ashore – because now we have long-range assault support assets, V-22s, 53s, that can air-refuel. You fly them from their bases to that L-class ship, and now it turns into its normal MEU.

“And then maybe you have something like a [Operation] Sea Angel, some kind of humanitarian disaster that doesn’t need jet aircraft – you can fly all the jet aircraft off and load up that amphibious carrier with heavy-lift helicopters and V-22s,” Davis continued. “So to me, the gator, the amphibious ship, the amphibious carrier, can be what you need that ship to be. And I think we as a naval force need to embrace that and understand that, experiment with that, test that and employ all the capabilities we have in a much more innovative way than we have in the past.”...

...Key in enabling the Marines to rearrange the ACE while the MEU is out at sea would be embracing the fact that Marines and their aircraft can operate from the sea base or from an expeditionary base ashore, and that platforms shouldn’t be tethered to one or the other.

Today, some aircraft belong to MEUs at sea, some belong to land-based Special Purpose MAGTFs located in Europe and the Middle East, and some are forwarded stationed ashore in places like Japan. But back in World War II, Davis said, planes seamlessly went from being carrier-based to expeditionary airstrip-based as needed.

“That we have platforms that we can project power from a sea base and an expeditionary base ashore is an amazing source of strength for the naval forces, and I think we need to understand that more fully, like our predecessors did in World War II and Korea,” he said.

“So instead of pushing back on that or fearing that, I think we need to understand how we execute and deliver combat power from sea bases and expeditionary bases ashore as part of a naval campaign.”...

...One roadblock Davis sees to increasing the use of Marine aviation is command and control. Whereas the Navy’s carrier strike group can communicate amongst itself and with other assets in the fleet through Link-16, Davis said zero of the Marines’ aircraft deployed today have Link-16. Efforts are underway to put Link-16 on the Harriers and Ospreys, and the F-35B is already linked in, but Davis argued that the Marine Corps helicopters ought to be brought into the network too.

“That to me is a delta, a gap that we as a naval force need to close,” he said.

“I think we need to take a look at whatever we’re doing to the carrier and look at the gator fleet, make sure that we can plug and play and share information, you don’t have anybody that’s at a disadvantage out there in a high-end fight. Because I think the F-35s and the V-22s are going to be enablers for the naval formation. So if you want them to be enablers, you have to make sure they’re fully plugged in to the command and control and the intel networks.”

Though changing the construct of the MEU ACE, networking those aircraft and incorporating them into Navy battle doctrine will take time and effort, Davis argued that doing so is an inherent part of the Marine Corps ethos.

Today’s Marine Corps aviation should “be a different kind of capability for our nation than we’ve been in the past. More. The Marines are always looking to do whatever we need to do, and this is one of those things to do whatever we need to do to go defend our freedom.”

Source: http://news.usni.org/2015/11/17/davis-m ... aval-force


Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2015, 06:57
by spazsinbad
Also a long dense article best read at source.
The F-35B, The Naval Services, and Modern American Seapower
17 Nov 2015 Bryan McGrath

"...Yet hidden among these programs is the F-35B, the VSTOL variant built for the Marine Corps, which will deploy from U.S. Navy amphibious assault ships of the LHD and LHA classes. It replaces the AV-8B Harrier, and even the harshest critics of the F-35 program have a hard time not acknowledging the significant performance upgrades it brings to the Marine Air Wing, as it brings both considerably more range and ordnance carrying capacity. Yet if these performance increases were all the F-35B fielded, there would be little to support the argument for increased integration. What drives it, and what offers the truly revolutionary opportunity for closer integration, is its radar and electronic warfare system, the APG-81 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar system. This radar is capable of air-to air operations, air to surface operations, and a wide range of mostly classified electronic warfare and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions. Simply put, if this airplane is—as was the case for the AV-8B’s—primarily reserved for the support of Marines ashore—it will be represent a colossal lost opportunity to dramatically increase the reach and effectiveness of modern American Seapower.

From the decks of eleven Navy amphibious assault ships, the Marine Corps will operate fifth generation fighters nearly as capable as those that will operate from (eventually) eleven Navy aircraft carriers (range is the main deficit, as the VSTOL [FREEkin' STOVL you MUPPET!] F-35B must “bring its runway with it”). And while some suggest that this fact means the distinctions between amphibious assault ships and aircraft carriers is blurring, the fact that the amphibious assault ships cannot accommodate a long duration airborne early warning capability and are dramatically less capable of independent operations (fuel and ordnance storage being the primary culprits) limits the utility of this view. Rather than focusing on the “how can the LHD replace the CVN” question, planners should be considering how to more closely integrate the operations of these platforms so that the highly capable aircraft on the amphibious assault ships are used as weapons in the broader maritime fight, rather than simply as expensive close air support. And here—as Hamlet would say—is the rub.

In order to capture the promise of the F-35B’s capabilities, the Marine Corps is going to have to view its tactical air arm much differently than it currently does. Simply put, the afloat F-35B’s should belong to the Joint Force Maritime Component Commander (rather than to the Marine Expeditionary Unit commander) to be employed in accomplishing the JFMCC’s objectives. These will invariably include offensive sea control and integrated air and missile defense, [aaahh FAD Fleet Air Defence - this time the RICH MAN Wersion] missions that have not been featured prominently in the training syllabi of Marine Corps Harrier pilots, but which MUST become part of the program for F-35B pilots. The capabilities of the APG-81 AESA radar demand that this aircraft contribute to both the surface battle and the outer air battle as part of integrated fire control networks. This is essentially what the Navy’s F-35C pilots will be doing, and it seems obvious that harnessing the power of an additional squadron of fifth generation fighters from the amphibious group adds necessary combat power to the broader force. In fact, the Navy should consider organizing for combat in a return to the “Expeditionary Strike Force” concept of its past, one built around a nucleus of a large, nuclear powered aircraft carrier and an amphibious assault ship, each of which would be capable of networked IAMD, SUW, Strike, and Close Air Support (CAS) missions enabled by other elements of the Strike Force...."

Source: http://www.informationdissemination.net ... odern.html

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2015, 11:06
by quicksilver
I noticed that three prominent tin hatters went all harmonic on the author (who, obtw used to work for the previous CNO).

And, notably, there is general convergence between the McGrath article and what the Deputy Commandant for Aviation thinks.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2015, 00:59
by tritonprime
Solomon doesn't seem to be a fan.


"Time to fire the deputy commandant for aviation...."
by Solomon

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Source:
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2015/ ... t-for.html

via USNI News.

“You in your brain, and all of us in our brains, have, this is a MEU: six Harriers or six F-35s, 12 V-22s, three or four CH-53s, seven skids [light attack helicopters], some VMU [Marine Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Squadrons],” Davis said.

But what if that combination, which includes a little bit of everything, means that the ACE is not optimized for anything?

“There are many scenarios where we would want to have the L-class carrier loaded with F-35Bs – the full squadron, 16 airplanes or more, plus four to six V-22s with a tanker package,” Davis said.

“And that could maybe be the way our ships sail for a contingency, or sail as a matter of principle in the future as we are part of a naval formation to go do Phase 0, Phase 1 strike operations. Augment the carrier strike group’s ability to project power with fifth-generation capabilities until that time when we don’t need the augment from the L-class carriers, and then you would flow ashore – because now we have long-range assault support assets, V-22s, 53s, that can air-refuel. You fly them from their bases to that L-class ship, and now it turns into its normal MEU.”

You do realize what this b***** is proposing don't you? Instead of floating a Marine Corps Force that is flexible and capable of taking on a range of missions what he proposes is to specialize the MEU...wait...not even the MEU, but to subjugate the Ground Combat Element to the needs of Marine Air.

That's s*** on a cracker.

Its past time for this son of a b**** to be fired. But back on task. What he's actually proposing is more easily solved by simply taking fast movers from the Marine Corps and plus sizing the squadrons assigned to Navy Carriers. It would be cheaper, command and control would be easier and it wouldn't take anything away from the job that Marine Corps GROUND FORCES do everyday.

I didn't start this, but its obvious that the war inside the tribe is about to go from behind closed doors into the open press. So be it. The deputy commandant for aviation started the fight. Its time for the ground component to pick up the challenge and put him back in his cage.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2015, 02:09
by Dragon029
I wonder if Solo was ever charged with insubordination during his (supposed) time in the Marines? It's one thing to disagree with your CoC, but to call them 5 letter words beginning with B on a public forum?

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2015, 03:02
by optimist
"and plus sizing the squadrons assigned to Navy Carriers"

I think there may be a limit on how many you can fit on a carrier?

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2015, 03:21
by neptune
[quote="spazsinbad"].... Yet if these performance increases were all the F-35B fielded, ... its radar and electronic warfare system, the APG-81 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar system. This radar is capable of air-to air operations, air to surface operations, and a wide range of mostly classified electronic warfare and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions...From the decks of eleven Navy amphibious assault ships, the Marine Corps will operate fifth generation fighters nearly as capable as those that will operate from (eventually) eleven Navy aircraft carriers .....These will invariably include offensive sea control and integrated air and missile defense, [aaahh FAD Fleet Air Defence - ..] missions that have not been featured prominently in the training syllabi of Marine Corps Harrier pilots, but which MUST become part of the program for F-35B pilots. The capabilities of the APG-81 AESA radar demand that this aircraft contribute to both the surface battle and the outer air battle as part of integrated fire control networks. This is essentially what the Navy’s F-35C pilots will be doing, .........quote]

As far as the Corp's "Bee", it can with the help of the V-22 to be an independent proponent of national policy. No longer ham-strung by lower performance a/c, the "Bee" brings the same capabilities as the Navy's "Sea" but with a shorter range and fewer stealth enclosed weapons. The advent of the K/V-22 ro-ro tankers and possibly a E/V-22 ro-ro air management vehicles, these would bring the Gator Navy near parity as the CBG, but as previously stated with fewer infrastructure capacities. Yet a couple of extra tankers and ammunition ships and those "spare" cruisers the Navy doesn't want for Air Defense and/ or Aegis "Wing Man" and the Corp can undertake sizable efforts "all by their lonesome". :)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2015, 03:23
by spazsinbad
I'm not fussed by what 'Solomon' thinks about NavAv - one can look at the latest 'THE SKY IS FALLING IN A DEATH SPIRAL' blog entry about the mythical "1.5 lb" weight gain by the F-35C due recent wing spar crack discovery (when the news item clearly states "0.5 lb" - a minor detail - however that indicates the 'Sol On CRACK' nature of the entries there). IGNORE.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2015, 08:27
by spazsinbad
Demo of the longest FLIGHT for V-22 - all aboard - back to the heavy weight - back to the heavy weight - JAM.

Longest Flight for MV 22-Osprey
17 Nov 2015 SLDinfo

"11/17/2015: Marine Air Group 41, 4th Marine Aircraft Wing, Marine Forces Reserve conduct longest flight, 6,165 miles, in the history of the MV 22-Osprey, traveling from Miramar, Ca. to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, November 14, 2015. This movement is in support of UNITAS Amphibious Operations 2015."

VIDEO: https://vimeo.com/146065863

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/longest-flight-for-mv-22-osprey/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2015, 11:56
by spazsinbad
MORon the STOry:
Marines fly Osprey from Miramar to Brazil, set record
18 Nov 2015 Lance M. Bacon

"The Marine Corps set a new distance record for Osprey flights on Tuesday as three MV-22Bs traveled from California to Brazil.

Flight crews from Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 764 flew 6,165 miles from Marine Corps Air Station Miramar to Rio de Janeiro. The Marines made the journey as part of UNITAS Amphibious 2015, a nine-day multinational maritime exercise that runs through Nov. 24. About 1,000 troops from Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Paraguay and Peru are participating.

The Osprey squadron made a five-leg flight that included stops in Trinidad and Tobago, and Brazil, said 1st Lt. Tyler Hopkins, a UNITAS spokesman. The three Ospreys were supported by three KC-130J Hercules tankers from Marine Aerial Refueler Squadron 234 and one KC-130 from Marine Aerial Refueler Squadron 452.

The flight took five days as leadership decided to wait out some bad weather, said Lt. Col. Greg Gehman, commander of the VMM-764 Moonlighters. Lessons learned from the long flight will lead to faster and more efficient responses, and help to better prepare flight crews for crossing international boundaries and dealing with environmental concerns, he said....

...That is not to say the Osprey hasn’t been extending its reach. Six Ospreys and two KC-130Js in April 2013 flew from Marine Corps Air Station New River, North Carolina, to Moron De La Frontera, Spain. That 15-hour flight marked the longest and largest transatlantic flight of any Osprey squadron to date.

Four months later, two Ospreys completed the longest MV-22 tanking mission in the Pacific. The Marines flying those aircraft took off from Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, Japan, and landed in Townsville, Australia...."

Source: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/m ... /75933386/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2015, 07:15
by spazsinbad
Pesky Gyrenes get in the way again - is there no end to their perfidy? And... No CVN in sight. Mini Carriers For Eva! <sarc>
USS Kearsarge Harriers Join Fight Against ISIL
19 Nov 2015 Story Number: NNS151119-09 USS Kearsarge Amphibious Ready Group public affairs

"ARABIAN GULF (NNS) -- Naval Aviation rejoined the fight against ISIL Nov. 19 when AV-8B Harriers from Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM)162(Reinforced)launched from the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge (LHD 3) to conduct their first missions over Iraq in support of Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR).

The last Naval Aviation missions in support of OIR were Oct. 17, from USS Essex (LHD 2)...."

Source: http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=92084

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2015, 15:53
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:
"11/17/2015: Marine Air Group 41, 4th Marine Aircraft Wing, Marine Forces Reserve conduct longest flight, 6,165 miles, in the history of the MV 22-Osprey, traveling from Miramar, Ca. to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, November 14, 2015. This movement is in support of UNITAS Amphibious Operations 2015."

VIDEO: https://vimeo.com/146065863

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/longest-flight-for-mv-22-osprey/


What ship is that with the ski-jump?

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2015, 16:00
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: 'QS' wins the spotter prize! :mrgreen: YessireeBob doze bleedin' gyrenes are at it again on JCI crowding out the Spanith assets in V-22 testing Sep/Oct 2015 - nothing new there - they'll do this on CVFs also (reported elsewhere recently). Go Gyrenies when Oz LHDs go acourtin'. LHD Juan Carlos I will do it all first most likely, including F-35Bs?. 'FLYCOOKIE' posted JPG: http://www.adf-messageboard.com.au/invb ... 883743.jpg & http://www.adf-messageboard.com.au/invb ... entry16981

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2015, 16:16
by spazsinbad
Meanwhile the Oz ARMY on Oz LHD recreates the Battle of Trafalgar thusly on same ADFserials thread above (JCI Pitcha): http://www.adf-messageboard.com.au/invb ... 071742.jpg

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2015, 16:25
by XanderCrews
tritonprime wrote:Solomon doesn't seem to be a fan.


it comes and goes with the meds:

http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2011/ ... sweet.html


"Time to fire the deputy commandant for aviation...."
by Solomon



The guy was advocating abolishing the entire airwing recently so this is relatively tame ranting.

Tritonprime this is a serious question, are you going to post everything including those from retarded bloggers who claim to Marines?

Solomon is clueless, claims to be a Marine, and doesn't understand how the Air Wing or Marine Corps works (how odd!). I've ranted about him before plenty on this forum. I'm just curious if you read something about the F-35 on a Bathroom stall if that will rate a quoted post from you.


I didn't start this, but its obvious that the war inside the tribe is about to go from behind closed doors into the open press. So be it. The deputy commandant for aviation started the fight. Its time for the ground component to pick up the challenge and put him back in his cage.


LOL wut? This fag watches too much WWF.

Eagerly awaiting this civil war from my own service. :roll: The army landed some helicopters on a Navy ship (a routine practice BTW) and Soloman said the army was "Declaring war" on the Marine Corps this is the routine weirdness you get from this guy. He also tried to say that the army helping to fight forest fires was the government stealing military assets for secret operations or some such.

I used to go to that blog and make fun of Sol and then my wife-- and I am being serious here-- Told me it sounded like he had mental issues and I should stop picking on him because its cruel. I no longer post there and havn't in years. I do think he has mental problems, I don't think he was ever a Marine. I think he believes he is a MArine, but when I look at what he posts there are lots of red flags that show he is not. Its every popular these days to impersonate military people especially online and I think he is one of those.

He is just another conspiracy nut, I really don't think we need to add his "input" on this subject.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2016, 03:11
by spazsinbad
Search THIS thread using 'VARS' to see all the info on it.
V-22 Aerial Refueling System nears contract decision with additional upgrades pending
22 Feb 2016 Marina Malenic, Washington, DC - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

"Key Points
• Boeing expects to sign a development contract for the VARS in the coming months

• The VARS would allow the Osprey to become the USMC's "recovery tanker" [QUE? They don't need recovery tanking]

The Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey will receive a variety of upgrades in the coming years in order to prepare the tilt-rotor aircraft for another 40 years of service life with the US Marine Corps (USMC) and US Navy (USN), according to Boeing. In the near term, the company expects to sign a development contract for the V-22 Aerial Refueling System (VARS) in the coming months, Rick Lemaster, director of tilt-rotor business development for Boeing, told IHS Jane's on 22 February...."

Source: http://www.janes.com/article/58270/v-22 ... es-pending

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2016, 03:47
by spazsinbad
Around page 18 & back from or even forward there are posts about refuelling in all the glory of same. So here is more:
Marine Osprey flies in to fuel up F-35B
29 Apr 2016 Kenji Thuloweit 412th Test Wing Public Affairs

"4/29/2016 - EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- A U.S. Marine Corps MV-22B Osprey descended on Edwards to link up with a Marine F-35B Joint Strike Fighter April 28.

Both aircraft are assigned to Marine Operational Test & Evaluation Squadron 22 (VMX-22) out of Marine Corps Air Station Yuma in Arizona.

VMX-22 has a detachment here where Marines are testing and evaluating their version of the JSF, which is the short take-off and vertical landing variant.

The Osprey dropped by for a quick but important test.

"The test was to validate ground refueling from an MV-22 to an F-35B, which is integral to the construct of the Marine Air Ground Task Force," said USMC Maj. Adam Geitner, pilot and VMX-22 F-35 Detachment Aircraft Maintenance officer.

The Marine Air-Ground Task Force is the organizational foundation for all missions across the range of USMC military operations. MAGTFs are a balanced air-ground, combined arms task organization of Marine Corps forces under a single commander that is structured to accomplish a specific mission.

"This was the first time an MV-22 has refueled an F-35. Both ground refueling and air-to-air refueling are important pieces to the Marine Corps' MAGTF operational construct. From a tactical point of view, the MV-22 to F-35 ground refueling allows the Marine Corps to employ assets in austere environments on a short notice without having to rely on long-term planning and fixed facilities," Geitner said.

The one-hour test consisted of hooking up fuel transfer lines between the two aircraft with the MV-22 fueling up the F-35B. The test validated the equipment and procedures on both the F-35B and MV-22.

Geitner said the MV-22 Osprey has the ability to carry approximately 10,000 lbs. of fuel in its fuel containers loaded in the back of the aircraft. This is coupled with approximately 12,000 lbs. carried internally, which can either provide fuel to its own aircraft or to external aircraft in air-to-air refueling operations.

Fuel was successfully transferred to the F-35, which taxied off back to the Joint Operation Test Team area.

"The next step will be air-to-air refueling from an MV-22. This is even more significant for the MAGTF when operating F-35s from [amphibious assault ships] because it provides organic air-to-air refueling capability that vastly extends the range of the aircraft and also provides operational flexibility," said Geitner.

Previously, Marine AV-8B Harrier aircraft would require USMC KC-130s to provide air-to-air refueling capabilities. However, they are limited to land and when the amphibious assault ships are operating in either blue water operations, or in regions that deny them access to land-based air facilities, as it limits air-to-air refueling capabilities, Geitner added.

"With the MV-22 being on the ship, co-located with the F-35, all of those constraints with the KC-130 no longer apply."

The MV-22B Osprey is a tiltrotor vertical and/or short take-off and landing aircraft that serves as the medium-lift assault support aircraft for the Marines. The Osprey can operate as a helicopter or a turboprop aircraft. It can transport troops, equipment and supplies from ships and land bases for combat assault and support.

Edwards AFB hasn't seen an Osprey in the skies regularly since 2007. That's the year the 418th Flight Test Squadron said goodbye to the CV-22 Integrated Test Team after completing developmental test of the aircraft."

Source: http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123473207

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2016, 10:32
by spazsinbad
V-22 Aerial Tanker Capability Slated for 2018
16 May 2016 RICHARD R. BURGESS

"The Navy’s V-22 Osprey program is working toward fielding an aerial tanking capability for the Marine Corps’ MV-22B tiltrotor assault transports by 2018, the program manager said.

Col. Daniel Robinson, the Navy’s program manager for the V-22 Osprey, speaking to reporters May 16 at the Sea-Air-Space Exposition at National Harbor, Md., said the “summer of 2018 is the target for this capability.”

The aerial tanking capability would enable the air combat element of a Marine Expeditionary Unit to refuel in air its F-35 Lightning II strike fighters and CH-53 heavy-lift helicopters, and eventually possibly other V-22s. This capability would extend the reach of the amphibious ready groups for strike and assault missions.

Other future capabilities envisioned for the V-22 include an improved electro-optical/infrared sensor to give better target resolution and give the aircraft a reconnaissance and surveillance capability. The increased situational awareness would be available to the Marines in the cabin before they arrive at a landing zone, and available to a command element.

Other future capabilities being explored are weapons, such as the Harvest Hawk package now installed on some KC-130J Super Hercules aircraft, and electronic warfare capabilities.

“We’re doing some trade studies in weapons,” Robinson said. “People are looking at weapons because of the unique range and speed [of the V-22] for self-escort, he said. “These aircraft are so versatile and flexible there is a lot of thought as to what to put on them.

The Marine Corps has 253 MV-22Bs in service. The program of record for the MV-22B is 360 aircraft."

Source: http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories ... 6-v22.html

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2016, 12:28
by spazsinbad
V-22 Refueling Contract Highlights Close Ties To F-35
27 May 2016 Richard Whittle

"...$58.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract award to the Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office to keep developing the V-22 Aerial Refueling System, aka VARS. The VARS includes a portable refueling station that will roll up the Osprey’s back ramp and into its back cabin. Crews will use it to aerial refuel F-35s, F/A18 Hornets and other aircraft – including V-22s and CH-53 helicopters – by extending a hose and drogue out the open back ramp.

“This is a long desired capability for V-22,” an industry official following the program said. “You talk about force multipliers — that’s what this is.”

“Marine Corps Ospreys with VARS will be able to refuel the F-35B Lightning II with about 4,000 pounds of fuel at VARS’s initial operating capability. MV-22B VARS capacity will increase to 10,000 pounds of fuel by 2019. This will significantly enhance the F-35B’s range, as well as the aircraft’s ability to remain on target for a longer period,” Capt. Sarah Burns, a spokeswoman at Headquarters Marine Corps, says....

...for the moment, the program is focused on adding the VARS capability, which is also seen as a draw for potential foreign navy buyers."

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2016/05/v-22 ... s-to-f-35/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2016, 16:12
by yeswepromise
An interesting update in my opinion,
The Green Knights are booked for Red Flag 16-3 (July 11 - July 29).
I believe this is the first time you would see a F-35 squadron in the exercise.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2016, 22:09
by SpudmanWP
sweet

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2016, 02:42
by Dragon029
yeswepromise wrote:An interesting update in my opinion,
The Green Knights are booked for Red Flag 16-3 (July 11 - July 29).
I believe this is the first time you would see a F-35 squadron in the exercise.


:drool:

I think it's unlikely they wouldn't, but I rrreeeaaalllyyy hope they put it up against some fighters and talk about the results. I'd love to see something akin to the 1 F-22 vs 5 F-15s.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2016, 03:30
by mk82
yeswepromise wrote:An interesting update in my opinion,
The Green Knights are booked for Red Flag 16-3 (July 11 - July 29).
I believe this is the first time you would see a F-35 squadron in the exercise.


Double sweet!! I have a strong feeling that VMFA 121's F35Bs will suprise a lot of people with its (frankly superb) performance in Red Flag and that is only with Block 2B software. I would laugh if the F35Bs performs CAS and CSAR better than the A10s which have to wait for local air superiority to be established and the SEAD/DEAD guys (might be F35Bs too!) to do their thang (well). That's your answer there Michael Gilmore in regards to the F35 and CAS (he must have missed prior USMC exercises and recent Green Flag exercises)......

Funny how the USMC can do CAS well (bread and butter for USMC fast jet aviation) without A10s. These A10s are going to look relatively more and more dated and less survivable in future Red Flags (where a competently run IADS is simulated. Not just d*ckheads with AKs.....)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2016, 05:16
by yeswepromise
I bet even if the Lightnings perform flawless, most media would figure out how to spin it into a negative story anyways.
I'm sure they will do good.
Can't imagine the whooping blue air will do with Lightnings AND Raptors!

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2016, 05:48
by popcorn
Going by the F-22 precedent, there will be appropriate press releases but nothing beats participating in actual combat operations. The Syrian conflict provided a highly visible venue for the Raptor to strut it's stuff.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2016, 08:07
by Dragon029
popcorn wrote:Going by the F-22 precedent, there will be appropriate press releases but nothing beats participating in actual combat operations. The Syrian conflict provided a highly visible venue for the Raptor to strut it's stuff.


The sad part is that while it's real combat, what the F-22 were doing in Syria is nothing compared to what they do in Red Flag.

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2016, 11:30
by spazsinbad
Nellis AFB to host Red Flag 16-3 July 11–29, 2016 [indicated above by 'yeswepromise' - more details here]
18 May 2016 99th ABW Public Affairs

"...More than 115 aircraft are scheduled to depart Nellis twice a day and aircraft may remain in the air for up to five hours. Flying times are scheduled to accommodate other flying missions at Nellis AFB and provide Red Flag participants with valuable training in planning and executing a wide variety of combat missions.

The exercise will include U.S. forces with aircraft from:

- 1st Fighter Wing, 27th Fighter Squadron, F-22A, Langley AFB, Virginia.

- 20th Fighter Wing, 79th Fighter Squadron, F-16CJ, Shaw AFB, South Carolina.

- Carrier Air Wing 14, Electronic Attack Squadron-139, EA-18G, NAS Whidbey Island, Washington.

- Carrier Air Wing 14, Electronic Attack Squadron-209, EA-18G, NAS Whidbey Island, Washington

- 2nd Bomb Wing, 96th Bomb Squadron, B-52, Barksdale AFB, Louisiana

- 113th Wing, 121st Fighter Squadron, F-16, Andrews AFB, Maryland.

-177th Fighter Wing, 119th Fighter Squadron, F-16, Atlantic City, New Jersey.

- 31st Fighter Wing, 555th Fighter Squadron, F-16, Aviano Air Base, Italy

- 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121, F-35B, MCAS Yuma, Arizona.

- 432nd Wing, 42nd Attack Squadron, MQ-9, Creech AFB, Nevada.

- 552nd Air Control Wing, 964th Airborne Air Control Squadron, E-3, Tinker AFB, Oklahoma.

- 116 ACW, 12 ACCS, E-8, Robins AFB, Georgia.

- 55th Wing, 343rd/38th Reconnaissance Squadron, RC-135V/W, Offutt AFB, Nebraska.

- 9th Reconnaissance Wing, 12th Reconnaissance Squadron, RQ-4, Beale AFB, California.

- 9th Reconnaissance Wing, 99th Reconnaissance Squadron, U-2, Beale AFB, California.

- 9th Reconnaissance Wing, 348th Reconnaissance Squadron, RQ-4, Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota

- 23rd Wing, 41st Rescue Squadron, HH-60, Moody AFB, Georgia.

- 23rd Wing, 55th Rescue Squadron, HH-60, Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona.

- 23rd Wing, 66th Rescue Squadron, HH-60, Nellis AFB, Nevada.

- 23rd Wing, 79th Rescue Squadron, HC-130, Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona.

- 57th Wing, 422nd Test & Evaluation Squadron, F-16, Nellis AFB, Nevada.

- 92nd Air Refueling Wing, KC-135, Fairchild AFB, Washington.

- 22nd Air Refueling Wing, KC-135, McConnell AFB, Kansas.

- 437th Airlift Wing, C-17, Charleston, South Carolina.

- 57th Wing, 64th Aggressor Squadron, F-16C, Nellis AFB, Nevada...."

Source: http://www.nellis.af.mil/News/tabid/643 ... -2016.aspx

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2016, 21:36
by spazsinbad
Cobham to Develop Aerial Refueling Kit for V-22
25 Oct 2016 SEAPOWER

DAVENPORT, Iowa — Cobham has been awarded a contract by the Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office to develop a palletized aerial refueling system to give the U.S. Marine Corps’ MV-22B Osprey tiltrotor aircraft the ability refuel other aircraft while in flight, according to a Oct. 25 company release.

Known as V-22 Aerial Refueling System (VARS), the system will utilize Cobham’s existing FR300 Hose Drum Unit with some modifications. The roll-on/roll-off kit will enable the Marines to use their land- and carrier-based MV-22B aircraft to refuel F-35B Lightning II and F/A-18 Hornet aircraft, thereby extending their operational range and loiter times.

Design and production of VARS will occur at the Cobham Mission Systems facility in Davenport. Deliveries will begin in 2018, upon completion of rigorous analysis and testing of the system."

"The FR300 Hose Drum Unit is designed to be mounted in a center line configuration for use in aerial refueling of “probe” equipped receiver aircraft. This system is also installed in almost all C-130 wing mounted pods. The Hose Drum Unit extends and retracts the refueling hose through which fuel is transferred to the receiver aircraft. The unit provides refueling at speeds between 105 and 250 KIAS. The FR300 also provides hose guillotine, jettison, and sealing emergency provisions.

Operating air speed: 105 to 250 KIAS; Fuel transfer rate: 150 US gal/min (568 to 1136 L/min); Extended hose length: 82 ft (24.99 m)"

Source: 0.56Mb PDF Datasheet: http://www.cobham.com/mission-systems/a ... datasheet/


Source: http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20161025-vars.html

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2016, 00:39
by neptune
[quote="spazsinbad"][quote]Cobham to Develop Aerial Refueling Kit for V-22..
Known as V-22 Aerial Refueling System (VARS), the system will utilize Cobham’s existing FR300 Hose Drum Unit with some modifications. The roll-on/roll-off kit will enable the Marines to use their land- and carrier-based MV-22B aircraft to refuel F-35B Lightning II and F/A-18 Hornet aircraft, thereby extending their operational range and loiter times (H-53, SBug, etc)...

[quote]"The FR300 Hose Drum Unit is designed to be mounted in a center line configuration for use in aerial refueling of “probe” equipped receiver aircraft. This system is also installed in almost all C-130 wing mounted pods. .....quote]

Wow, does this fit the USAF CV-22B for their SOG and USN CMV-22B for the COD???...wonder how many lbs. of fuel it can carry per flight?? :wink: :)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2016, 06:50
by spazsinbad
The amount of fuel offload has been mentioned before but mentioned again in this artikle by Hope of BUzzDod fortune.

For example fuel offload here on previous page: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=26629&p=340815&hilit=Whittle#p340815
New System Will Allow Ospreys to Refuel F-35s in Flight
26 Oct 2016 Hope Hodge Seck

"The British manufacturing company Cobham has been contracted to develop a system that will allows the Marines MV-22B Osprey to conduct in-flight refueling of other aircraft, notably the new F-35B Joint Strike Fighter.

Cobham announced Tuesday it had been awarded a contract from the Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office to develop a “roll-on/roll-off” palletized refueling system, know as the V-22 Aerial Refueling System, or VARS. VARS will be based on Cobham’s existing FR-300 hose drum unit, used by the KC-130 for in-air refueling of other aircraft. With the system, according to a news release, the Osprey can conduct mid-air refuelings of the F-35 and the F/A-18 Hornet, from land or from off an aircraft carrier.

This, the release notes, will extend the fighter aircrafts’ operational range and loiter times....

...The refueling system will be developed at Cobham’s Mission Systems facility in Davenport, Iowa, according to the release. After testing, the first VARS kits will be delivered in 2018.

Adding mid-air refueling as a capability to the Osprey has long been a goal of Marine Corps aviation leaders. The Corps’ 2016 aviation plan calls aerial refueling a future MV-22 mission set, and states that the aircraft will eventually be able to conduct mid-air refueling for other tiltrotor aircraft and helicopters as well as fixed-wing fighters.

The plan also states that a fully capable VARS will be fielded in Fiscal 19.

This system will be able to refuel all [Marine air-ground task force] aerial refuel capable aircraft with approximately 10,000 pounds per VARS-equipped V-22,” the document says."

Source: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/10/26/new-s ... 5s-flight/

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2016, 15:54
by alx2
spazsinbad wrote:The amount of fuel offload has been mentioned before but mentioned again in this artikle by Hope of BUzzDod fortune.

For example fuel offload here on previous page: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=26629&p=340815&hilit=Whittle#p340815
New System Will Allow Ospreys to Refuel F-35s in Flight
26 Oct 2016 Hope Hodge Seck


How does it compare with a Super Hornet in air refueling configuration??

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2016, 18:15
by spazsinbad
Some useful credible responses to that question here: http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... BOHKXnr2Z8

Additional: http://www.japcc.org/wp-content/uploads ... an_web.pdf (6.2Mb)

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2016, 17:03
by spazsinbad
Cobham to develop VARS for MV-22B
28 Oct 2016 Marina Malenic

“Cobham has been awarded a contract by Bell Boeing to develop a palletised aerial refuelling system to give the US Marine Corps' (USMC's) Bell Boeing MV-22B Osprey tiltrotor aircraft in-flight aerial refuelling capability, the company announced on 25 October.

The V-22 Aerial Refueling System (VARS) will use a modified version of Cobham's FR300 Hose Drum Unit. The roll-on/roll-off kit will allow the marines to use their Ospreys to refuel their combat aircraft. "We have been involved with the project since 2013," Asif Ahmed, business development manager at Cobham Mission Systems, told IHS Jane's on 27 October.

The first phase of the work involved trade studies, which are now being used to implement a defined set of Marine Corps requirements through initial operational capability. A final phase of work will take the system to full operational capability sometime in 2018, Ahmed explained.

The first version of the FR300 Hose Drum Unit was designed in the 1960s, and there are now about 450 units in use worldwide, according to Ahmed. The Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules is the platform in which the system is most used.
Modifications needed for use in the V-22 include changes that will allow for the aircraft's ramp door to open and close while the hose is simultaneously extended and retracted in multiple positions, as well as unique electrical alterations that allow it to operate during both rotary- and fixed-wing modes. Still, Ahmed said "the bulk of system does not change", so the modification cost is expected to be low.”"

PHOTO: An early flight test of the VARS system, which Cobham is developing for Bell Boeing. A second phase of development is now under way, and a third and final phase will be completed by 2018. Source: Boeing http://www.janes.com/images/assets/993/ ... -_main.jpg


[b]Source: http://www.janes.com/article/64993/cobh ... for-mv-22b

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2016, 20:20
by XanderCrews
I love that test bed Osprey, its a workhorse. Verfying new filtration system and Nacelle concepts, The VARS, and the CAS attack demo.

:inlove:

Re: Marine Aviation Plan 2015

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2017, 15:59
by spazsinbad
US Marines Set 2019 Target for Osprey Tanker Fit
07 Feb 2017 Jim Winchester

"The US Marine Corps expects to declare initial operational capability for the Bell Boeing V-22 Aerial Refuelling System (VARS) in late 2019, with the milestone to represent the availability of an initial four mission-equipped aircraft.

VARS will be qualified with the USMC’s Boeing AV-8B, F/A-18 and Lockheed Martin F-35B strike aircraft and Sikorsky CH-53 fleets, although a testing timeline has yet to be worked out, says Lt Col Douglas Ogden, MV-22 military platform lead at the V-22 joint progamme office. The service had originally hoped to have the in-flight refuelling system ready to support initial operations with the F-35B, but a contract award was delayed until October 2016.

Cobham Mission Systems will begin delivering production VARS sets during 2018, with the equipment based on its existing FR300 hose-drum unit. Proximity trials performed with F/A-18s in 2013 and 2015 identified no issues with the fighters flying close behind the tiltrotor, Ogden told the IQ Defence International Helicopter Conference in London on 1 February...."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... it-433899/