F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2017, 11:52
by neptune
https://news.usni.org/2017/01/05/interv ... more-23132

Interview: Lt. Gen. Bailey Says F-35, Closer Partnerships Will Enhance Operations in 2017
By: Megan Eckstein
January 5, 2017 6:34 PM

THE PENTAGON – Marine Corps operations are set for some big changes in 2017 with the deployment of the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter overseas, a move towards distributed operations as called for in the Marine Corps Operating Concept, and the potential addition of more ships to move Marines around high-threat areas, the deputy commandant for plans, policies and operations told USNI News. As the Marines’ first operational squadron of F-35Bs prepares to move to Japan in the coming weeks, “we intend to fully incorporate the F-35 into the [U.S. Pacific Command] area of operations,” Lt. Gen. Ronald Bailey said in a Dec. 22 interview. “When you start talking the things that it will do in terms of its range, its capacity, I think that will change the whole environment and change how we view not only exercises and operations but how we will train,” he said of the new airplane. “So I call it a crawl, walk, run; we have to get out there and start learning some lessons, which we will. VMFA-121 will go out with 10 aircraft, and six additional aircraft will go out as part of the [31st Marine Expeditionary Unit’s fall patrol (USS Wasp LHD-1) from Japan]. So they’ll get out on ground and just start doing what I call familiarization, and then they’ll learn some lessons from that. Then they’ll go and participate in a couple exercises in calendar year ’17; one of the exercises that they’re going to participate in the PACOM region will be in Alaska. … That’ll be approximately 6,000 Marines, sailors and soldiers that will be in the exercise, and it will give them the opportunity to get in the air and test its capability” in a contingency response-type exercise, he said.

The Alaskan exercise, called Exercise Northern Edge, is a U.S.-only biennial exercise that U.S. Pacific Command holds “to replicate the most challenging scenarios in the Pacific theater to ensure joint U.S. forces are trained and prepared to respond to crises in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region, with over 6,000 U.S. service members and 200 aircraft from across the continental United States and Asian-Pacific,” Bailey’s office explained. Additionally, the F-35 is expected to participate in Exercise Forager Fury in Guam this calendar year, and in Exercises Ssang Yong and Max Thunder in the Republic of Korea, Exercises Pitch Black and Southern Frontier in Australia, and Exercises Forager Fury and Valiant Shield in Guam in 2018.

Bailey said bringing the aircraft to the Pacific allows the squadron to exercise in training ranges much larger than those available at home, and eventually it will allow the squadrons to begin testing interoperability with allies in the area such as Japan and Australia. For the time being, these allies won’t work directly with the F-35B but instead will open their airspace for training purposes. Once the Marine Corps learns best practices and gets farther along in writing tactics, techniques and procedures, then the service will begin sharing lessons learned with its allies – such as Japan and Australia, who are both buying the F-35A conventional take-off variant.

“I think the first thing we have to do is become familiar ourselves and work our way through our own challenges that we have before we start bringing others in,” Bailey said. “Particularly when a new platform is brought in, you want to try to work through your own organizational issues. So the first thing that I would say to you on that is that as a Marine Corps organization we’re going to try to become familiar, make sure we as a squadron or as a group or as a Marine Corps have worked our way through the lessons learned. So we’re going to go through a lot of lessons learned, and then we’ll start sharing those with our allies and our partners and our friends because that prevents a lot of things from going wrong, when you can take those lessons learned and bring [those allies] back in and say, ‘you know we tried this and this doesn’t work.’ Prior to them taking on that platform, we’ve already gone through those challenges.” Though Bailey stressed the need to take it slow in terms of becoming familiar with the airplane, learning the right lessons and then working with other services and other nations in an operational setting, the operational tempo for VMFA-121 will be anything but slow this year. As the service moves towards a focus on distributed operations, the F-35 will play a pivotal role. If each squad or platoon is a node, the F-35 will be the network that connects them, processing and sharing information faster than ever before.

As an example, Bailey said he was at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, Calif., to observe an infantry officers course last year, where officers riding in the back of MV-22 Ospreys in a raid scenario had tablets that were tied in to an F-35. Bailey and others observed from a simulated F-35 – a room with multiple computer screens that showed all the information an F-35 pilot would have at his disposal while flying. A Marine in one Osprey could change the plan for the raid based on new information, and that change was sent to both the tablets in the other Ospreys and to the F-35 pilot “The plan changes and I can send him that change in a burst, not try to get on the radio and go through a satellite and come back; I can just send him the exact changes and modifications,” Bailey said. “And so you pull all that capability together, and you can see how that platform will be able to revolutionize the battlefield and give the Marine on the ground a capability that we’ve never had before. I think that’s a game-changer when you start talking distributed operations and you start talking the environment of the future.”

“You want to be able to out-cycle your enemy, and I think this will give us the opportunity to out-cycle our enemy in terms of speed, in terms of application of information that comes in,” he added. The F-35 deployment will also help bridge the Marine Corps and Navy operational forces this year, with the 31st MEU and Wasp Amphibious Ready Group’s fall patrol – the first that will feature F-35s – teaming up with three destroyers to create an “upgunned surface action group.” “I see that as a continuation or a pickup of some things that had gotten away from us because of deployments – being involved in Iraq and Afghanistan was our primary focus over the last 15 years – so we’re kind of going back to our roots and things that we had done before but had gotten away from. You start talking Navy Marine Corps team, combining cruisers (USS Normandy CG-60 NIFC-CA) and destroyers together (with amphibious forces), when you start talking surface action groups – that’s not new, we’re going to pick up. What it will allow us is an opportunity to now, with the Arleigh Burke class new ships, to test out the [command and control] and work through some of the challenges that we will have with the new platform (F-35). So the lessons learned that the squadron has been gaining, we will also apply those when we start the Navy-Marine Corps team amphibious operations,” he said. “You start talking cruisers and destroyers, you’re talking fire capability, the Navy’s top fire control capability. When you have the F-35 fifth-generation platform now, we grew up in this Marine Corps talking combined arms, and we talk it, but now you have this platform that can see and sense and pull everything together, and so that in itself will enhance destroyers and cruisers.”

The Marine Corps also hopes to increase its work with the Navy by finding more ships to put its Marines on. The Navy’s new Force Structure Assessment increased the requirement to 38 amphibs – previously the service had acknowledged the need for 38 but set a fiscally constrained requirement at 31. Though it will takes years for the Navy to grow the size of its amphib fleet, Bailey said work is being done to find more alternate platforms for the Marines to use in the short term, and is making modifications to some ships to allow them to accommodate Marine Corps aircraft such as the MV-22. Bailey said the Marines have to try to deal with “high threat posed areas” such as the Gulf of Guinea and the Mediterranean Sea through land-based units today, and through the Naval Board the service is in talks with the Navy “about what has occurred in terms of change in environment, change in threat. Think about where we were three years ago and where we are today, it’s kind of interesting – Crimea, Ukraine, Sudan, you can just go down the list, not to mention humanitarian (assistance)/disaster relief, threat from Russians in Europe. All these things are different. So the Navy and Marine Corps through the Naval Board, we are able to adapt and respond to the changing nature of the environment.”

As a result of these talks, modifications will be made to the Navy’s Expeditionary Sea Base USNS Lewis B. Puller (T-ESB-3) and Expeditionary Transfer Docks USNS Montford Point (T-ESD-1) and USNS John Glenn (T-ESD-2) to accommodate MV-22s. USNI News understands that the modification process on Lewis B. Puller has already begun. Once these modifications are made, the ships might be made available in theater to move Marines around as needed. Marines in 2017 will also benefit from greater collaboration with some allies, as other nations build up their own amphibious forces. Australia in particular will reach an important milestone, deploying its first ARG/MEU this year, and Bailey called their new amphibious force an “outstanding capability” to partner with. “There was a planned approach to make sure that we shared with them our knowledge and expertise on amphibious operations,” he said, noting that former commandant retired Gen. James Amos sent a former MEU commander and then an aviator to Australia as liaisons to inform their ARG/MEU development. “So now we’re talking a partner who has been fighting with us since World War II or before, and you couldn’t ask for a better partner to help the U.S. in its role in the Pacific theater. So I see that as a tremendous opportunity, not only for the U.S. but for the region to assist and help us with security-type operations, assist and help us with theater security or humanitarian (assistance) and disaster relief, when in fact you have another nation out there with an LHD-like capability or with an ARG/MEU-like capability; it may be small in scale but it’s still another amphibious capability that’s out there.”
“There’s nothing like having a strong ally with a common focus,” he added, and said that the U.S. Marines would work with the Australians more and in more domains now as a result of their new capability.

He said the British would also be buying the F-35B for their Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, and “I see more amphibious operations in terms of working together” with them as well. Bailey said 2017 would also bring closer relationships with Asian partners like Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam, as well as European partners like Norway that can assist the Marine Corps in reestablishing a cold weather capability. Bailey also predicted that 2017 would be shaped by ongoing innovation, particular with 3D printing. “I’m fascinated by the developments and changes that 3D printing is bringing about,” he said. “Yes there are things we’ll have to work through in terms of certification or verification of parts, but just that thinking – I’ll give you an example, years ago (when briefing plans ahead of an operation) you would build little squares of dirt, and you would have a map, and you would build your [terrain map] using dirt and strings. Now … you and I are getting ready to go out on an operation, I’m not going to brief you from a map, I’m going to brief you from a replica of the ground, the buildings and everything that’s on there, to include the windows, due to 3D printing. So that’s just a small example.”

In reflecting on what 2017 will bring for the Marine Corps, Bailey echoed what Commandant Gen. Robert Neller likes to say: “The only thing we’re not going to do is stay the same.”
:)

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2017, 12:15
by spazsinbad
OMG this is a popular article first posted excerpts here but what the hey at 20:36:

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=28931&p=359658#p359658

THEN AGAIN HERE summarized succinctly: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=50736&p=359659&hilit=notable#p359659

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2017, 18:44
by neptune
I'm encouraged by the participation in the multi-cultural exercises and the bi-directional learning of our forces with our allies. The development of tactics and SOPs with logistics will greatly advance this renaissance in tactical aviation.
:)

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2017, 06:17
by popcorn
Tne Navy got to learn new stuff with the recent deployment of the enhanced Surface Action Group. Hope they liked the Kangaroo meat, :)



https://news.usni.org/2017/01/19/next-p ... more-23313

Next PAC SAG May Be Multinational; Vinson Strike Group To Continue ‘3rd Fleet Forward’ Ops

The Navy will take lessons learned from the 2016 deployment of a three-destroyer Pacific Fleet Surface Action Group (PAC SAG) that remained under U.S. 3rd Fleet command and stretch itself further, deploying a full carrier strike group under 3rd Fleet command and potentially forming a multinational “PAC SAG 2” this summer.

3rd Fleet Chief of Staff Capt. John Beaver said last week at the annual Surface Navy Association conference that last year’s deployment of USS Momsen (DDG-92), USS Spruance (DDG-111) and USS Decatur (DDG-73) was a good first step in learning how to project power outside the carrier strike group concept and in creating alternate command and control (C2) relationships...

His panelists – the destroyer squadron commander and three destroyer commanding officers involved in last year’s PAC SAG – said the deployment went smoothly on their level, though they relied heavily on international partners for support. For example, without an oiler or supply ship attached to their group, as might be the case with an aircraft carrier, the destroyers often refueled from allies’ oilers, primarily from the Australian navy. They also were told at one point to order food and supplies from the Australian Navy logistics organization.

“It was a PACFLT initiative, the PACFLT supply officer wanted us as we were operating forward to be able to order from kangaroo meat, whatever, all those wonderful things that the Australian Navy has in their supply organization, Destroyer Squadron 31 commodore Capt. Charles Johnson said during the discussion.
“How do we order from them? That was one of the failures, but we got into that and the supply folks are figuring it out now.”...

Additionally, Beaver said 3rd Fleet stood up a new flag-level organization – Commander, Task Force 30 – to command future “3rd Fleet Forward” deployments, where ships deploying from San Diego remain under 3rd Fleet operational control even after passing the International Date Line, where they’d normally move to 7th Fleet control. The 2016 PAC SAG was the first group to do this, and “It has been awesome because we’ve failed at every turn. It’s been such a rich learning environment. We’ve had communications issues, we’ve had integration issues… [Learning] that’s what this is all about,”


more...

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2017, 18:48
by spazsinbad
Kangaroo MEET? Tie Me Kangaroo Down Sport by disgraced ROFL Harris (this is serious - he is in prison in UK) but anyway talking about songs (nice segue) this article reminds me of "I GOT YOU BABE"* by Sonny & CHER of ye olde tymes.... 8) :roll: This is a L O N G article so BEst to read it all at URL provided below. *F-35B got the USN backs for now
Marine Aviation, Weapons Upgrades Would Support Advance Base Operations
30 Jan 2017 Megan Eckstein

"A future naval campaign against an enemy armed with long-range precision weapons will require the Navy and Marine Corps to disaggregate, creating temporal sea and air control with small units that can move from the sea to the shore and back again to meet an objective and then move on to the next task.

This type of maneuver warfare – which relies on expeditionary advance base operations – is supported by some new weapons and platforms coming into the fleet, but other innovations will still be required for the sea services to be successful in this type of operating environment, officials have said.

Director of Expeditionary Warfare Maj. Gen. Christopher Owens (OPNAV N95), while giving a talk with his surface warfare counterpart earlier this month, said Marine Corps aviation advances will help the green forces contribute more to sea and air control.

“We often talk, especially in the aviation world, about BISOG — Blue in support of Green. In amphibious operations what that usually means is the Navy getting the Marines in position to land a landing force,” Owens said during his talk at the Surface Navy Association annual symposium.

“However, our ability to integrate into a truly naval force is growing, and it’s going to continue to do so into the future. And it’s time we start talking more about Green in support of Blue. So what do I mean by that? … Beginning in 2018 we will deploy F-35Bs from our big-deck amphibs. And this isn’t just about using stealth to drop bombs or take on enemy fighters; the F-35B is a flying broad area sensor and a sensor-fusion system, and it’s going to open up possibilities the naval force has not had before. And we’re going to have those aircraft out aboard our amphibs several years before we have them aboard the carriers. Second, the range, speed and capability of our MV-22s will open up huge areas of the sea previously out of reach to seaborne forces, and this is going to allow our ships to maintain greater standoff while increasing the speed and unpredictability of our maneuver. They can help us find or create seams and gaps, too many perhaps for an enemy to encounter. And the more sea space we can cover, the more options we generate and the more we complicate and enemy’s problem-solving. Finally, our Marines and Navy expeditionary forces can go ashore to remove a threat, provide fires in support of sea control, conduct surveillance and reconnaissance, or establish advance bases, rearm-refuel points for aircraft or logistics staging areas. We can deceive the enemy, we can seize or hold at-risk something he values, force him to react to us and draw him into our engagement range.”...

...Though some platforms like the V-22 and F-35B are already being fielded, and the Marine Corps has ongoing efforts in the areas of weapons and ship-to-shore maneuver facilitators that would boost this type of warfare, Corbett said innovation in other areas is still needed. The Pentagon is working on new land-based anti-ship missiles, and Corbett said land-based anti-air capabilities would also be helpful. Additionally, unidirectional communications such as millimeter wave or laser communications would allow forces to coordinate within the EM spectrum without giving away their location. And while EABO and distributed operations solves a problem for operators, it creates one for logisticians, Corbett said, noting that innovation in the areas of unmanned systems and more could help direct supplies to a dispersed and on-the-move force."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2017/01/30/marine ... operations

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2017, 19:01
by steve2267
"Additionally, unidirectional communications such as millimeter wave or laser communications would allow forces to coordinate within the EM spectrum without giving away their location."

The US has experimented with laser communications between spacecraft. I do not know if such a system is operational or not. However, atmospheric effects would seem to hamper laser comms between surface units. However, the MASER actually was demonstrated before the LASER. I have long wondered when masers might come into play. Some recent advances have opened the door to get past some operational shortcomings in the original maser. So perhaps in the next 10-30 years masers will enable just this sort of stealthy communication.

On the other hand, MADL is stealthy, and does not rely on masers, so perhaps they will just remain a pipe dream.

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2017, 23:31
by juretrn
steve2267 wrote:
"Additionally, unidirectional communications such as millimeter wave or laser communications would allow forces to coordinate within the EM spectrum without giving away their location."

The US has experimented with laser communications between spacecraft. I do not know if such a system is operational or not. However, atmospheric effects would seem to hamper laser comms between surface units. However, the MASER actually was demonstrated before the LASER. I have long wondered when masers might come into play. Some recent advances have opened the door to get past some operational shortcomings in the original maser. So perhaps in the next 10-30 years masers will enable just this sort of stealthy communication.

On the other hand, MADL is stealthy, and does not rely on masers, so perhaps they will just remain a pipe dream.

Wouldn't a maser still be more susceptible to interception by standard ELINT gear if beam collimation is off, compared to laser - due to working on more "common" frequencies?
Or am I missing something?

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2017, 00:00
by steve2267
juretrn wrote:
steve2267 wrote:
"Additionally, unidirectional communications such as millimeter wave or laser communications would allow forces to coordinate within the EM spectrum without giving away their location."

The US has experimented with laser communications between spacecraft. I do not know if such a system is operational or not. However, atmospheric effects would seem to hamper laser comms between surface units. However, the MASER actually was demonstrated before the LASER. I have long wondered when masers might come into play. Some recent advances have opened the door to get past some operational shortcomings in the original maser. So perhaps in the next 10-30 years masers will enable just this sort of stealthy communication.

On the other hand, MADL is stealthy, and does not rely on masers, so perhaps they will just remain a pipe dream.

Wouldn't a maser still be more susceptible to interception by standard ELINT gear if beam collimation is off, compared to laser - due to working on more "common" frequencies?
Or am I missing something?

You've got me. I'm working on the (probably fairly simple assumption) that a maser would have just as tight a beam as a laser, but operating in RF (microwave?) frequencies, rather than the visible light spectrum. I imagine some of that "maser beam" will "splash" off the intended receiver. Will that "splash" become detectable? I don't know.

As to beam collimation being off... I would think it would still be a lot tighter than what you get from a "normal" microwave or millimeter wave transmitter? But then again... this LPI stuff on radars seems magical.

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2017, 21:37
by spazsinbad
In the spirit of this F-35B thread title bits of the article are posted here although it could go in a NIFCA-CA thread for USN.
Lockheed Martin: F-35/NIFC-CA Live Fire Test In 2018; LRASM Flight Tests This Year [LONG ARTICLE!]
22 Mar 2017 Megan Eckstein

"ARLINGTON, Va. — Lockheed Martin plans to conduct a live-fire test of the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter directing an Aegis Combat System engagement next year, as well as the first flight of the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare missile at the end of this year, both to bolster the Navy’s distributed lethality concept.

The Joint Strike Fighter already paired with the Aegis Combat System – and the weapons and data links that collectively make up the Naval Integrated Fire Control- Counter Air (NIFC-CA) capability – in September 2016. A Marine Corps F-35B observed and tracked a target and sent the track information to the Navy’s USS Desert Ship (LLS-1) test platform running the Baseline 9 Aegis Combat System. Desert Ship then launched a Standard Missile-6 to kill the threat, while relying solely on the targeting data from the F-35.

At Lockheed Martin’s annual media day event today, director of Aegis programs Jim Sheridan said the company was working with the F-35 Joint Program Office and the Navy’s Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems (PEO IWS) to bring that Joint Strike Fighter/NIFC-CA pairing to sea.... [suck on that USN]

...To get from where the F-35/NIFC-CA integration is today to the maturity needed for a successful at-sea demonstration, Sheridan said the company needed to work on “modeling and simulation and making sure that we close the fire control loop,” as well as understanding how to physically integrate the two. For example, NIFC-CA generally relies on the Link-16 data link to connect the ships, planes and weapons involved in the detect-to-kill process. F-35, however, uses a Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) instead, which would require a new antenna on the destroyers that will launch a missile based on what the F-35B senses. Sheridan said Lockheed Martin has conceptual designs for where to put the MADL antenna on the ship but needs to refine and test those ideas....

...Sheridan said pairing the F-35 with NIFC-CA – compared to using the Navy’s E-2D Advanced Hawkeye or other aircraft – “is just heads and shoulders above anything else we’ve been seeing.”...

Source: https://news.usni.org/2017/03/22/lockhe ... -this-year

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2017, 00:44
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:In the spirit of this F-35B thread title bits of the article are posted here although it could go in a NIFCA-CA thread for USN.
Lockheed Martin: F-35/NIFC-CA Live Fire Test In 2018; LRASM Flight Tests This Year [LONG ARTICLE!]
22 Mar 2017 Megan Eckstein


...Sheridan said pairing the F-35 with NIFC-CA – compared to using the Navy’s E-2D Advanced Hawkeye or other aircraft – “is just heads and shoulders above anything else we’ve been seeing.”...

Source: https://news.usni.org/2017/03/22/lockhe ... -this-year



A lot to unpack in that statement. The E-2D is the best of the old way of doing things and the F-35 is the new kid on the block who won't be bound by tradition.

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2017, 02:51
by spazsinbad
Neller: Marine Corps Not Trained and Equipped for Future Fight
22 Mar 2017 RICHARD R. BURGESS

"WASHINGTON — The commandant of the Marine Corps said the service needs to speed up developing capability for a future conflict, one that will require more agile electronic and information warfare capability. “We’ve got to get ready for the future kind of fight,” said Gen. Robert B. Neller, speaking March 22 at a Defense Programs Conference sponsored by McAleese and Associates. “There is no ‘inter-war period.’ There is no break here.” Neller said a future conflict will involve contested domain, complex terrain, technological proliferation, information as a weapon and a battle of signatures....

...Neller praised the F-35B Lighting II strike fighter and its future. “We know the aircraft has not reached its full potential yet,” he said.

Neller stated without reservation that he believes the nation still needs a forcible-entry capability that the Marine Corps has provided over the course of its history. He said the F-35B, MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft and amphibious warfare ships give the Corps that capability, and that technology such as the Tomahawk missile could be added to the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship to boost that capability."

Source: http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/201 ... eller.html

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2017, 20:41
by spazsinbad
Again in the spirit of 'not going to stay the same' here is an overview of what retired Gen Davis thinks about USMC EW.
Lt. General (Retired) Davis Focuses on Distributed Electronic Warfare Capabilities
31 Aug 2017 Robbin Laird

"...[Lt. General (Retired) Jon Davis, the former Deputy Commandant of Aviation] described the USMC transition from a core aircraft delivering an EW effect to building out the MAGTF to include ubiquitous access to non-kinetic tron warfare capabilities.... [description with graphic]

...Davis underscored that with the changing nature of warfare and how the Marines operate, shaping a distributed strategy was a necessity, not an option. “We operate on ships, from ships to shore and ashore. “We cannot simply have an on call EW asset. “We can confront the threat requiring an EW capability anywhere we operate.”

He described the sun setting of the unique EW aircraft, the Prowler, in favor of a sequential role out of distributed capability to the MAGTF. He focused initially on Intrepid Tiger which is an EW pod being incorporated the Marine Corps legacy air.... [then description of 'tiger' & upgradeability]

...The Marines are deploying the F-35 at the same time, which is a core capability for the USMC in delivering non-kinetic effects throughout the distributed force as well. “The F-35 is part of our electronic warfare strategy for the United States Marine Corps. Indeed, it is a key part of our strategy.”

He then described an exercise involving the F-35. “We were doing a drill, and the F-35 does a great job at a lot of things. “It does a very good job in terms of electronic warfare as well.... [description]

...“I said, we have to remove the admirals and the generals out of the kill chain. “If the pilots have got the right RoE, let them loose. “If you inject too many decision makers from on high, you’re going to get Solders, Sailors and Airmen killed.”

Davis added: “We’re going to grow the F-35; We’re going to be very aggressive about growing capabilities in the F-35. It’s good at what it does right now; it’ll be a hell of a lot better in the future.” He then went on to describe other roll-outs of evolving EW capability for the MAGTF....

...Lt. General (Retired) Davis from the floor added his thoughts on how integration is proceeding in the US.

He sees the schools, MAWTS-1, Nellis and Fallon as key elements in shaping an integrated force. He mentioned that a Marine is for the first time teaching at Nellis and a USAF pilot is training at MAWTS-1 and will be an instructor there as well. “The more we learn from each other, the better we will be.”

And then CDR Paul added that it remains to be seen how the US Navy will employ the F-35 but that cross learning from the USMC and the USAF will be crucial in this process."

Graphic: “MAGTF EW transitions the Marine Corps from a focus on low density/high demand EW platforms, to a distributed, platform-agnostic strategy - where every platform contributes/functions as a sensor, shooter and sharer - to include EW. Under MAGTF EW the Marine Corps is leveraging emerging technologies and integrating multiple platforms, payloads, nodes, and capabilities to provide commanders with an organic and persistent air and ground EW capability.” http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... age_04.jpg


Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/lt-general-retir ... abilities/

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2017, 21:13
by spazsinbad
Again in the spirit of USMC 'not going to stay same' there is a document about littoral warfare but not yet found as a PDF.

Document: Marine Corps Littoral Operations in a Contested Environment Concept 26 Sep 2017

https://news.usni.org/2017/09/26/docume ... nt-concept
_____________________________

Open Your Eyes and See the 21st Century MAGTF Scott Cuomo, Jeff Cummings, Olivia Garard & Noah Spataro 26 Sep 2017

Go here for more: https://warontherocks.com/2017/09/open- ... ury-magtf/

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2017, 22:30
by talkitron
Hi Spaz, thanks for the USMC document link.

Where the USMC is investing in austere expeditionary bases and F-35s to maintain its abilities, other western powers might be deemphasizing opposed landings. The UK's Royal Marines are possibly going to be cut by 1,000 (out of 7,760, including a band) positions. Some bloggers have recommended the Royal Marines focus more on traditional maritime roles like embarking on ships and engaging in shore raiding and dropping the WWII/Inchon style brigade landing role.

The UK has lower total and per capita defense spending than the US with its $700 billion appropriations bill that passed the Senate. Militarily, the UK faces the same issues with anti-access weapons that the US faces. With the helicopter carrier HMS Ocean retiring/for sale and being replaced by the expensive fixed wing carriers HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, opposed landings put very expensive ships at great risk. Why should a smaller navy than China/Russia/US play the opposed landings game?

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/pl ... ked-520427

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2017, 01:10
by spazsinbad
I think there are plenty of articles over on the 'UK Mod in a Muddle' thread about how the UK armed forces are not going to be like the USMC/USN doing what they do. In concert with them and other allies they may participate but on their own they are not going to do that stuff you describe. However they do have other roles with equipment/conops to suit them.

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2017, 01:17
by talkitron
spazsinbad wrote:I think there are plenty of articles over on the 'UK Mod in a Muddle' thread about how the UK armed forces are not going to be like the USMC/USN doing what they do. In concert with them and other allies they may participate but on their own they are not going to do that stuff you describe. However they do have other roles with equipment/conops to suit them.


But the Royal Marines are rumored by newspapers to be getting cut, which suggests a change in the direction I was discussing.

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2017, 01:41
by spazsinbad
'talkitron' IMHO british newspapers float all kinds of rumours - real or imagined - to suit either themselves, or the leakers of the rumours, and often these same 'news/rumour papers' do so because they are so ignorant about defence matters. I do not claim to be an expert on UK folderol and I did not get around to reading the link you provided but... until changes rumoured actually happen I would suggest give most rumours a wide berth when they are published in an UK newspaper.

For sure Brits have budget issues and there may well be major changes but conops do not change willy-nilly on a rumour.

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2017, 02:37
by talkitron
Deborah Haynes of The Times has a new, September 27, article on the front page of its website. There is mention the F-35 over and above a decline in amphibious forces. One quote:

The Times has laid bare over recent months the pressures facing Britain’s armed forces. A plan set out in 2015 for their future shape is underfunded by between £20 billion to £30 billion over the next decade despite a commitment by the Treasury to increase the £36 billion annual defence budget by 0.5 per cent each year of the parliament.

General Sir Christopher Deverell, another top commander, said in a comment on Twitter that military chiefs were looking at a “range of options” to balance the books. This is understood to include the possible reduction of the Royal Marines by 1,000, scrapping an amphibious assault ship and slowing the purchase of F-35 fast jets.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news ... -06ds9n3k8

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2017, 03:05
by spazsinbad
OK - here is the thing.... this thread is about the USMC - how about you take this over to the 'MoD in a Muddle' thread?

Answer here just with a link to same post above over in that thread? And later I'll read that TIMES 27 Sep 2017 article....

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2017, 02:15
by spazsinbad
Now all US Armed Forces will be networked - not just USMC & USN etc. individually - or that is THE plan....
The Future the US Military is Constructing: a Giant, Armed Nervous System [BEST READ at SOURCE]
26 Sep 2017 Patrick Tucker

"Leaders of the Air Force, Navy, Army and Marines are converging on a vision of the future military: connecting every asset on the global battlefield.

That means everything from F-35 jets overhead to the destroyers on the sea to the armor of the tanks crawling over the land to the multiplying devices in every troops’ pockets. Every weapon, vehicle, and device connected, sharing data, constantly aware of the presence and state of every other node in a truly global network. The effect: an unimaginably large cephapoloidal nervous system armed with the world’s most sophisticated weaponry.

In recent months, the Joint Chiefs of Staff put together the newest version of their National Military Strategy. Unlike previous ones, it is classified. But executing a strategy requiring buy-in and collaboration across the services. In recent months, at least two of the service chiefs talked openly about the strikingly similar direction that they are taking their forces. Standing before a sea of dark- blue uniforms at a September Air Force Association event in Maryland, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said he had “refined” his plans for the Air Force after discussions with the Joint Chiefs “as part of the creation of the classified military strategy.”

The future for the Air Force?... [think TESLA]

...The idea borrows from the “network centric warfare” concept that seized the military imagination more than a decade ago. But what leaders are today describing is larger by orders of magnitude. It’s less a strategy for integrating multiple networks into operations more efficiently than a plan to stitch everything, networks within networks, into a single web. The purpose: better coordinated, faster, and more lethal operations in air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace....

...The Multi-Domain Army and Marine Corps
The U.S. Army, too, is investing big dollars into figuring out how to connect everything on the battlefield. An Army Research Lab program called the Internet of Battle of Things will be led by researchers at the University of Illinois, with help from the Universities of Massachusetts, multiple California State branches, Carnegie Mellon, and SRI International.

The Army is currently revising its Operating Concept for itself [from] the Marine Corps for 2025-2040. It basically forms the framework for writing future Army doctrine, which in turn shapes training, weapons acquisition, and operations. The final draft won’t be available until the Association of the United States Army conference in October, but sources close to the drafting process said it will focus on networked, multi-domain battle.

The Marines are already conducting experiments along these lines. In April, the Corps’ Warfighting Lab staged a beach assault, linking together robots, ships, satellites, amphibious assault vehicles to share targeting info and other situational intelligence....

...The Navy: “Network Everything to Everything”
Navy leaders, too, are eager to connect every object on the sea, land, air, space and cyberspace. This is no exaggeration. As Adm. John Richardson, Chief of Naval Operations, put it during the Navy’s Future Force Expo in Washington, D.C., in July, “I want to network everything to everything.”...

...“When you start linking these platforms together, [the rate of progress is] not exponential…it’s factorial,” he said, meaning orders of magnitude greater than a rate of progress that is even orders of magnitude greater than a linear progression.

The Navy has already made some important progress. Last year, an experimental datalink allowed the pilot of a Marine Corps F-35B strike aircraft to send targeting data to an Aegis destroyer, which shot down the target drone with an SM-6 missile....

...artificial intelligence will play an important supporting role in helping commanders and operators makes sense of what’s happening on with all of these inter-linked devices and weapons, even as it steers and operates burgeoning fleets of near-autonomous drones, unmanned tanks, robot boats, and the like.

The effort to understand exactly how well all of these moving parts will co-ordinate has only barely begun. But it is the direction that the United States military is moving with both determination and speed."

Source: http://www.defenseone.com/technology/20 ... em/141303/

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2017, 08:00
by popcorn
Props to the Army for leveraging the Corps' work in developing CONOPs. Specially since the Marines have aggressively pursued integration of the F-35B with it's ground force providing a template for the Army and Air Force cooperation.



...The Multi-Domain Army and Marine Corps
The U.S. Army, too, is investing big dollars into figuring out how to connect everything on the battlefield. An Army Research Lab program called the Internet of Battle of Things will be led by researchers at the University of Illinois, with help from the Universities of Massachusetts, multiple California State branches, Carnegie Mellon, and SRI International.

The Army is currently revising its Operating Concept for itself [from] the Marine Corps for 2025-2040. It basically forms the framework for writing future Army doctrine, which in turn shapes training, weapons acquisition, and operations. The final draft won’t be available until the Association of the United States Army conference in October, but sources close to the drafting process said it will focus on networked, multi-domain battle.

The Marines are already conducting experiments along these lines. In April, the Corps’ Warfighting Lab staged a beach assault, linking together robots, ships, satellites, amphibious assault vehicles to share targeting info and other situational intelligence....

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2017, 11:58
by cavok
popcorn wrote:Props to the Army for leveraging the Corps' work in developing CONOPs. Specially since the Marines have aggressively pursued integration of the F-35B with it's ground force providing a template for the Army and Air Force cooperation.



...The Multi-Domain Army and Marine Corps
The U.S. Army, too, is investing big dollars into figuring out how to connect everything on the battlefield. An Army Research Lab program called the Internet of Battle of Things will be led by researchers at the University of Illinois, with help from the Universities of Massachusetts, multiple California State branches, Carnegie Mellon, and SRI International.

The Army is currently revising its Operating Concept for itself [from] the Marine Corps for 2025-2040. It basically forms the framework for writing future Army doctrine, which in turn shapes training, weapons acquisition, and operations. The final draft won’t be available until the Association of the United States Army conference in October, but sources close to the drafting process said it will focus on networked, multi-domain battle.

The Marines are already conducting experiments along these lines. In April, the Corps’ Warfighting Lab staged a beach assault, linking together robots, ships, satellites, amphibious assault vehicles to share targeting info and other situational intelligence....


Strangely, late as compared to european armies (networking everyone in every force) see, e.g. contact program in France entering third phase connecting air forced (done for army an navyalready)

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2017, 13:03
by neptune
cavok wrote:
popcorn wrote:Props to the Army for leveraging the Corps' work in developing CONOPs. Specially since the Marines have aggressively pursued integration of the F-35B with it's ground force providing a template for the Army and Air Force cooperation.



...The Multi-Domain Army and Marine Corps
The U.S. Army, too, is investing big dollars into figuring out how to connect everything on the battlefield. An Army Research Lab program called the Internet of Battle of Things will be led by researchers at the University of Illinois, with help from the Universities of Massachusetts, multiple California State branches, Carnegie Mellon, and SRI International.

The Army is currently revising its Operating Concept for itself [from] the Marine Corps for 2025-2040. It basically forms the framework for writing future Army doctrine, which in turn shapes training, weapons acquisition, and operations. The final draft won’t be available until the Association of the United States Army conference in October, but sources close to the drafting process said it will focus on networked, multi-domain battle.

The Marines are already conducting experiments along these lines. In April, the Corps’ Warfighting Lab staged a beach assault, linking together robots, ships, satellites, amphibious assault vehicles to share targeting info and other situational intelligence....


Strangely, late as compared to european armies (networking everyone in every force) see, e.g. contact program in France entering third phase connecting air forced (done for army an navyalready)


....care to elaborate with references; maybe not "apples to apples"??
:)

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2018, 12:59
by gabriele
Question for the resident experts: does the docking down of a LHD for landing craft operations pose great challenges to aviation ops? I've seen claims that jet operations are not possible with the ship docked down, but that seems quite strange to me. Why would Harrier / F-35 not be able to launch and recover?

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2018, 14:16
by steve2267
I am not a naval expert. The following is my best, educated guess:

  1. Vessel speed. Docking operations may be limited to a max speed, e.g. 5 knots or 10 knots? Such a speed may preclude th necessaray WOD (wind over deck) required for launching a Harrier or Killer Bee loaded with goodies. Fixed jet operations may require the LHD to be moving at 20 knots or more (a WAG on my part) -- too fast to launch landing craft.
  2. Vessel course (or direction). Sea state may specify a given steaming bearing for launching / recovering landing craft, which may not be a good direction for launching / landing fixed wing aircraft.

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2018, 00:06
by gabriele
steve2267 wrote:I am not a naval expert. The following is my best, educated guess:

  1. Vessel speed. Docking operations may be limited to a max speed, e.g. 5 knots or 10 knots? Such a speed may preclude th necessaray WOD (wind over deck) required for launching a Harrier or Killer Bee loaded with goodies. Fixed jet operations may require the LHD to be moving at 20 knots or more (a WAG on my part) -- too fast to launch landing craft.
  2. Vessel course (or direction). Sea state may specify a given steaming bearing for launching / recovering landing craft, which may not be a good direction for launching / landing fixed wing aircraft.


I've considered those factors, but while lack of wind over deck is not beneficial, the take-off distance requirement for the F-35B, as far as i can remember, is at 0 WOD.
I can imagine limitations to payload, perhaps, but "impossibility" of simultaneous air and landing craft ops seems a wild claim to me. I've tried to find images and / or literature about LHD / LHA air ops with simultaneous flooded dock to get conclusive information, but have not had much luck.

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2018, 00:45
by steve2267
I look forward to learning from those with real knowledge or experience pertinent to your question.

The only other thing that comes to mine would be personnel tasking -- is it possible that if you are conducting well deck operations, personnel that are required for aviation ops are unavailable because they are busy with well deck responsibilities?

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2018, 01:08
by quicksilver
The short answer is 'yes' -- simultaneous well deck ops and launch/recovery of jets is not only possible, but has been done on numerous occasions both operationally and in training exercises.

There are, of course, some accommodations that have to be made circumstantially given some of the factors the steve outlines. But, it isn't a difficult thing to do given workable conditions (OAT, wind direction and velocity, etc). The flexibility to do such things are an advantage of STOVL aircraft.

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2018, 01:47
by spazsinbad
="gabriele
I've considered those factors, but while lack of wind over deck is not beneficial, the take-off distance requirement for the F-35B, as far as i can remember, is at 0 WOD....

BOWMAN had this to say back in 2011:
"..."The USMC has added STOVL performance as a service specific key performance parameter. The requirement is listed as follows: With two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, execute a 550 [now 600] foot (450 UK STOVL) STO from LHA, LHD, and aircraft carriers (sea level, tropical day, 10 kts operational WOD) & with a combat radius of 450 nm (STOVL profile). Also must perform STOVL vertical landing with two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, and fuel to fly the STOVL Recovery profile...." http://2011.uploaded.fresh.co.il/2011/0 ... 290792.pdf OR http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html (PDF 325Kb)

Any recent F-35 SAR gives the same spiel: https://fas.org/man/eprint/F-35-SAR-2018.pdf
OR: download/file.php?id=27020 (2019 F-35 SAR 0.7Mb)

ZERO WOD at same temp with same loadout would take some extra FEET one would imagine - which is there indeed.

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2018, 02:00
by quicksilver
And, of course, if there is zero WOD, they can increase the deck roll (up to 750' on the US amphibs) or lighten the fuel load, or both.

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2018, 02:16
by weasel1962
Global security has a few pics of what appears to be flooded well decks with helo ops.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... 5m-109.jpg
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... 0s-030.jpg

Whilst APAN had this on page 1 but probably AV-8 landing.
https:// community.apan.org/cfs-file/__key/groupfiles/00-00-00-31-52/AMW-Handbook-OCT-2016.pdf

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2018, 03:28
by spazsinbad
APAN link has a dud space in it - this is the link to 11.6Mb PDF: JPG attached has AV-8B VL on page 1 as noted above.

AMW Handbook OCT 2016.pdf https://%20community.apan.org/cfs-file/ ... T-2016.pdf

Then for 'GABRIELE' a ZERO LENGTH CAVOUR AV-8B HARRIER TAKE OFF! :mrgreen:


Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2018, 09:37
by gabriele
Thanks. That is in line with what i thought. No reason why air operations should stop when docked down.

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2018, 21:47
by XanderCrews
The air ops really CAN'T stop considering these operations go on for hours and hours with multiple waves.

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2018, 13:30
by spazsinbad
Essex Amphibious Ready Group Quietly Deployed on Tuesday with Marine F-35s
12 July 2018 Sam LaGrone

"THE PENTAGON — The three-ship Essex Amphibious Ready Group and the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit left San Diego, Calif., on Tuesday with little fanfare for an expected Western Pacific and Middle East deployment, a defense official confirmed to USNI News on Thursday.

The big deck USS Essex (LHD-2)… departed for an routine deployment with a squadron of Marine F-35B Lighting II Joint Strike Fighters from the “Wake Island Avengers” of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 211, the official confirmed to USNI News.

“The Essex Amphibious Ready Group with embarked 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit got underway from San Diego, Tuesday,” Pacific Fleet spokesman Capt. Charlie Brown said in a Thursday statement to USNI News. “For reasons of operational security, we are not publicly disclosing any additional details.”…"

Source: https://news.usni.org/2018/07/12/essex- ... rine-f-35s

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2018, 01:56
by spazsinbad
World’s first supersonic short-takeoff and vertical-landing fighter trains in Hawaii
21 Jul 2018 William Cole

"There’s a whole lot of amphibious assault training and stealth fighter flying going on in Hawaii. Marines and sailors with the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit and Essex amphibious ready group out of California arrived in Hawaii for final training as the unit heads out on a Western Pacific and Middle East deployment.

The training marks the first appearance of the Marine Corps F-35B short-takeoff and vertical-landing fighter in Hawaii, the Corps said. The amphibious force, which includes the Essex, USS Anchorage and USS Rushmore, is not part of Rim of the Pacific exercises....

...The F-35Bs are operating with Hawaii Air National Guard F-22 Raptors — another stealth jet — far out at sea, the Marine Corps said. The advanced jets would lead the air campaign in a conflict in the Pacific. On Friday amphibious assault vehicles from the group hit Bellows, and big troop and equipment-carrying hovercraft landed on the Marine Corps base. A long-range “raid” was practiced using MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, with a landing at Bellows.

“We’re moving Marines ashore doing training across Oahu, but mostly at (Kaneohe Bay) and Bellows,” said Capt. Diann Rosenfeld, a spokeswoman for the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit...."

Source: http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/07/2 ... -hawaii-2/

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2018, 14:51
by mixelflick
Any VTO is going to take gobs and gobs of fuel though, correct?

Was that the reason for external tanks? I'd imagine the internal fuel and external stores would also be at a minimum. If a VTO affects things like I think it does, the Russian and Chinese carriers with a "ski jump" look like better solutions, LOL.

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2018, 17:14
by spazsinbad
mixelflick wrote:Any VTO is going to take gobs and gobs of fuel though, correct?

Was that the reason for external tanks? I'd imagine the internal fuel and external stores would also be at a minimum. If a VTO affects things like I think it does, the Russian and Chinese carriers with a "ski jump" look like better solutions, LOL.

What is VTO in relation to which aircraft and why? The Italian Harrier was demonstrating a VTO - that is all. Otherwise a few discussions about F-35B VTOs have noted they have limited use. What do Ruskie/Chicom ski jumps do for them?

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2018, 00:49
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:Any VTO is going to take gobs and gobs of fuel though, correct?

Was that the reason for external tanks? I'd imagine the internal fuel and external stores would also be at a minimum. If a VTO affects things like I think it does, the Russian and Chinese carriers with a "ski jump" look like better solutions, LOL.

Short take off. Vertical landing. STOVL.

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2018, 02:10
by quicksilver
“Any VTO is going to take gobs and gobs of fuel though, correct?”

Nope. From brake release to wing-borne flight, about the same as other TOs.

The reason that VTOs are not used more often is 1) laws of physics (lift vs aircraft weight) and, 2) aero effects of powered-lift (takes more power to VL or VTO than to hover OGE).

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2018, 03:29
by usnvo
quicksilver wrote:“Any VTO is going to take gobs and gobs of fuel though, correct?”

Nope. From brake release to wing-borne flight, about the same as other TOs.

The reason that VTOs are not used more often is 1) laws of physics (lift vs aircraft weight) and, 2) aero effects of powered-lift (takes more power to VL or VTO than to hover OGE).


The physics part is the most important. Vertical Take-off will give you the same payload as Vertical Landing allows you to bring back since hovering is hovering and you have to have a reserve of lift available. Just for discussion, say you had 40klbs of vertical thrust and the F-35B weighs 32klbs empty, you only get to add 8klbs of pilot, fuel, and ordnance before you don't get off the ground. Since the plane can carry over 13klbs of fuel, even clean you are taking off with only slightly more than 50pct fuel and no other stores.

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2018, 05:41
by quicksilver
usnvo wrote:
quicksilver wrote:“Any VTO is going to take gobs and gobs of fuel though, correct?”

Nope. From brake release to wing-borne flight, about the same as other TOs.

The reason that VTOs are not used more often is 1) laws of physics (lift vs aircraft weight) and, 2) aero effects of powered-lift (takes more power to VL or VTO than to hover OGE).


The physics part is the most important. Vertical Take-off will give you the same payload as Vertical Landing allows you to bring back since hovering is hovering and you have to have a reserve of lift available. Just for discussion, say you had 40klbs of vertical thrust and the F-35B weighs 32klbs empty, you only get to add 8klbs of pilot, fuel, and ordnance before you don't get off the ground. Since the plane can carry over 13klbs of fuel, even clean you are taking off with only slightly more than 50pct fuel and no other stores.


"The physics part is the most important."

Yes.

"Just for discussion, say you had 40klbs of vertical thrust and the F-35B weighs 32klbs empty, you only get to add 8klbs of pilot, fuel, and ordnance before you don't get off the ground."

Actually, no. Search, "suckdown effect” (or try this — https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi ... 024374.pdf)

Vertical thrust creates areas of low pressure (think "lift" in the opposite direction) underneath the aircraft while it is in proximity to the ground; the closer the aircraft is to the ground, the greater the effect. During a VL, that effect only has to be partially mitigated -- in practical terms, as the jet descends into ground effect, by increasing thrust sufficient to keep the rate of descent within the aircraft structural design limits for rate-of-descent at touchdown. Additionally, there is thrust that has to be booked for control margin. For a VTO, the same control margin has to be booked, but suckdown has to be completely overcome by a thrust margin sufficient to get the aircraft off the ground, and up and above ground effect (something like 10-15' AGL). There may be some accomodation for HGI (hot gas ingestion) as well. I don't know exactly what any of those margins are for F-35 but I do know they are not insignificant.

Re: F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same"

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2018, 05:59
by spazsinbad
Not a lot of actual figures/detail in this PDF however some issues are spelt out for STOVL for the F-35B:
F-35 STOVL Performance Requirements Verification
13 Apr 2018 David G. Parsons and Daniel E. Levin & David J. Panteny & Michael R. Rask & Brad L. Morris

"page 15 ...Having an aircraft gross weight capability in hover in OGE [out-of-ground effects] conditions does not necessarily directly indicate having a VL capability. Hot gas ingestion (HGI) is a significant factor affecting performance and operability during VL. It reduces total propulsion system thrust, potentially influencing aircraft descent rate and handling qualities and reducing engine and LiftFan stall margins. When executing a VL, the aircraft must not experience excessive un-commanded acceleration or adverse handling qualities during the landing as the jet enters ground effects.

HGI has two main mechanisms of action: ground sheet roll-up ingestion and fountain ingestion. These two mechanisms are visually depicted in Fig. 13.

The aircraft exhaust plumes impinging on the ground form a ground sheet that flows away from the aircraft in all directions. Ground sheet roll-up occurs when a strong environmental wind picks up this buoyant layer of gas and turns it back toward the aircraft. Due to the well-mixed nature of the flow returning to the aircraft, the HGI experienced from this mechanism is of a low magnitude. Usually, it is only seen near the ground in the last stages of a VL. The flight-test-measured levels of HGI from this mechanism have not been significant and do not require mitigation through performance limitations.

There are certain heights above ground where the propulsive jets do not merge before impacting the ground. There, the ground sheets from the individual exhaust plumes of the LiftFan, core nozzle, and roll-posts flow inward toward one another under the aircraft. An upward fountain is formed where they collide, and it then impacts the undersurface of the aircraft. Under certain conditions, exhaust gas from the fountain can enter the main engine inlets and LiftFan inlet. HGI in this scenario can result in a high temperature rise and high-temperature inlet distortion. This leads to concerns for both aircraft performance and engine/LiftFan operability that must then be mitigated.

For the F-35B, the amount of HGI is a function of height above ground, aircraft relative wind, aircraft fuselage station center of gravity (FSCG), and ground slope. Fountain HGI is typically only seen with tailwind or crosswind conditions relative to the aircraft and not with headwind conditions relative to the aircraft. For the aircraft to remain stationary in the hover in the environmental wind, the exhaust plumes must be directed aft for a headwind and forward for a tailwind. Additionally, the environmental wind acts on both exhaust plumes as they travel toward the ground and on the fountain as it returns. Therefore, a headwind tends to angle the fountain aft away from the inlets, reducing HGI levels. By contrast, a tailwind tends to angle the fountain forward toward the inlets, resulting in potentially higher levels of HGI.

An aft aircraft FSCG increases the trim TS required. Higher TSs [ratio of core nozzle thrust to LiftFan nozzle thrust] result in greater exhaust flow from the engine nozzle versus the LiftFan nozzle. This reduces the strength of the ground sheet from the LiftFan exhaust, compared to the ground sheet from the engine nozzle exhaust that forms the fountain. With an aft FSCG, the point at which the fountain forms underneath the aircraft moves farther forward. Consequently, the fountain flow will angle forward toward the inlets, increasing the likelihood of encountering higher HGI levels for a given condition. With the ground sloping away from the nose of the aircraft (downhill), the fountain will also be angled farther forward toward the inlets. This increases the likelihood of encountering high HGI levels for a given condition.

Subscale wind tunnel testing [10] [Cook, R., Curtis, P., and Fenton, P., “State of the Art in Sub-scale STOVL Hot Gas Ingestion Wind Tunnel Test Techniques,” SAE International 2005-01-3158] was used to create an HGI database to use in six-degrees-of-freedom flight simulation tools. With these, we performed sensitivity analyses under piloted conditions and developed flight test HGI limitations for VL envelope expansion, allowing VL flight testing to commence...."

Source: download/file.php?id=27759 (PDF 2.2Mb)