Basic instincts: Resetting USMC core operational mindset

Variants for different customers or mission profiles
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3051
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post17 Feb 2020, 15:22

“500lb GBU-12 Paveway II, they go easy on your total weight even in beast mode.“

I get your point, but (apart from the outboards) those pylons are probably 300ish lbs a piece.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post18 Feb 2020, 05:57

About 3,750lb in total for that external payload shown which I assume can be brought back for a vertical landing. Adding 2 more internal GBU-12 and AIM-120 would be another 1,750lb in weight, could the F-35B vertically land with ~5500lb of ordinance ? Would leave less than 2000lb of fuel under the 40kbf vertical thrust limit. I think Spazsinbad recently linked the F-35B minimum vertical landing weight but have been unable to find it again.
Online

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1250
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post18 Feb 2020, 06:21

The CONOPS won't be just a recon with that load. They would have primary and secondary targets. Then, if they were still too heavy back at ship. They would dump what they need to and land. Max vertical landing 37,000lb on google.
Last edited by optimist on 18 Feb 2020, 06:31, edited 1 time in total.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24479
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Feb 2020, 06:27

KPP: "... STOVL vertical landing with two 1,000# JDAMs & two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, and fuel to fly the STOVL Recovery profile." Easy to figure out - not many numbers UNK - you can guess but guess good. Words words words.

VLBB is the search term Vertical Landing Bring Back: [one may guess about all of this but will be unknown until 'official']
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=52672&p=359982&hilit=VLBB#p359982
&
OLD Guess: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=28132&p=304378&hilit=VLBB#p304378
&
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=252127&hilit=VLBB#p252127

And many more but you do the searching - there is a SAR KPP requirement which has been met but it is JUST WORDS.
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=241367&hilit=VLBB#p241367
&
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=232896&hilit=VLBB#p232896

Rilly Rilly OLD: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=16751&p=213265&hilit=VLBB#p213265

Good post in woids by 'QS': viewtopic.php?f=58&t=16725&p=213085&hilit=VLBB#p213085

LOTS of words from the dim past: viewtopic.php?f=56&t=15425&p=194944&hilit=VLBB#p194944

Gotta go - thunderbumper…. HE's BACK...

One may see the travesty that is PHOTObuckit: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=15378&p=194365&hilit=charts#p194365
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3051
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post18 Feb 2020, 15:03

Max VLBB is ‘about’ 5K#. That’s 5K# above the OWE of the jet in a defined baseline configuration, which I assume to be clean, no pylons, no gun. That 5K must also include fuel. So, while that external load is recoverable, it will be so at near minimum recovery fuel states. The good news is that first-pass recovery rates are astronomical compared to that of their tailhook counterparts.

Obtw, just perused some of the old threads; where have all the Henny Pennys gone? ‘Compromised design...’ yada, yada, yada. It was so much more lively back then. :lmao:
Attachments
28041B0F-88D9-499B-93CA-54B6ABE58B1B.jpeg
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24479
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post26 Feb 2020, 05:31

Bin Lookin' for dis grafik & now 'tis found: download/file.php?id=14935

GONE missing from here? viewtopic.php?f=22&t=23690&p=255949&hilit=Skeptic+Harrier#p255949

Image

Something more interesting? viewtopic.php?f=22&t=23690&p=256645&hilit=FINAL#p256645

download/file.php?id=17893&t=1 USMC F-35B approach / landing & emergency fuel required

Image
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3985
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post27 Feb 2020, 18:15

So the X-35B could carry 2, 2000lb JDAM's, but the production F-35B only carries 1000lbers?

If memory serves, they had to go with a smaller internal weapons bay in the production model - do I have that right? It probably isn't as big a deal as originally thought, owing to the constant refinement of miniaturization, w/respect to weapons...
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3051
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post27 Feb 2020, 18:38

The X-jet did not carry weapons.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24479
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Apr 2020, 16:45

quicksilver wrote:Max VLBB is ‘about’ 5K#. That’s 5K# above the OWE of the jet in a defined baseline configuration, which I assume to be clean, no pylons, no gun. That 5K must also include fuel. So, while that external load is recoverable, it will be so at near minimum recovery fuel states. The good news is that first-pass recovery rates are astronomical compared to that of their tailhook counterparts.

Obtw, just perused some of the old threads; where have all the Henny Pennys gone? ‘Compromised design...’ yada, yada, yada. It was so much more lively back then. :lmao:

:devil: All those clowns have come out of hibernation on the new ANTI F-35 thread at Pprune: SCROLL DOWN!] :doh:

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviatio ... -ii-5.html
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24479
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Apr 2020, 16:52

Seein' as the better thread for this has been locked I'll plonk this post here....
Marines’ Force Design 2030 May Allow MEUs Tailored for Different Geographies, Adversaries
02 Apr 2020 Megan Eckstein

"The Marine Corps’ new force design may allow East Coast expeditionary units to look much different than West Coast or Japan-based units, a nod to the complex but different environments they’ll operate in and threats they’ll face in the future. Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. David Berger recently released his Force Design 2030 plan, which calls for the creation of new Marine Littoral Regiments, as well as redesigned Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) that would be optimized for the Expeditionary Advance Base Operations concept that has driven much of the Marines’ planning in recent months....

…[he] notes he is not confident in the MEUs and Marine Littoral Regiments, which would be the formations most responsible for carrying out EABO – a concept that was reinvigorated in 2016 and signed out in 2018, and that falls under the Littoral Operations in a Contested Environment (LOCE) concept, the Marine Corps offering that pairs with the Navy’s Distributed Maritime Operations concept.

Asked by USNI News what made him confident in EABO but not confident in the formations that would execute it, he said he had a fair understanding of what a Japan-based MEU or MLR might look like, but that California- and North Carolina-based Marines would need to craft their own kinds of units too to support EABO operations in the environments they’d most likely deploy to.

“I fully embrace the concept of Distributed Maritime Operations the way that the former CNO laid it out and the current CNO embraces it. I think that Littoral Operations in a Contested Environment is something that we have to embrace and be prepared to operate in. Within that, Expeditionary Advance Base Ops, EABO, is a method, is a technique, and it has proven so far in the wargames to be very effective – if you can pull it off. And it’s not easy to do,” Berger told USNI News during the media roundtable.... [MORE EXPLANATION AT THE URL]

Last year III MEF Marines tested out a couple pieces of EABO in live exercises. In one, according to 31st MEU Commanding Officer Col. Robert Brodie, reconnaissance Marines conducted a high-altitude jump onto Ie Shima island near Okinawa, paving the way for a raid force being flown in to seize the island. Once the island was secured, CH-53E heavy-lift helicopters flew in fuel bladders and ordnance to conduct a forward arming and refueling point (FARP) operation with the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter jets that were experimenting with how they could contribute to island-hopping operations in the Pacific.

Later last year, a similar operation was conducted to establish a FARP for the KC-130J cargo and tanker plane – which is much larger than the F-35 and needs a more established runway, whereas the F-35B variant has short takeoff and vertical landing capability. Though setting up a FARP for the larger fixed-wing plane is more complex than for the F-35, in this exercise the KC-130Js were used as part of a casualty evacuation exercise that smaller planes couldn’t have conducted.

Shortly after the FARP set-up and CASEVAC exercise, the Marines tested another scenario, taking a beach from an amphibious ship and pushing the HIMARS rocket system ashore by LCU surface connectors. They simulated firing the HIMARS using data from an F-35B flying overhead, “demonstrating the capability for long-range precision fire support during expeditionary operations,” USNI News reported at the time. “This was the first time that a HIMARS insert by LCU has ever been completed in the Indo-Pacific region after a simulated amphibious raid, rehearsing naval expeditionary combined-arms maneuver from amphibious shipping.”
…" [MUCH MORE AT the JUMP]

Source: https://news.usni.org/2020/04/02/marine ... dversaries
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3985
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post02 May 2020, 16:25

I hope the Marines end up with as many F-35B's as they need, because I have a bad feeling they may be the only ones able to fly/fight in a real shooting war with China.

Big (and small) carriers, large airfields etc just aren't as survivable as they once were. If just a few CVN's are taken out of action, there goes almost 200 aircraft, aircrew etc etc.. And here's another thought: What if the Chinese decide to destroy/sabotage LM's factories building all of our uber-weapons?

We better hope we have enough aircraft in service, because at that point there will be no replacing them (unlike for example, WWII, Korea, Vietnam). That's a scary proposition.. Of course, I'm sure we would of course do the same to them, but looking at the numbers... does anyone really know what's "enough"? 420 total F-35s -- 353 F-35Bs and 67 F-35Cs is the plan... I hope they get all of them (and then some)...
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3051
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post02 May 2020, 22:58

spazsinbad wrote:
quicksilver wrote:Max VLBB is ‘about’ 5K#. That’s 5K# above the OWE of the jet in a defined baseline configuration, which I assume to be clean, no pylons, no gun. That 5K must also include fuel. So, while that external load is recoverable, it will be so at near minimum recovery fuel states. The good news is that first-pass recovery rates are astronomical compared to that of their tailhook counterparts.

Obtw, just perused some of the old threads; where have all the Henny Pennys gone? ‘Compromised design...’ yada, yada, yada. It was so much more lively back then. :lmao:

:devil: All those clowns have come out of hibernation on the new ANTI F-35 thread at Pprune: SCROLL DOWN!] :doh:

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviatio ... -ii-5.html


Sorry I missed this when you posted it spaz. On any given issue these days, there are a herd of what I call ‘10 percenters’ — those who will never ‘get it’, or don’t care to ‘get it’ because it is more viscerally satisfying to just bitch about s___. Increasingly these types frequent websites that were once credible. C’est la vie...
Previous

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests