Marines F-35 reset

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

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6392
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post07 Mar 2020, 22:43

blankota wrote:There you go. More Cs, less Bs. The Cs have more range and more payload. A much better fit for slugging it out at range against a near peer threat. No numbers yet, but replacing the Harriers one for one with Bs would be a little overkill, but a good start.


"I dont really have any details, but I was right"
-- blain, under a new user name.

Great post dude. It's not easy to spam the same things over and over while trying to sound like you know what's going on, but here you are.

Once upon a time it was going to be all B's. Then there was a deal cut with the navy to do a split buy. 80 Bs became C's. Then that was dropped to 67 and 13 C's became B's again. This will be our 4th rearrangement of numbers in 10 years. I have no idea how many C's will be added maybe we go back to 80 or maybe 80 + 20 or possibly even more.

This is nothing new under the sun, in fact with decades of delivery ahead I doubt this is the last rearrangement we see. and it really needs to be remembered that the Marine Air wing exists to support the Marines on the ground first and foremost. I doubt (though I could be wrong) we are going to get the force structure blain the 2nd is hoping. Its really not the Marines job to be a 2nd and redundant us air force.
Choose Crews
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2259
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post09 Mar 2020, 01:18

USMC F-35 acquisition should complete by FY32. Doesn't leave many more years to tweak unless they drag out acquisitions again. Will wait for 2020 marine aviation plan to be released (probably sometime in April).
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3955
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post13 Mar 2020, 16:45

Smaller, more mobile air components featuring the F-35B/V-22 and like unmanned platforms is a great idea. In fact, they might be the only US conventional assets punching back during the outset of hostilities. But how much punch do they really have? Or will they be used moreso in a defensive posture??

I don't see the B having enough bang to go on the offensive. It's limited to two, 1,000lb JDAM's and short about 5,000-6,000lbs of fuel vs. the A/C. But it could be quite useful in DCA, especially after it gets more AAM's fitted. If I'm not mistaken though, 4 AMRAAM's were going to be the max on USMC B's?

In any case, dispersed B's, V-22's etc. are a step up from where things stand today. I understand it's a process. What's really needed IMO is a similar option for USAF heavy bombers, of which I'm sure the B-21 will figure prominently. If Guam/Diego Garcia are put out of action, it's hard to see where these heavy hitters will be flying from. I'm aware they could fly from the continental US, but that too is dependent upon tanking assets being able to operate freely.

Somewhere, somehow the Pentagon has to come up with a counter to J-20's, J-11's etc. lobbing volley after volley of PL-15's, 21's and whatever else they have up their sleeves. A self defense capability for the B-21 would also make sense, the first of its kind since B-52's carried a tail gunner!
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6636
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post16 Mar 2020, 10:13

mixelflick wrote:Smaller, more mobile air components featuring the F-35B/V-22 and like unmanned platforms is a great idea. In fact, they might be the only US conventional assets punching back during the outset of hostilities. But how much punch do they really have? Or will they be used moreso in a defensive posture??

I don't see the B having enough bang to go on the offensive. It's limited to two, 1,000lb JDAM's and short about 5,000-6,000lbs of fuel vs. the A/C. But it could be quite useful in DCA, especially after it gets more AAM's fitted. If I'm not mistaken though, 4 AMRAAM's were going to be the max on USMC B's?

In any case, dispersed B's, V-22's etc. are a step up from where things stand today. I understand it's a process. What's really needed IMO is a similar option for USAF heavy bombers, of which I'm sure the B-21 will figure prominently. If Guam/Diego Garcia are put out of action, it's hard to see where these heavy hitters will be flying from. I'm aware they could fly from the continental US, but that too is dependent upon tanking assets being able to operate freely.

Somewhere, somehow the Pentagon has to come up with a counter to J-20's, J-11's etc. lobbing volley after volley of PL-15's, 21's and whatever else they have up their sleeves. A self defense capability for the B-21 would also make sense, the first of its kind since B-52's carried a tail gunner!


Honestly, 1,000 lbs PGM's are more than capable for most missions. Plus, the fact the F-35B can carry heavier weapons externally! Also, what do you mean the Pentagon needs to come up with a counter to the J-11, J-20, etc. :? As the existing F-22 and F-35 are more than a match....
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1275
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post16 Mar 2020, 15:46

Corsair1963 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:... If Guam/Diego Garcia are put out of action, it's hard to see where these heavy hitters will be flying from. I'm aware they could fly from the continental US, but that too is dependent upon tanking assets being able to operate freely.

Honestly, ... Also, what do you mean the Pentagon needs to come up with a counter to the J-11, J-20, etc. :? As the existing F-22 and F-35 are more than a match....


I really do think folks are clueless on this stuff. They look at training exercises, and IG reports, and multiply the adversary capabilities times 10 inventing boogie men that aren't there. Do you plan for the really worse situations? Sure, but chill a bit.

None of this happens without intel and event warning. When those events happen, stuff occurs very fast.

When Mayaguez went down, I was part of the largest nuclear expedition task force ever assembled. They took us out of the O Club bar, poured us into airplanes, and in less than 24 hours we nearly "sank the islands of Guam and Diego Garcia"(phrase courtesy of a clueless congress-lady, and DG only had donkeys and Navy at the time)

We had over 2 wings of F-4's flying Air cover. wild weasels, several batteries of AA missiles, and row after row of B-52's, some with nukes. Attacking adversary aircraft and missiles would have been taken down with just plain old midair collisions with the traffic in the sky. Less than 24 hours!

Desert Shield pulled off a similar deployment. The US has a LOT OF FIREPOWER! that moves very fast.

So let's see China has ... a couple dozen almost stealthy J-20's, mostly at training and testing airfields, and a bunch of IRB/CM's many of which have CEPs that land in the ocean shooting at fixed land targets. They would have to launch swarms of ballistic missiles in order to get a few through to take out "some" targets.

Now final reality check. I also worked at Cheyenne Mountain with the Missile Warning systems. Do you know what happens at Strategic command if Russia or China light up the boards with "swarms" of missiles launches? Beijing disappears before the first missiles hit Guam. China will NEVER launch "swarms" of missiles, and their dozen J-20's will get eaten by 200 plus F-22/35's assuming the J-20's don't go down in a midair collision with cargo planes on the way to the targets. That's say for example, 4 F-22's and 6 F-35's against each individual J-20, while the Navy sits outside with a flight of SH's per J-20, in case the Air Force can't handle that wicked J-20 with those odds. US "No Fly zones" work.

Chill, and get a reality grip guys.

MHO,
BP

PS Sneaky little 1000 fishing boat flotillas, and Coast Guard water cannons only work as long as the sky doesn't reveal "swarms" of Attack and ASuW helicopters coming from over the horizon. That little game can be shut down in the Persian Gulf or the South China Sea in a few hours. Poking the Bear only works while the bear is sleeping, and basement experts dream in their sleep.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3034
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post16 Mar 2020, 16:33

:lmao: Too many good (BP) quotes to snip.

:thumb:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24395
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Mar 2020, 19:04

Thanks as always 'BP' for your insights. A current example of US firepower may be gleaned from this recent article.

Two Carriers & Marine Amphib Converge On Mid East; Patriots Too 13 Mar 2020 Paul McLeary

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/03/two ... riots-too/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2687
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post16 Mar 2020, 19:43

blindpilot wrote:So let's see China has ... a couple dozen almost stealthy J-20's, mostly at training and testing airfields, and a bunch of IRB/CM's many of which have CEPs that land in the ocean shooting at fixed land targets. They would have to launch swarms of ballistic missiles in order to get a few through to take out "some" targets.

Now final reality check. I also worked at Cheyenne Mountain with the Missile Warning systems. Do you know what happens at Strategic command if Russia or China light up the boards with "swarms" of missiles launches? Beijing disappears before the first missiles hit Guam. China will NEVER launch "swarms" of missiles, and their dozen J-20's will get eaten by 200 plus F-22/35's assuming the J-20's don't go down in a midair collision with cargo planes on the way to the targets. That's say for example, 4 F-22's and 6 F-35's against each individual J-20, while the Navy sits outside with a flight of SH's per J-20, in case the Air Force can't handle that wicked J-20 with those odds. US "No Fly zones" work.

Chill, and get a reality grip guys.

MHO,
BP


THIS! Absolutely THIS :thumb:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2643
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post16 Mar 2020, 23:53

While I'll not under-estimate the accuracy of SSMs, much of what blindpilot says is impossible to debunk.

In the 80s the Battleship regained a place at the strategic arms talks. The ironic thing was, it really was purely symbolic of American power whereas the real deal lay in our air power. And time has only seen the air power become more lethal over adversaries. A single F-15E can drop a salvo worth of battleship gunfire on a target one precise location at a time. And do it at 50 times the range. The SDB is conventionally equivalent to 205mm shells, only deliverable at far greater numbers, and again on a target one precise location at a time. A hand full of F-15E's can successfully deliver the same raw tonnage on target as a WW2 cruiser, but a hundred times the range. There is a reason air power replaced the big guns.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24395
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Mar 2020, 00:27

Someone will not be happy to eat these either - coming from the bounding main. [best read at source or 'open ocean']
Document Likely Shows SM-6 Hypersonic Speed, Anti-Surface Role
12 Mar 2020 Steve Trimble

"A U.S. Navy document that cryptically describes a versatile and powerful new missile likely offers the first confirmation of the hypersonic speed and newly acquired, antisurface-warfare role for the Raytheon SM-6 Block 1B....

...Guerts’ testimony on March 10 is not the first to link the SM-6 Block 1B to the antisurface-warfare role. A presentation by the Navy at the Surface Warfare Association’s annual conference in January 2019 listed the SM-6 Block 1B on a chart as one of several antisurface-warfare weapons. But Guerts’ testimony adds a potentially important detail. He referenced a new “warhead design” for the new hypersonic weapon, addressing a flaw of the baseline version of the SM-6 for an anti-surface application. The warhead on the baseline SM-6 weighs only 140 lb., a mass the Congressional Budget Office cited as inadequate against a modern combat ship."

Source: https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... rface-role
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6636
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post17 Mar 2020, 00:36

spazsinbad wrote:Someone will not be happy to eat these either - coming from the bounding main. [best read at source or 'open ocean']
Document Likely Shows SM-6 Hypersonic Speed, Anti-Surface Role
12 Mar 2020 Steve Trimble

"A U.S. Navy document that cryptically describes a versatile and powerful new missile likely offers the first confirmation of the hypersonic speed and newly acquired, antisurface-warfare role for the Raytheon SM-6 Block 1B....

...Guerts’ testimony on March 10 is not the first to link the SM-6 Block 1B to the antisurface-warfare role. A presentation by the Navy at the Surface Warfare Association’s annual conference in January 2019 listed the SM-6 Block 1B on a chart as one of several antisurface-warfare weapons. But Guerts’ testimony adds a potentially important detail. He referenced a new “warhead design” for the new hypersonic weapon, addressing a flaw of the baseline version of the SM-6 for an anti-surface application. The warhead on the baseline SM-6 weighs only 140 lb., a mass the Congressional Budget Office cited as inadequate against a modern combat ship."

Source: https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... rface-role


Could a US Bomber carry SM2/3/6 internally. Which, could be guided by F-35's against a number of Air and/or Surface Targets??? We know this is already possible with Surface Warships. Yet, could bombers offer even greater scope??? :|
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1275
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post17 Mar 2020, 04:47

madrat wrote:While I'll not under-estimate the accuracy of SSMs,..


While I used "CEP" accuracy, in today's world it is actually more of a "Kill Chain" issue. Break the kill chain and the AA missile, Ballistic missile, Anti Ship missile etc. will simply "splash in the empty ocean."Break the Command and Control before the first shot and the chain is missing it's first link. Jam or confuse the terminal mechanism, (GPS spoof, decoys etc.) and the weapon will miss exactly to the inch, ever how many miles away it was confused.

These issues are strictly driven by robustness of the network centric system, and the personnel maturity of tactical evolution (developing new 5th Gen tactics). The US has been practicing these since F-117 days at the latest. My brother was commanding group level missions of "combat stealth technology," way back before the Y2K bug was even recognized as a problem (that's way back in the 19xx years for you millennials, check history books for Y2K), retired and flew an airline career before retiring there, and doing a third career before retiring again ... and then the Chinese started doing stealth after he was bouncing grandkids on his knee.

Individual US Pilots may have more hours training against VLO adversaries/systems, than the entire J-20 fleet has operational flying mission hours. The Chinese etc. have to get more than 30 fighters flying before they can even begin to really practice once against such things as Lt Col Berke was regularly doing many many years ago. Then they have to evolve tactics and then actually develop trained systems to implement those for more than two dozen pilots. They are only about a half century behind the curve in that regard. Regular Joe Marines are now practicing things daily decades ahead of the current J-20 state of the arts.

Still .. Can golden BB's kill hundred thousand lb bombers? Can asymetrical fishing boat tactics complicate blue water navies?

Sure they can ...

... so you take the BB gun and a broken down fishing boat. I'll take a B-1 and an Arleigh Burke Destroyer. You can have the first shot... say when. :D :D

MHO,
BP
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 681
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post17 Mar 2020, 04:51

blindpilot wrote:Chill, and get a reality grip guys.

This doesn't sell airplanes. :wink:
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1248
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post17 Mar 2020, 13:52

Since when does the SM-6 replace the current harpoon 1500lb warhead missiles? I think someone at avwk has the wrong end of the stick.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1275
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post17 Mar 2020, 16:53

optimist wrote:Since when does the SM-6 replace the current harpoon 1500lb warhead missiles? I think someone at avwk has the wrong end of the stick.


This is the old .45 vs .357 Mag, 5.56 vs 7.62, etc. argument. There are 6mm magnum rounds that out penetrate Glock 9mm ammo. Force = mass(and explosive power) times speed. At some point in the hypersonic realm you theoretically don't need explosives, or really much mass, at all. Ask the ISS Space Station guys if they want to test a 1 gram piece of metal at 17,000 mph against the hull. A simple baseball bat sized tungsten rod sent fast enough from space (with reentry heat shielding) will dig a very deep hole in a reinforced concrete bunker deep under ground. No explosive warhead needed.

Well engineered hypersonics can replace torpedo sized warheads. That's a fact. Now a school bus full of IED's at 25,000+ mph ... well now you are getting into dinosaur nite nite time.

FWIW,
BP
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest