F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 05:34
by Corsair1963
Should the US Navy consider acquiring a modest number of F-35B's??? These could operate along side USMC F-35B's on Amphibious Ships.....or numerous other missions well suited to the type. For example USN Aircraft Carriers often have to transit restricted waters like the Red Sea. This leaves them extremely vulnerable....


F35USN.jpg

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 05:40
by spazsinbad
Heheh. The USN is 'having troubles' purchasing a modest number of F-35Cs. Don't burden them with F-35Bs. Call MARINES!

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 06:08
by weasel1962
...in what appears to be a little known fact that the USMC is a component of the department of the navy, to be specific, since only 1834.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 06:29
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:...in what appears to be a little known fact that the USMC is a component of the department of the navy, to be specific, since only 1834.



I am sure most members are well aware of that....

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 06:40
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:...in what appears to be a little known fact that the USMC is a component of the department of the navy, to be specific, since only 1834.



I am sure most members are well aware of that....

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 06:56
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:Heheh. The USN is 'having troubles' purchasing a modest number of F-35Cs. Don't burden them with F-35Bs. Call MARINES!



Personally, I am very suspect of the numbers provided by the November Issue of Combat Aircraft about the F-35C Roadmap. They just don't add up as the projected buy of F-35C's is 20+ aircraft per FY. That would be enough for 1.5 Squadrons yearly. Which, assumes the US Congress won't fund pass what the USN requests. Which, they usually do...


As for calling the Marines. They already have far more commitments for their F-35B's than aircraft. From US Naval Amphibious Forces to NATO to the Royal Navy. (i.e. Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers) Hence, the reason for this thread.. :wink:

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 08:10
by spazsinbad
Why can't the USMC buy more F-35Bs per year to help the USN out? Ignored so far is that we have seen no interest from the USN about hosting F-35Bs aboard their CVNs. As for the USMC F-35Bs being 'overcommitted' that is another matter.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 11:38
by weasel1962
Its not a question of costs. The reason why marines are onboard carriers were for dedicated air tasking. With only 6-12 Bs on most phibs, there's no issue of navy air tasking and no question of coordinating the Bs with Cs. The Bs only have a role within the marines and the Bs operate as part of the navy. That's why both branches have the same ultimate boss.

The marine F-35B org structure is already based on maximizing every single LHD there is. It'll be hell no for the USMC to relinquish any LHD sqn to anyone other than marines. Other than the USMC, no one else has a use for phibs.

The USN structures its aviation based on CVWs. Why would it buy Bs that won't operate on CVWs? Its already a budget constraint that they can't get enough Cs for their 40 strike sqns, this can't even get past question 1 on role before we even start talking about costs.

This thread is an absolute non-starter.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 13:30
by quicksilver
My reference to Superman and kryptonite on another thread was not casual. The tailhook Navy would cut off important body parts before they would allow F-35Bs on CVNs. Why? Because the jet represents a real world instantiation of alternatives to the 100K, $13B means of putting tacair at sea today. It’s part of the Navy’s aversion to JSF; had F-35B died back in the days of probation, they would have had a circumstantial opportunity to extract themselves from the program (which they wanted to do from the days of JAST). The other relevant observation is that the ‘B’ doesn’t solve any of their challenges (as CSBA and others have suggested) with ‘reach’.

Operational Navy F-35Bs? Snowball’s chance in hell...as they say.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 14:18
by steve2267
quicksilver wrote:My reference to Superman and kryptonite on another thread was not casual. The tailhook Navy would cut off important body parts before they would allow F-35Bs on CVNs. Why? Because the jet represents a real world instantiation of alternatives to the 100K, $13B means of putting tacair at sea today. It’s part of the Navy’s aversion to JSF; had F-35B died back in the days of probation, they would have had a circumstantial opportunity to extract themselves from the program (which they wanted to do from the days of JAST). The other relevant observation is that the ‘B’ doesn’t solve any of their challenges (as CSBA and others have suggested) with ‘reach’.


QS, why are elements of the Navy so averse to the F-35 / JSF? Is it strictly because it was not originally their program? Or because of the single motor? All of the above? Something different?

I mean, the A-12, a Navy program, was such an overwhelming success... yet the F-35C would appear to meet almost all the A-12 requirements. VLO, 5000+lbs internal ordnance, higher ceiling, faster top speed, more maneuverable. Maximum Or is it that the F-35C does not (yet) have the (magical?) 800nm range of the A-12? Is the fact that the cockpit dwelling requirements of the F-35C are half as great as the A-12 a problem? But that would seem an advantage of the JSF / F-35 in this day and age where finding enough butts for seats can be an issue.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 14:39
by quicksilver
All of the above, but ‘wasn’t their program’ would be top of the list. They were going to be a small participant, numbers-wise in a ‘joint’ requirements fight that was going to force compromises that they didn’t want to entertain (eg one engine vs two). The other large animal in the room was about institutional equities between the systems commands — who’s in charge, how is it organized, whose policies apply wrt oversight in development and test, etc, etc. Then, of course, was the little matter of OSD’s intent to make the program a new model for USG acquisition, or in other words, a major indictment and disruption of the status quo (that the syscoms were a central part of). When the champions of that idea in OSD finally filtered out of the system, the bureaucratic antibodies in acquisition re-emerged to normalize the program back into more conventional strictures.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 17:28
by XanderCrews
quicksilver wrote:My reference to Superman and kryptonite on another thread was not casual. The tailhook Navy would cut off important body parts before they would allow F-35Bs on CVNs. Why? Because the jet represents a real world instantiation of alternatives to the 100K, $13B means of putting tacair at sea today. It’s part of the Navy’s aversion to JSF; had F-35B died back in the days of probation, they would have had a circumstantial opportunity to extract themselves from the program (which they wanted to do from the days of JAST). The other relevant observation is that the ‘B’ doesn’t solve any of their challenges (as CSBA and others have suggested) with ‘reach’.

Operational Navy F-35Bs? Snowball’s chance in hell...as they say.


I would actually bet on the USAF embracing STOVL before the USN ever would for this very reason. And the USAF never would. :mrgreen:

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 17:30
by XanderCrews
quicksilver wrote:All of the above, but ‘wasn’t their program’ would be top of the list. They were going to be a small participant, numbers-wise in a ‘joint’ requirements fight that was going to force compromises that they didn’t want to entertain (eg one engine vs two). The other large animal in the room was about institutional equities between the systems commands — who’s in charge, how is it organized, whose policies apply wrt oversight in development and test, etc, etc. Then, of course, was the little matter of OSD’s intent to make the program a new model for USG acquisition, or in other words, a major indictment and disruption of the status quo (that the syscoms were a central part of). When the champions of that idea in OSD finally filtered out of the system, the bureaucratic antibodies in acquisition re-emerged to normalize the program back into more conventional strictures.


another one I heard as well, was with the USMC looking for the "lo end" and the USAF the lo end F-16 replacement of the "hi-lo" mix. The USN had the SH and was now looking for the "high end" The USN drove a lot of requirements that ran afoul of the USMC and USAF. some good. some bad.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 18:55
by quicksilver
:wink:

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 00:59
by weasel1962
If Congress offered the B (on top of planned As) as a replacement for the A-10s, I'd say the USAF would take it. They'd highlight they can get more As for the Bs though so why not just give them more As.

No wavy for the navy.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 02:21
by madrat
Why not cut some C's and get the Marines two squadrons of early A models. The early As would be great for land-based USMC deployment, where the C actually carries less internal loads. The early As would be fine trainers for initial flights in the F-35. C pilots should easily transition from the A. B pilots will need to learn less about STOVL and more about F-35 tactics, and later can transition to early B models. The early As would eventually be fine Blue Angels demonstration team replacements. This way the USAF can focus on uniform A models. The active B models would also be more uniform units.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 02:55
by marauder2048
quicksilver wrote:My reference to Superman and kryptonite on another thread was not casual. The tailhook Navy would cut off important body parts before they would allow F-35Bs on CVNs. Why? Because the jet represents a real world instantiation of alternatives to the 100K, $13B means of putting tacair at sea today.


Which is funny given that (IIRC) all of future fleet architecture studies the Navy commissioned came back with:
building large STOVL carriers is a good idea.

quicksilver wrote:The other relevant observation is that the ‘B’ doesn’t solve any of their challenges (as CSBA and others have suggested) with ‘reach’.


I'd hope that the post-INF treaty renaissance in surface-to-surface missiles would make the arsenal ship concept
more attractive; the air-to-surface variants of these weapons probably aren't going to be much cheaper and
likely not UNREP'able at least at the rate the Navy looks to be inducting heavy UNREP capability.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 03:01
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:Why can't the USMC buy more F-35Bs per year to help the USN out? Ignored so far is that we have seen no interest from the USN about hosting F-35Bs aboard their CVNs. As for the USMC F-35Bs being 'overcommitted' that is another matter.


Sure the USMC could acquire more F-35B's. Yet, they would for the most part have control over them. As a matter of fact the USN would become a junior partner in many respects. Operating a much smaller fleet of F-35's than the Corp. Not sure that would go over very well... :shock:

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 03:14
by spazsinbad
I said 'more per year' not 'more'. The question about F-35Bs on CVNs still hangs out there for a NO WAY JOSE?

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 03:32
by quicksilver
“Which is funny given that (IIRC) all of future fleet architecture studies the Navy commissioned came back with:
building large STOVL carriers is a good idea.”

And funnier yet, it (that ‘good’ idea) has never happened; that is not by accident. I don’t think a STOVL jet of any kind has been on a CVN in decades. Last I recall was a bunch of Harriers stuffed aboard a CV to get home from DS/DS.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 03:33
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:Its not a question of costs. The reason why marines are onboard carriers were for dedicated air tasking. With only 6-12 Bs on most phibs, there's no issue of navy air tasking and no question of coordinating the Bs with Cs. The Bs only have a role within the marines and the Bs operate as part of the navy. That's why both branches have the same ultimate boss.

The marine F-35B org structure is already based on maximizing every single LHD there is. It'll be hell no for the USMC to relinquish any LHD sqn to anyone other than marines. Other than the USMC, no one else has a use for phibs.

The USN structures its aviation based on CVWs. Why would it buy Bs that won't operate on CVWs? Its already a budget constraint that they can't get enough Cs for their 40 strike sqns, this can't even get past question 1 on role before we even start talking about costs.

This thread is an absolute non-starter.


Your missing the point. The USN F-35B's would primarily operate in other roles than supporting USMC F-35B's from Amphibious Ships. Yet, the former would be an option if called upon. Remember, the main role of the USMC F-35B's is supporting the troops going ashore. In many cases they would even follow the troops and set-up austere forward operating bases. Leaving the LHA's and/or LHD's with no fighter cover..... :shock:

Also, the Navy F-35B's "wouldn't" be part of Carrier Air Wings (CVW) generally. They would be primarily land based but with the option to go in any direction....

For example the Navy F-35B's could supplement USMC aircraft on Amphibious Ships during times of crisis or conflict. Allowing the latter of move ashore. While, the former would stay with the ships. They could also be added to an Carrier Air Wing during transits in restricted waterways. Like the Red Sea or Straits of Malacca or other choke points or in foreign ports....

Honestly, this isn't new at all....As the USN has land based naval fighters and attack aircraft in conflicts from WWII to the Gulf Wars.

Of course like anything comes down to "funding". Yet, the USAF found money for the F-15EX. So, clearly anything is possible.... :wink:

Basically, what I am saying is there are other roles for the F-35B's. Than operating from LHA's/LHD's or CVN's. Yet, they could also support both. If, the need arises....

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 03:40
by quicksilver
No. You’re missing the point. It’s not about operational viability, it’s about institutional prerogatives and the politics of preserving same. They don’t want em, and no one is gonna force ‘em to have ‘em.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 03:44
by Corsair1963
quicksilver wrote:“Which is funny given that (IIRC) all of future fleet architecture studies the Navy commissioned came back with:
building large STOVL carriers is a good idea.”

And funnier yet, it (that ‘good’ idea) has never happened; that is not by accident. I don’t think a STOVL jet of any kind has been on a CVN in decades. Last I recall was a bunch of Harriers stuffed aboard a CV to get home from DS/DS.



I am not suggesting the USN acquire the F-35B's to become part of CVW's permanently. I am suggesting they acquire some to perform a number of roles as needed....

Which, could augment Amphibious Ships or CVN or whatever called upon. Hell, USN F-35B's would be better suited to the Queen Elizabeth Class in some respects. As the Marines are far more focused on Amphibious Operations. That projecting power in Blue Water Operations. Which, is the main mission of the new RN Aircraft Carriers.

Think of it this way.....USMC F-35B's would focus on Amphibious Operations. While, USN/USMC F-35C would do the same in Blue Water Operations. The New USN F-35B's would be fillers to go in either direction as the need calls for or maybe another mission altogether!

Point here is flexibility.... :twisted:

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 03:50
by Corsair1963
quicksilver wrote:No. You’re missing the point. It’s not about operational viability, it’s about institutional prerogatives and the politics of preserving same. They don’t want em, and no one is gonna force ‘em to have ‘em.



Absurd.....USMC F-35B's and F-35C's operate as part of USN Air Wings from both Amphibious Ships and Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers. Just the same missions as their Navy Cousins. The USN is the senior PARTNER. (by a long shot) So, your saying the reverse in not possible???

:lmao:

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 03:55
by quicksilver
Corsair1963 wrote:
quicksilver wrote:No. You’re missing the point. It’s not about operational viability, it’s about institutional prerogatives and the politics of preserving same. They don’t want em, and no one is gonna force ‘em to have ‘em.



Absurd.....USMC F-35B's and F-35C's operate as part of USN Air Wings from both Amphibious Ships and Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers. Just the same missions as their Navy Cousins. The USN is the senior PARTNER. (by a long shot) So, your saying the reverse in not possible???

:lmao:


You don’t know what you’re talking about...

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 04:09
by quicksilver
A remarkably fair treatment of the subject of big decks vs alternatives from the hipster Tyler Rogoway some years ago.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-t ... 1600899834

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 04:12
by Corsair1963
quicksilver wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
quicksilver wrote:No. You’re missing the point. It’s not about operational viability, it’s about institutional prerogatives and the politics of preserving same. They don’t want em, and no one is gonna force ‘em to have ‘em.



Absurd.....USMC F-35B's and F-35C's operate as part of USN Air Wings from both Amphibious Ships and Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers. Just the same missions as their Navy Cousins. The USN is the senior PARTNER. (by a long shot) So, your saying the reverse in not possible???

:lmao:


You don’t know what you’re talking about...


LOL and you do........

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 04:16
by Corsair1963
quicksilver wrote:A remarkably fair treatment of the subject of big decks vs alternatives from the hipster Tyler Rogoway some years ago.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-t ... 1600899834


What didn't you get??? I specifically said the USN F-35B's wouldn't be part of CVW's. Nor, did I suggest the USN build STOVL Aircraft Carriers as an alternative to Conventional Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers.....

:doh:

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 04:29
by steve2267
:bang:

I miss all the good, hair brained arguments...

Iffin we're gonna argue that the USN oughta be operating Bees... then those Bees should be configured to dispense sonobuoys / UUVs / drones. It would appear that Mk 46/50/54 torpedoes just might fit in the Bees' weps bay. The F-35B, if flown conservatively ala an S-3 profile / speeds... might give the fleet an additional option for far afield sub defense, or quick reaction sub defense if helos can't get there quickly enough. OR... working in concert with the silent service, with it's ability to stealthily penetrate radar coverage in the littorals... F-35B's (or C's -- Bees can't have all the fun) could sow sonobuoy nets / chevrons to funnel enema subs to waiting USN 688's / 774's. :drool:

:doh:

Say, QS, how do I make a standing offer to buy beers for the first USMC Killer Bee driver to declare an emergency... say a fuel emergency... and perform a SRVL on a CVN... stopping on the 3-wire?

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 04:56
by Corsair1963
steve2267 wrote::bang:

I miss all the good, hair brained arguments...

Iffin we're gonna argue that the USN oughta be operating Bees... then those Bees should be configured to dispense sonobuoys / UUVs / drones. It would appear that Mk 46/50/54 torpedoes just might fit in the Bees' weps bay. The F-35B, if flown conservatively ala an S-3 profile / speeds... might give the fleet an additional option for far afield sub defense, or quick reaction sub defense if helos can't get there quickly enough. OR... working in concert with the silent service, with it's ability to stealthily penetrate radar coverage in the littorals... F-35B's (or C's -- Bees can't have all the fun) could sow sonobuoy nets / chevrons to funnel enema subs to waiting USN 688's / 774's. :drool:

:doh:

Say, QS, how do I make a standing offer to buy beers for the first USMC Killer Bee driver to declare an emergency... say a fuel emergency... and perform a SRVL on a CVN... stopping on the 3-wire?



Did IQ's drop or what??? How many times did I state the USN F-35B's. Wouldn't be part of USN CVW....and that I wasn't making a case for STOVL Aircraft Carriers...

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 04:59
by quicksilver
“USMC F-35B's and F-35C's operate as part of USN Air Wings from both Amphibious Ships and Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers.“

Well, for starters...

I guess anything is possible on the internet.

Problem in this regard is actual reality; USMC F-35Bs do not operate “as part of USN Air Wings from...Amphibious Ships”, nor do they operate from CVNs. In fact, no F-35B has ever even landed on a CVN. If I am mistaken in that assertion feel free to correct me; pls include a credible source. Additionally, the first USMC F-35C squadron (VMFA-314) is training at Lemoore and will not operate as part of a deploying CVW until 2021 IIRC. Feel free to correct me on that one too.

You may wanna do some research on how Marine aviation units are organized afloat aboard amphios. You may also want to research and consider the missions, deployment schedules, and tasking of USN ESGs and their big-deck amphibs; they’re a bit busy these days too. And finally, in light of whatever new knowledge you might acquire about big-deck amphibs, where would they park these extra jets with a MEU ACE already on board?

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 05:24
by quicksilver
“...how do I make a standing offer to buy beers for the first USMC Killer Bee driver to declare an emergency... say a fuel emergency... and perform a SRVL on a CVN... stopping on the 3-wire?“

Yeah...“no other place to go boss.”

I don’t remember the exact dimensions of the flight deck but istr the distance from the round-down to the 3-wire is considerably less than the roll out for a 40kt (relative) landing. If you’re offering enough beer, the pilot will probably just cheat and VL... :wink:

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 05:34
by spazsinbad
LSO comment: "VERY LOUD SLOW APPROACH - Come down at RAMP with OWN WAVE OFF but TOUCHED DOWN - MELTED THREE WIRE."

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 05:35
by Corsair1963
quicksilver wrote:“USMC F-35B's and F-35C's operate as part of USN Air Wings from both Amphibious Ships and Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers.“

Well, for starters...

I guess anything is possible on the internet.

Problem in this regard is actual reality; USMC F-35Bs do not operate “as part of USN Air Wings from...Amphibious Ships”, nor do they operate from CVNs. In fact, no F-35B has ever even landed on a CVN. If I am mistaken in that assertion feel free to correct me; pls include a credible source. Additionally, the first USMC F-35C squadron (VMFA-314) is training at Lemoore and will not operate as part of a deploying CVW until 2021 IIRC. Feel free to correct me on that one too.

You may wanna do some research on how Marine aviation units are organized afloat aboard amphios. You may also want to research and consider the missions, deployment schedules, and tasking of USN ESGs and their big-deck amphibs; they’re a bit busy these days too. And finally, in light of whatever new knowledge you might acquire about big-deck amphibs, where would they park these extra jets with a MEU ACE already on board?


What??? Amphibious LHA/LHD don't have Air Wings??? :doh: They sure do and usually made up of both USN and USMC Aircraft. Of course they don't have the same make up as large conventional aircraft carrier air wings. (CVW) Yet, they clearly do...

Nor, did I say USMC F-35B have ever operated from CVN's. Nor, did I propose USN F-35B's operate as part of a USN CVW "permanently". Honestly, how many times do I have to say it??? :bang:

Room on LHD's and LHA's??? Many options as the latter types operate anywhere from 6-22 F-35B's. Nothing says all would have to be USMC and all would have to go ashore. Hell, you could have 16 F-35B's and 10 could be USMC and 6 USN. The former would move ashore to an austere forward base. While, the remaining 6 would stay with the ship. Honestly, countless options. Hell, all of the F-35B's could go ashore. While, some USN F-35B's flew in afterwards to take up their space....

Also, much talk about using LHA/LHD as mini-Carriers. In that role wouldn't USN F-35B's be better suited than USMC F-35B's. Which, focus mainly on the Amphibious Role....(think about it)

Whole, point here is "flexibility". Which, is the case I am making....The F-35B offers considerable options. Including roles other than Amphibious (LHA/LHD) or Carriers (CVN).

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 05:51
by quicksilver
“What??? Amphibious LHA/LHD don't have Air Wings??? :doh: They sure do and usually made up of both USN and USMC Aircraft.“

You’re just flat wrong; you clearly don’t understand how deployed assets are organized. A cursory internet search will help you.

And, I go back to what I said before — you missed the point of the discussion, which was fundamentally about the Navy’s institutional aversion to STOVL tacair. Can we cook up rational, viable ideas here on the internet about ‘what the Navy could do?’ Sure, this is the internet. But, what you suggested is all but impossible in the real world. Call it politics, call it culture, call it whatever you want, but that’s the reality. The Navy isn’t gonna buy F-35Bs — ever.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 05:59
by Corsair1963
quicksilver wrote:“What??? Amphibious LHA/LHD don't have Air Wings??? :doh: They sure do and usually made up of both USN and USMC Aircraft.“

You’re just flat wrong; you clearly don’t understand how deployed assets are organized. A cursory internet search will help you.

And, I go back to what I said before — you missed the point of the discussion, which was fundamentally about the Navy’s institutional aversion to STOVL tacair. Can we cook up rational, viable ideas here on the internet about ‘what the Navy could do?’ Sure, this is the internet. But, what you suggested is all but impossible in the real world. Call it politics, call it culture, call it whatever you want, but that’s the reality. The Navy isn’t gonna buy F-35Bs — ever.


And, I go back to what I said before - you missed the point of the discussion, which was fundamentally the USN F-35B wouldn't be part of Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carrier (CVN) Air Wings (CVW).

As a matter of fact the USN is for all practical purposes already an operator of Tactical STOVL aircraft. Which, is every time an LHA/LHD puts to sea with F-35B's. Which, are under Navy Control and operating from USN Ships.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 06:02
by quicksilver
Noted.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 06:41
by element1loop
JOINT Strike Fighter? I think that was meant to extend beyond service-specific parts commonality percentages.

In a real fight what's normal institutional service "culture" will easily give way to practical pragmatism and tactical adaptations for which testable cases can be made that it will work, and can and will be whatever has become necessary. Outside of war, probably not. But I think the thread starter's original question is a good one, what do you do when you can't steam in the direction you want at 30 knots to launch and recover jets?

The air force might have an answer that doesn't require F-35B. I don't see why F-35C and Growler can't also operate from a land base with tanking support, and obtain flyover permission diplomatically. Or why significant major allies with F-35s can't provide interoperable cover and pipe their data during wartime operations, in restricted water ways. I'm pretty sure they would want to do that, in fact they'd be keen to assist, I'd say.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 07:19
by Corsair1963
element1loop wrote:JOINT Strike Fighter? I think that was meant to extend beyond service-specific parts commonality percentages.

In a real fight what's normal institutional service "culture" will easily give way to practical pragmatism and tactical adaptations for which testable cases can be made that it will work, and can and will be whatever has become necessary. Outside of war, probably not. But I think the thread starter's original question is a good one, what do you do when you can't steam in the direction you want at 30 knots to launch and recover jets?

The air force might have an answer that doesn't require F-35B. I don't see why F-35C and Growler can't also operate from a land base with tanking support, and obtain flyover permission diplomatically. Or why significant major allies with F-35s can't provide interoperable cover and pipe their data during wartime operations, in restricted water ways. I'm pretty sure they would want to do that, in fact they'd be keen to assist, I'd say.


The F-35B is less capable in some respect to both the F-35A and F-35C. It nonetheless has a number of advantages. Especially, in regards to basing.....

So, my point is really to use the F-35B to fill in "some" of the gaps. With the USN being in the best position for that role.


"IMHO" 8)

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 07:22
by blindpilot
element1loop wrote:.... I don't see why F-35C and Growler can't ... and obtain flyover permission diplomatically. ...


I have no problem "seeing" it. I have seen it. I lived it. When Mayaguez went down in the '70's I had to fly with the rest of PACAF from Japan to Guam, I believe Gums caused a major diplomatic flair up in Bangkok back then ... I saw it !
When LIbya went down the entire "avoid Europe" joke nearly prohibited the Air Force in England from playing ... lotsa of tanking to make that detour ...It happens all the time with the best of friends, from France and Spain to Japan and Thailand.

But ... that big old sovereign territory in the ocean can stand off shore a dozen miles or so and do what needs to be done. Diplomacy be damned.

Just saying,
BP

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 08:37
by element1loop
blindpilot wrote:
element1loop wrote:.... I don't see why F-35C and Growler can't ... and obtain flyover permission diplomatically. ...


... I believe Gums caused a major diplomatic flair up in Bangkok back then ...


umm ... yup ... I'd believe that.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 10:19
by Corsair1963
Some may want to read these two articles about USN efforts to turn LHA/LHD into Mini-Carriers or even Mini-CBG's. Before they attack my position further.....

QUOTE:

The Navy has been exploring pivoting amphibious readiness groups (ARGs) into "mini" carrier strike groups (CSGs). Indeed, the USS Essex and its ARG rolled up in the Persian Gulf last fall to perform some of the "CSG-like" functions, as Navy officials put it at the time, for the 5th fleet while the Truman carrier strike group sailed to the North Atlantic in support of NATO operations there,

"We're definitely changing the way amphibs are employed, especially on the blue side," Lt. Cmdr. David Mahoney, Amphibious Squadron 1 Operations Officer told USNI News at the time. "We're no longer just the trucks that carry Marines that we used to be."

https://www.businessinsider.com/marine- ... y3pzg9ufWQ

QUOTE:

We are being treated as a CSG in a lot of respects: you can see that layered defense, so we were always bringing in destroyers to help work with us – East and West Coast, wherever they came from, they were integrating with the team,” the operations officer continued.
“It’s not just the two or three amphibs that we had; we were bringing in destroyers, we worked with Europeans and their ships – this is what has to happen as the carriers are being sometimes sent elsewhere because the needs are rising elsewhere.”

https://news.usni.org/2019/04/16/f-35b- ... ier-nearby

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 14:30
by quicksilver
Here’s your thread opener —

“Should the US Navy consider acquiring a modest number of F-35B's??? These could operate along side USMC F-35B's on Amphibious Ships.....or numerous other missions well suited to the type.“

Where do the articles you post above suggest the Navy is considering such a thing? Nowhere...because they aren’t and won’t be. Cool operational STOVL stuff around Navy CVs or Gators goes back to ROOSEVELT (CV-42) in the 70s, and NASSAU (LHA-4) in the early 80s, and later in the last week of DS. Two big decks stuffed themselves with Harriers for OIF-1. Harriers did bow-to-stern recoveries to allow ESG flexibility in the Libya thing a few years ago. Cross-axials to ships pier-side or steaming out of wind to make PIM. This stuff goes on all the time. These mini-this, or light-that things are not new ideas — nor is the occasional casual observer from the cheap seats who thinks the Navy might buy some stovl jets. Interesting idea...not gonna happen — ever.

Why do I say this? Here in the interweb, institutional history, tradition, culture, practice — and the organizational behavior that results from those things over time — are vague, nebulous and often discounted or ignored. In the real world, they are significant predictors of what government institutions will or will not do. This case would be one of them; for the foreseeable future, you can bank on it.

Not in my humble opinion; in my experience...

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 16:05
by wrightwing
There isn't a single good reason for the USN to buy F-35Bs, to operate off of LHA/LHDs.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 16:31
by XanderCrews
Corsair1963 wrote:Some may want to read these two articles about USN efforts to turn LHA/LHD into Mini-Carriers or even Mini-CBG's. Before they attack my position further.....

QUOTE:

The Navy has been exploring pivoting amphibious readiness groups (ARGs) into "mini" carrier strike groups (CSGs). Indeed, the USS Essex and its ARG rolled up in the Persian Gulf last fall to perform some of the "CSG-like" functions, as Navy officials put it at the time, for the 5th fleet while the Truman carrier strike group sailed to the North Atlantic in support of NATO operations there,

"We're definitely changing the way amphibs are employed, especially on the blue side," Lt. Cmdr. David Mahoney, Amphibious Squadron 1 Operations Officer told USNI News at the time. "We're no longer just the trucks that carry Marines that we used to be."

https://www.businessinsider.com/marine- ... y3pzg9ufWQ

QUOTE:

We are being treated as a CSG in a lot of respects: you can see that layered defense, so we were always bringing in destroyers to help work with us – East and West Coast, wherever they came from, they were integrating with the team,” the operations officer continued.
“It’s not just the two or three amphibs that we had; we were bringing in destroyers, we worked with Europeans and their ships – this is what has to happen as the carriers are being sometimes sent elsewhere because the needs are rising elsewhere.”

https://news.usni.org/2019/04/16/f-35b- ... ier-nearby



I'll give you a little insight, theres no need to spend your own money (or more of your own money) when someone else is footing the bill to give you the service for "free" the Gator Navy is getting F-35Bs already. its keeping them relevant already.

its the same reason why the army has never ever wanted A-10s and has in fact declined to take them on multiple occasions.

"would you like A-10s provided by the USAF free? or would you rather spend billions of dollars from your own budget for the same thing?"

sometimes as I've tried to explain to blain on multiple occasions, people "having their own lanes" and eliminating redundant capability is actually a good thing.

Why doesnt the navy act more like the Marines? Because thats what the Marines are for. Marines can do Marine things, thats why we have Marines

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 16:36
by blindpilot
quicksilver wrote:Here’s your thread opener —

“Should the US Navy consider acquiring a modest number of F-35B's??? These could operate along side USMC F-35B's on Amphibious Ships.....or numerous other missions well suited to the type.“

Where do the articles you post above suggest the Navy is considering such a thing? Nowhere...because they aren’t and won’t be. ... This stuff goes on all the time. ... Why do I say this? Here in the interweb, institutional history, tradition, culture, practice — and the organizational behavior that results from those things over time .. what government institutions will or will not do. This case would be one of them; for the foreseeable future, you can bank on it.

Not in my humble opinion; in my experience...


Well said.

These institutional anchors do not appear out of nowhere. Experience, good and bad, breed the core truths around which institutions develop. For the Navy in this case, they have decades ... shoot centuries ... of being prepared for national strategic flux. The national command authorities (ie. NCA President etc. ) are very wishy washy, and vague about details. But when the SHTF, they expect specific responses. The Navy knows this and plans accordingly, according to hard learned lessons in the past.

Let's take a benign example of such processes. Say you have a friend/brother who lives out of town. You have a convention center in your town and it is hosting his industry's big show. So he calls you, and says, "Hey can you meet me at the airport, and get me to the center by noon tomorrow?" Well if you live in a place like Denver you come to expect this from every friend/family member you have. It just happens ... especially around Ski Season. I plan accordingly.

Your friend doesn't care if you pick him up in a sedan, pickup truck or SUV. You can even meet him at the airport, and show him, take him, to use the light rail, or even take UBAR. But I have learned, that living here I should just have a big 4x4 SUV. And everyone knows they can always call me and get a ride ... maybe even to the ski slopes.

Yeah I know, I could buy monthly bus passes, and get around on a bicycle, but basically I have a pickup truck, a high gas mileage sedan ... and an SUV. Those work based on experience. It's sort of been institutionalized over the decades. And when you come to Denver, you'll expect the SUV .... but for a one time good deal, just for some who have creative solutions, I might just throw their bags and wife into the back of the pickup. I mean "It would work."

And you know, the US Navy is always examining new things, and options ... but if the NCA calls, they know they better have the "SUV." They won't be selling those anytime soon. Yeah I know,- the light rail works pretty good in today's world .... but it still doesn't go to the ski area, when the snow is coming down hard.

MHO
BP

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2019, 02:05
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:There isn't a single good reason for the USN to buy F-35Bs, to operate off of LHA/LHDs.



I suggested a number of possible roles for USN F-35B's not just operation from Amphibious Ships.

Nonetheless, considering the US is and plans to use LHA's and LHD's as Mini Carriers and even within Blue Water Operations. I think you could easily make a case....


The Marine Corps' dream of 'Lightning Carrier' full with F-35s is slowly becoming a reality


https://www.businessinsider.com/marine- ... y3pzg9ufWQ


F-35B Allowed Essex ARG to Flex New Blue-Water Capabilities in Absence of Carrier Nearby

https://news.usni.org/2019/04/16/f-35b- ... ier-nearby

USMC to Fly First F-35B from Japan’s Izumo-class Aircraft Carriers


https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... 4pGo4hf44A

US Marine F-35B Fighter Jet Deployment Onboard British Warship Made Official - US Marine Corps F-35Bs are to be deployed onboard the British Royal Navy's new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier when it undertakes its first operational tour.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2016/ ... -official/

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2019, 02:21
by spazsinbad
The business insider link is broken - what is it? What is the title etc [URL fixed now above TAH]

https://www.businessinsider.com/marine- ... y3pzg9ufWQ [broken]

https://www.businessinsider.com/marine- ... &r=AU&IR=T [fixed]

ORIGINAL 'Task & Purpose' article: https://taskandpurpose.com/marine-corps ... rica-f35bs
_________________________________________

USNI:
https://news.usni.org/2019/04/16/f-35b- ... ier-nearby

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2019, 02:24
by Corsair1963
quicksilver wrote:
Where do the articles you post above suggest the Navy is considering such a thing? Nowhere...because they aren’t and won’t be. Cool operational STOVL stuff around Navy CVs or Gators goes back to ROOSEVELT (CV-42) in the 70s, and NASSAU (LHA-4) in the early 80s, and later in the last week of DS. Two big decks stuffed themselves with Harriers for OIF-1. Harriers did bow-to-stern recoveries to allow ESG flexibility in the Libya thing a few years ago. Cross-axials to ships pier-side or steaming out of wind to make PIM. This stuff goes on all the time. These mini-this, or light-that things are not new ideas — nor is the occasional casual observer from the cheap seats who thinks the Navy might buy some stovl jets. Interesting idea...not gonna happen — ever.

Why do I say this? Here in the interweb, institutional history, tradition, culture, practice — and the organizational behavior that results from those things over time — are vague, nebulous and often discounted or ignored. In the real world, they are significant predictors of what government institutions will or will not do. This case would be one of them; for the foreseeable future, you can bank on it.

Not in my humble opinion; in my experience...



I was merely making a case for the F-35B in USN Service. I never said they had a firm plan in place to do so.


That said, they do have a plan to operate LHA's and LHD's as Mini Aircraft Carriers and in Blue Water Operations. A mission in the past performed strictly by Conventional USN Aircraft Carriers.

So, while the USN may have no firm plans to acquire the F-35B at the moment. It is hardly implausible either.

Man you think I suggested the Philippines was going to send a man to mars next week or something.... :doh:

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2019, 03:32
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:There isn't a single good reason for the USN to buy F-35Bs, to operate off of LHA/LHDs.



I suggested a number of possible roles for USN F-35B's not just operation from Amphibious Ships.

Nonetheless, considering the US is and plans to use LHA's and LHD's as Mini Carriers and even within Blue Water Operations. I think you could easily make a case....


The Marine Corps' dream of 'Lightning Carrier' full with F-35s is slowly becoming a reality


https://www.businessinsider.com/marine- ... y3pzg9ufWQ


F-35B Allowed Essex ARG to Flex New Blue-Water Capabilities in Absence of Carrier Nearby

https://news.usni.org/2019/04/16/f-35b- ... ier-nearby

USMC to Fly First F-35B from Japan’s Izumo-class Aircraft Carriers


https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... 4pGo4hf44A

US Marine F-35B Fighter Jet Deployment Onboard British Warship Made Official - US Marine Corps F-35Bs are to be deployed onboard the British Royal Navy's new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier when it undertakes its first operational tour.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2016/ ... -official/

There's absolutely no advantages to mixing aircrews/squadrons, instead of just using an all Marine airwing. No additional capabilities are added, but you do add cost and complexity. There'll be plenty of Marine B models, and the Navy is better off buying more C models. That's something I could get behind (i.e. an extra squadron per carrier of Cs, or make the current squadrons bigger.)

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2019, 04:22
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:
There's absolutely no advantages to mixing aircrews/squadrons, instead of just using an all Marine airwing. No additional capabilities are added, but you do add cost and complexity. There'll be plenty of Marine B models, and the Navy is better off buying more C models. That's something I could get behind (i.e. an extra squadron per carrier of Cs, or make the current squadrons bigger.)



There absolutely no advantages to mixing Aircrews and Squadrons??? That's funny considering the USN currently operate mixed Navy and Marine Strike Fighter Squadrons from Aircraft Carriers and have so for decades. This will of course continue with the New F-35C's

In addition there isn't "plenty" of F-35B's to go around. Especially, now having to provide them for Mini Carrier Operations and to support allied carriers like the British Queen Elizabeth and Japanese Izumo Class Aircraft Carriers. Which, will take the F-35B's away from their primary mission. That is to support MEU's...

Regardless, I am not making a case for F-35B's to replace F-35C's within Carrier Air Wings. In fact they need to increase the buy of the latter in my opinion. Yet, that doesn't take away the need for more F-35B's in service with the USMC and/or USN...

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 03:49
by Corsair1963
UK, US Enter New Era: ‘Unprecedented’ Carrier-Sharing Plan

“We’re not talking about interoperability anymore, we’re talking about proper integration to a level we’ve never seen,” Fleet Commander Vice Adm. Jerry Kyd told me on the deck of the UK's new carrier.

By Paul McLeary October 21, 2019

ABOARD HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH: For the first time, a US Marine Corps F-35B squadron will deploy aboard the UKs new aircraft carrier on its maiden voyage in 2021, a milestone hailed as “unprecedented” — even among close allies.

“We’re not talking about interoperability anymore; we’re talking about proper integration to a level we’ve never seen,” British Fleet Commander Vice Adm. Jerry Kyd told me on the deck of the carrier as it launched and recovered aircraft during an exercise in the Atlantic.

The integration of Marines into the British carrier’s operations from Day One is “unprecedented,” he said. “It would be hard to think of another two countries on the planet who can do that right now.”




As Kyd and fellow Royal Navy officers praised the “special relationship” between Washington and London during a recent visit to the ship, the US Navy’s top admiral was half a world away, using much the same language to pitch his own ideas for closer linkages between allied navies.

“Today, the very nature of our operating environment requires shared common values and a collective approach to maritime security,” Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Mike Gilday, told a seapower conference in Venice.




Gilday alluded to the British upgrades and increasing operations with NATO allies at sea, noting that Adm. Mike Mullen, former Navy chief, once talked about a 1,000-ship Navy. “I say, why not a 10,000-ship navy? With like-minded partners, there’s a lot we can do together to keep the maritime commons free and open.”

Spurring the move toward greater linkages between allied forces are the realities of a more aggressive and rapidly modernizing Chinese navy, and an increasingly unpredictable Russia. “We are defending international norms to foster global economic prosperity; we do it to protect the right to navigate the world’s international waters; we do it to ensure smaller nations are not bullied by others,” Gilday said in Venice.



Similarly, Kyd sees the increasing integration as an obvious move in an era punctuated by a variety of potential threats. “Why wouldn’t we be far more integrated with our key ally at a moment where the rules-based international system is under threat, and we need to reinforce our western values and operate together?”

Kyd, who commanded the Queen Elizabeth last fall when she ran weeks of trials off the US east Coast, is now responsible for overseeing all operational elements of the Royal Navy. Last year’s deployment saw the Brits flying US-based F-35s, but just this past week Royal Navy pilots began flying their own F-35Bs from the ship, becoming the first non-US pilots to own and fly carrier-based Joint Strike Fighters.

The QE is joined on this trip by the newly-formed Westlant 19 Carrier Strike Group – comprised of Type 45 destroyer HMS Dragon, submarine hunter HMS Northumberland and tanker RFA Tideforce.

“We are learning how to fight a carrier strike group beyond the jets for the first time,” Commodore Michael Utley told me. The new ship, flying new aircraft, “is a huge step forward. It’s not just a return,” to carrier operations, he said.


The QE has been working up to its 2021 deployment to the Mediterranean and Middle East in the waters along the US East Coast since July, readying for the Royal Navy’s first carrier operations in a decade.

The new carrier has been specifically designed to operate the F-35, and British officers on board refer to it as a “5th generation” ship that represents a massive leap over the Invincible-class big decks the Royal Navy retired in 2010, leaving the country — which has one of the proudest naval traditions in the world — without a carrier.

“This aircraft carrier for the UK is strategic, not just in terms of scale — she’s the biggest carrier we’ve ever had — but she’s interoperable with the US Marine Corps and again it’s that trust. You can’t surge trust,” Kyd said.

That integration with the Marines comes as the Corps and the Navy are working on a new force structure assessment due later this year aimed at more closely linking the operations of the two. It’s a major shift for the Corps, which is coming off almost two decades of operating primarily as a ground force in the Middle East. As part of the emerging shift back to the sea, the Marines are looking to begin testing unmanned platforms to quickly refuel and rearm their F-35Bs operating from remote, austere bases in the Pacific — part of an effort to be more nimble and unpredictable, as the traditional American dominance at sea and in the air erodes.

Last month, Marine leaders announced a year-long round of war games to push the force into the future, while Gilday and Marine Commandant Gen. David Berger recently signed a memo pledging to work on a joint project to hack out a new way to project power forward. The goal is to more closely align their doctrine, training, and equipping plans to complement one another, rather than the Navy simply providing lift and cover for the Corps.

And now, with the QE preparing to set sail, it appears the Royal Navy may play a key part in those plans.

With the QE in the fleet, “we’ve jumped into a much more sophisticated networked environment, and together [with the US] there’s huge potential in the next 4 to 5 years to really squeeze out the maximum from this very advanced aircraft that we couldn’t even think about 10 years ago,” Kyd said.

The Royal Navy’s second F-35-specific carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, is currently undergoing sea trials in the North Sea in preparation for its planned first deployment in 2023. Having two brand-new carriers that can swap aircraft and missions with the US Navy and Marine Corps is, by any measure, a significant move at a time when US East Coast-based carriers are having some trouble making it out to sea on schedule.

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/10/uk- ... Defense%29

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 03:50
by Corsair1963
Yeah, there is no reason for the USN to acquire the F-35B........ :roll:

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 04:08
by madrat
Corsair1963 wrote:Yeah, there is no reason for the USN to acquire the F-35B........ :roll:

But you could justify A models for training to save money for more operational C models

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 04:51
by Corsair1963
madrat wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Yeah, there is no reason for the USN to acquire the F-35B........ :roll:

But you could justify A models for training to save money for more operational C models


Don't see purchasing another model of the F-35 not currently in service with the USN/USMC as beneficial??? Which, also couldn't operate from either Amphibious Ships (LHA/LHD) or Aircraft Carriers. (CVN)

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 13:11
by madrat
At a 50% premium for the C model over the A, there is a lot of incentive to do initial training with A and move up to C models for deck landing. For every two C models you can get three A models. And that is being generous, because that is the gap now. The A model could be down to 60% the price of a C model down the stretch.

They can simulate deck landing at a base with the A giving you plenty of similarity on characteristics of flight on approach. You don't simulate catapult launches until you get on the deck. Nor should you need fully sea-hardened models for lead up to carrier trials. There is plenty to learn on the A model and flight simulators. So when they get to carrier trials they move on to C models with minimal transition. But on the grand scale of the budget there are more C models for the carriers.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 16:12
by quicksilver
You cannot fly A model F-35s to carrier touch and gos. The jet is not designed to absorb those kinds of structural loads.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 16:19
by XanderCrews
madrat wrote:
They can simulate deck landing at a base with the A giving you plenty of similarity on characteristics of flight on approach.


really? how?

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 16:31
by spazsinbad
At NAS Nowra when the Kiwis invaded with No.2 Squadron RNZAF A-4K Kahus for initial pilot training and Fleet Defence work, the aircraft were powered up again just before touchdown instead of a touch and go to save wear & tear on tyres.

Personally I don't like the idea of an F-35A simulating an F-35C because I think it would give the incorrect muscle memory.

The Kiwis used to flare slightly before touch down also to save wear and tear but not always I'm told. The Skyhawk was designed for NO FLARE landings & it was only for EMERGENCIES when high landing speeds were required that it was flared.

However the A-4K Kahu retained the AoA indexer and of course it now had a wide HUD with such symbology to squizz at. Not being familiar with the new setup caused a TA-4K Kahu to land short at OHAKEA to then drop tank arrest on foam.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 16:59
by steve2267
XanderCrews wrote:
madrat wrote:
They can simulate deck landing at a base with the A giving you plenty of similarity on characteristics of flight on approach.


really? how?


Xander Xander Xander... really... I am quite surprised at you. Isn't it obvious? You re-fit the A model with larger Fowler flaps that will increase the wing surface area by 45%. The 668 ft^2 wing area of this trainer Aye Aye model will perfectly duplicate the approach speed and handling conditions of the Sea model.

I'm quite sure the experts at NavAir have already proposed just this solution to Lockheed Martin... but those darned engineers just won't budge.

I mean, we all know it's just foolhardy to expect these young whippersnappers today, raised on computers and all, to learn to fly the aircraft almost totally in a simulator before stepping to the aircraft. I even heard the Israeli's are creating their own two seat model for just these exact problems...

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 18:24
by outlaw162
Simulation is so good these days that most folks here have probably been pax on an airline revenue flight without knowing the landing was the pilot's first landing in the actual aircraft. Probably didn't notice anything out of the ordinary....except in those very, very rare cases where the masks dropped or some minor dental work was required....but heck even the experienced captains occasionally 'plant' one.

The last USAF aircraft that was 'planted' like the Navy equivalent machine was probably the F-4, until cooler heads capped off the TE Boundary Layer Control and sanity prevailed. :mrgreen:

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 18:33
by XanderCrews
madrat wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Yeah, there is no reason for the USN to acquire the F-35B........ :roll:

But you could justify A models for training to save money for more operational C models


I would just send my pilots to F-35A schools rather than buy my own. Rule number whatever of military budgets; Don't buy what someone else can provide.

Especially if I'm going to wreck these F-35A's into the "deck" of a runway :mrgreen: :mrgreen: "your jets busted again airman!"
steve2267 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
madrat wrote:
They can simulate deck landing at a base with the A giving you plenty of similarity on characteristics of flight on approach.


really? how?


Xander Xander Xander... really... I am quite surprised at you. Isn't it obvious? You re-fit the A model with larger Fowler flaps that will increase the wing surface area by 45%. The 668 ft^2 wing area of this trainer Aye Aye model will perfectly duplicate the approach speed and handling conditions of the Sea model.

I'm quite sure the experts at NavAir have already proposed just this solution to Lockheed Martin... but those darned engineers just won't budge.

I mean, we all know it's just foolhardy to expect these young whippersnappers today, raised on computers and all, to learn to fly the aircraft almost totally in a simulator before stepping to the aircraft. I even heard the Israeli's are creating their own two seat model for just these exact problems...


Image

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 19:17
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:Yeah, there is no reason for the USN to acquire the F-35B........ :roll:

There's nothing in that article, that suggested the USN buying F-35Bs would be a better course of action, than buying more F-35Cs. No MEU is going to do without aircraft availability, due to other squadrons conducting joint operations with the Royal Navy. Even if both British carriers were deployed with USMC jets, that's 2 squadrons out of 340 F-35Bs they're buying.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 19:28
by quicksilver
outlaw162 wrote:Simulation is so good these days that most folks here have probably been pax on an airline revenue flight without knowing the landing was the pilot's first landing in the actual aircraft. Probably didn't notice anything out of the ordinary....except in those very, very rare cases where the masks dropped or some minor dental work was required....but heck even the experienced captains occasionally 'plant' one.

The last USAF aircraft that was 'planted' like the Navy equivalent machine was probably the F-4, until cooler heads capped off the TE Boundary Layer Control and sanity prevailed. :mrgreen:


x2 on the sim thing.

Ref the ‘planting’ of aircraft, seems all those occasions coincide w flights I’ve had to DCA... :wink:

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 19:53
by spazsinbad
I think I recall 'gums' sayin' he would seldom 'slightly flare' the A-7 and just PLANT IT (& water it in mightily for good use)?

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 20:27
by outlaw162
Ref the ‘planting’ of aircraft, seems all those occasions coincide w flights I’ve had to DCA... :wink:


Yep, the shorter the runway, particularly with a close-in turn off the river, the more likelihood of a 'firm' touch.
Greenbriar, WV short and with the cliffs, and Santa Maria, CA were particularly hard on 727s....and spines.

I personally flared the A-7 just like a real airplane when conditions allowed, but it would accommodate a 'plant' if necessary. To each his own. :D

From my experience, avoiding landing stress put on the mechanical inertials and ranging radars in standby seemed to result in tail numbers with consistently better bombing scores, there were differences, but that may fall into the category of urban myth, or outlaw myth.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 20:43
by madrat
quicksilver wrote:You cannot fly A model F-35s to carrier touch and gos. The jet is not designed to absorb those kinds of structural loads.

XanderCrews wrote:
madrat wrote:
They can simulate deck landing at a base with the A giving you plenty of similarity on characteristics of flight on approach.


really? how?

Luckily land based runways do not pitch and buck.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 21:00
by quicksilver
madrat wrote:
quicksilver wrote:You cannot fly A model F-35s to carrier touch and gos. The jet is not designed to absorb those kinds of structural loads.

XanderCrews wrote:
madrat wrote:
They can simulate deck landing at a base with the A giving you plenty of similarity on characteristics of flight on approach.


really? how?

Luckily land based runways do not pitch and buck.


It’s not about the ‘pitching and bucking’ of the landing surface. That’s why the C model is 5000# heavier than the A. Wanna land on ships (or practice for same ashore)? Ya gotta beef it (the design of the jet) up and ya gotta slow it down.

Don’t believe us? Do a little research. Start with ‘F-35 Carrier Suitability’ and maybe ‘F-35C Structural Survey‘. There’s also some video around on F-35C drop tests — notably, a test that the A and B models did not undergo. Here ya go — https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iNnSrg7Npzg

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 21:28
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:At NAS Nowra when the Kiwis invaded with No.2 Squadron RNZAF A-4K Kahus for initial pilot training and Fleet Defence work, the aircraft were powered up again just before touchdown instead of a touch and go to save wear & tear on tyres.

Personally I don't like the idea of an F-35A simulating an F-35C because I think it would give the incorrect muscle memory.

The Kiwis used to flare slightly before touch down also to save wear and tear but not always I'm told. The Skyhawk was designed for NO FLARE landings & it was only for EMERGENCIES when high landing speeds were required that it was flared.

However the A-4K Kahu retained the AoA indexer and of course it now had a wide HUD with such symbology to squizz at. Not being familiar with the new setup caused a TA-4K Kahu to land short at OHAKEA to then drop tank arrest on foam.


I would only add (as you, spaz know from years of experience) that the business of ‘flying the ball all the way to touchdown’ is foundational to carrier recoveries. Flying an F-35A to an IC.AR waveoff would be a complete non-starter for training.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 22:45
by spazsinbad
Agree 'QS' - I could have laboured my point so I'll do it now with the USAF A-7D Flight Manual c.1972 Landing Advice pages.
A-7D USAF Series Aircraft
20 Sep 1972 change USAF

Landing
“Set up a power-on rate of descent with the angle-of-attack indexer donut illuminated and aim for a touchdown point 500 to 700 feet beyond the runway threshold. Cross-check angle of attack and airspeed. If final approach drops below computed and the sink rate becomes excessive, correct first by adding power and then adjusting attitude. Hold the donut to touchdown.

If wheel braking without the antiskid system is anticipated and control augmentation is not required for aircraft control, the CONT AUG switch should be placed in OFF before touchdown to remove lateral control stick inputs from the AFCS. Without control augmentation, it is easier to maintain equal weight distribution on the main gear and reduce the possibility of blown tires.

On touchdown with higher sink rates, the aircraft has a tendency to rock forward and, unless a small amount of back stick pressure is held, the nose gear contacts the runway. If the aircraft bounces, reestablish the proper landing attitude and adjust sink rate with throttle. If aircraft control becomes questionable, do not hesitate to execute a go-around...”

Source: https://www.filefactory.com/file/1slhgt ... Manual.pdf (61.5Mb)

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 23:20
by madrat
Sure, quicksilver, because learning instrumentation navigation and landing requires a crashworthy touchdown... sorry, I don't buy that you cannot progress through a syllabus without that extra heavy structure. Carrier flight is advanced training and it takes a lot more than a few flights to get there. It makes sense to learn a large spectrum of operation goals before taking the big leap to carrier qualifications.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2019, 23:34
by quicksilver
madrat wrote:Sure, quicksilver, because learning instrumentation navigation and landing requires a crashworthy touchdown... sorry, I don't buy that you cannot progress through a syllabus without that extra heavy structure. Carrier flight is advanced training and it takes a lot more than a few flights to get there. It makes sense to learn a large spectrum of operation goals before taking the big leap to carrier qualifications.


Several of us have said that sims are a good way to go. However, YOU argued this, and I quote —

“They can simulate deck landing at a base with the A giving you plenty of similarity on characteristics of flight on approach...Nor should you need fully sea-hardened models for lead up to carrier trials.“

Nice try.

“Carrier flight is advanced training and it takes a lot more than a few flights to get there. It makes sense to learn a large spectrum of operation goals before taking the big leap to carrier qualifications.”

I agree; been there, done that. That’s why Navy guys should be flying the Navy jet every time they fly.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2019, 00:12
by outlaw162
......................

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2019, 02:09
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Yeah, there is no reason for the USN to acquire the F-35B........ :roll:

There's nothing in that article, that suggested the USN buying F-35Bs would be a better course of action, than buying more F-35Cs. No MEU is going to do without aircraft availability, due to other squadrons conducting joint operations with the Royal Navy. Even if both British carriers were deployed with USMC jets, that's 2 squadrons out of 340 F-35Bs they're buying.



HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF??? "I HAVE NEVER SUGGESTED OR EVEN IMPLIED THE USN SHOULD REPLACE F-35C'S WITH F-35B'S.......

:roll: :roll: :roll:

In addition the USMC doesn't have an "infinite" number of F-35B's. Yet, has more and more commitments by the day...from the USN in the new role as Mini Aircraft Carriers. To Japanese and British Aircraft Carriers. (i.e. Izumo and Queen Elizabeth Classes) So, please tell us MEU's will always have enough aircraft availability???

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2019, 03:47
by quicksilver
“Yet, has more and more commitments by the day...“

Really? Name them for us.

‘New role’ as mini carrier? Not a new idea nor commitment — see previous posts re: ROOSEVELT, NASSAU, BATAAN, BHR And others.

Japan? Help us with the details on that.

MEUs? That’s a 6-jet commitment; that leaves 10 jets at home...available for deployment on a different ship, like maybe...QE. Imagine that... :salute:

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2019, 04:40
by Corsair1963
["quicksilver"]

Really? Name them for us.

‘New role’ as mini carrier? Not a new idea nor commitment — see previous posts re: ROOSEVELT, NASSAU, BATAAN, BHR And others.[/quote]

Sorry, while the USN has used Harriers in large number in the past on LHD's as a Mini Carriers. Like in the Gulf Wars...Those just supported MEU's going ashore. Today what the USN/USMC are planning is very different. To use the New F-35B's combined with the LHA/LHD as a Mini Carrier. Yet, not to support MEU's only but to replace the CVN's (Nuclear Aircraft Carriers) when not available...and in Blue Water Operations! THIS IS TOTALLY NEW...

"F-35B Allowed Essex ARG to Flex New Blue-Water Capabilities in Absence of Carrier Nearby"

ARLINGTON, Virginia – The F-35B Joint Strike Fighter is not only changing the way Marine forces conduct their missions, it is also changing the way the amphibious navy can do its work in the absence of an aircraft carrier, leaders from the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit and Essex Amphibious Ready Group said.

The Essex ARG and 13th MEU were the first to deploy from the United States with the F-35B, and they operated in the Pacific and Middle East from mid-July until their March 1 return home to San Diego. The deployment not only generated lessons learned on how to operate and sustain the F-35B jets as part of the Marine unit and in support of its objectives ashore, but also how to use the new jet to support blue-water Navy missions at sea.

https://news.usni.org/2019/04/16/f-35b- ... ier-nearby

Japan? Help us with the details on that.


USMC to Fly First F-35B from Japan’s Izumo-class Aircraft Carriers

U.S. Marine Corps' F-35B STOVL fighters will be the first fixed wing aircraft to fly from Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) Izumo-class "helicopter destroyers", following the conversion of both JS Izumo and JS Kaga into aircraft carriers.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -carriers/

Marines Considering Flying U.S. F-35Bs Off of Japan’s Largest Warships

In March, the Abe government asked then-Marine commandant Gen. Robert Neller if the U.S. would consider deploying Marine F-35Bs from Izumo and Kaga, reported The Asahi Shimbun earlier this week.

Prompted by the request, the Marines are now standing up groups to determine the technical feasibility of deploying U.S. F-35s from the two ships ahead of the Japanese Self-Defense Force F-35Bs being fielded.

https://news.usni.org/2019/08/23/marine ... t-warships

Also........

UK, US Enter New Era: ‘Unprecedented’ Carrier-Sharing Plan

“We’re not talking about interoperability anymore, we’re talking about proper integration to a level we’ve never seen,”
Fleet Commander Vice Adm. Jerry Kyd told me on the deck of the UK's new carrier.



ABOARD HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH: For the first time, a US Marine Corps F-35B squadron will deploy aboard the UKs new aircraft carrier on its maiden voyage in 2021, a milestone hailed as “unprecedented” — even among close allies.

“We’re not talking about interoperability anymore; we’re talking about proper integration to a level we’ve never seen,” British Fleet Commander Vice Adm. Jerry Kyd told me on the deck of the carrier as it launched and recovered aircraft during an exercise in the Atlantic.

The integration of Marines into the British carrier’s operations from Day One is “unprecedented,” he said. “It would be hard to think of another two countries on the planet who can do that right now.”

As Kyd and fellow Royal Navy officers praised the “special relationship” between Washington and London during a recent visit to the ship, the US Navy’s top admiral was half a world away, using much the same language to pitch his own ideas for closer linkages between allied navies.


Kyd, who commanded the Queen Elizabeth last fall when she ran weeks of trials off the US east Coast, is now responsible for overseeing all operational elements of the Royal Navy. Last year’s deployment saw the Brits flying US-based F-35s, but just this past week Royal Navy pilots began flying their own F-35Bs from the ship, becoming the first non-US pilots to own and fly carrier-based Joint Strike Fighters.

“We are learning how to fight a carrier strike group beyond the jets for the first time,” Commodore Michael Utley told me. The new ship, flying new aircraft, “is a huge step forward. It’s not just a return,” to carrier operations, he said.


That integration with the Marines comes as the Corps and the Navy are working on a new force structure assessment due later this year aimed at more closely linking the operations of the two. It’s a major shift for the Corps, which is coming off almost two decades of operating primarily as a ground force in the Middle East. As part of the emerging shift back to the sea, the Marines are looking to begin testing unmanned platforms to quickly refuel and rearm their F-35Bs operating from remote, austere bases in the Pacific — part of an effort to be more nimble and unpredictable, as the traditional American dominance at sea and in the air erodes.

Last month, Marine leaders announced a year-long round of war games to push the force into the future, while Gilday and Marine Commandant Gen. David Berger recently signed a memo pledging to work on a joint project to hack out a new way to project power forward. The goal is to more closely align their doctrine, training, and equipping plans to complement one another, rather than the Navy simply providing lift and cover for the Corps.

And now, with the QE preparing to set sail, it appears the Royal Navy may play a key part in those plans.

With the QE in the fleet, “we’ve jumped into a much more sophisticated networked environment, and together [with the US] there’s huge potential in the next 4 to 5 years to really squeeze out the maximum from this very advanced aircraft that we couldn’t even think about 10 years ago,” Kyd said.

The Royal Navy’s second F-35-specific carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, is currently undergoing sea trials in the North Sea in preparation for its planned first deployment in 2023. Having two brand-new carriers that can swap aircraft and missions with the US Navy and Marine Corps is, by any measure, a significant move at a time when US East Coast-based carriers are having some trouble making it out to sea on schedule.

MEUs? That’s a 6-jet commitment; that leaves 10 jets at home...available for deployment on a different ship, like maybe...QE. Imagine that... :salute:


Older LHA/LHD deployed with usually 6 aircraft detachments. Yet, that changing....

The USS America rocks 13 F-35B Lightning II fighters in the Pacific

QUOTE: But those "routine operations" apparently include a contingent of around 13 F-35Bs visible on the America's flight deck, as our eagle-eyed friends at The War Zone point out, a slight increase over the ten aircraft spotted aboard the USS Wasp when the latter rolled through the disputed South China Sea this past April and the full dozen the USS America touted during a demonstration back in 2016.

https://taskandpurpose.com/marine-corps ... belltitem5

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2019, 06:34
by weasel1962
US squadron on UK carriers? Carrier sharing is so new, they've only been doing it for 70+ years.
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item ... /205152271

and if anyone thinks its only world wars...
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item ... /205163850

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2019, 06:43
by weasel1962
The LHDs' standard complement is 6 AV-8Bs. It can operate as many as 20 AV-8Bs in the sea control role which is something that has been going on since the 1980s. Harriers of course operated from all RN aircraft carriers. Did the USN ever felt the need for a USN harrier sqn?

Now with the introduction of the F-35B,

The LHDs' standard complement is 6 F-35Bs. It can operate as many as 20 F-35Bs in the sea control role. F-35Bs of course operates from all RN aircraft carriers.

Everything has now changed.....

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2019, 08:31
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:The LHDs' standard complement is 6 AV-8Bs. It can operate as many as 20 AV-8Bs in the sea control role which is something that has been going on since the 1980s. Harriers of course operated from all RN aircraft carriers. Did the USN ever felt the need for a USN harrier sqn?

Now with the introduction of the F-35B,

The LHDs' standard complement is 6 F-35Bs. It can operate as many as 20 F-35Bs in the sea control role. F-35Bs of course operates from all RN aircraft carriers.

Everything has now changed.....


LHA/LHD did usually operate a flight of 6 Harriers. (from a squadron of 16) Yet, rarely operated many more....Nor, was the Sea Control Concept ever adopted....Regardless, it isn't the same thing that the USN is developing today for the F-35B. Two different animals...

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2019, 08:41
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:US squadron on UK carriers? Carrier sharing is so new, they've only been doing it for 70+ years.
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item ... /205152271

and if anyone thinks its only world wars...
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item ... /205163850



Your confusing "cross decking" we being regularly deployed as part of an Air Wing. The latter has rarely happen...the French did send a single squadron of Rafales (12) and one Hawkeye. When the Charles De Gaulle was in refit a couple years back. Yet, even then just a few weeks. As it didn't complete the full deployment with the Air Wing (CVW-8) and US Carrier (USS George H.W. Bush).

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2019, 12:24
by weasel1962
Corsair1963 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:The LHDs' standard complement is 6 AV-8Bs. It can operate as many as 20 AV-8Bs in the sea control role which is something that has been going on since the 1980s. Harriers of course operated from all RN aircraft carriers. Did the USN ever felt the need for a USN harrier sqn?

Now with the introduction of the F-35B,

The LHDs' standard complement is 6 F-35Bs. It can operate as many as 20 F-35Bs in the sea control role. F-35Bs of course operates from all RN aircraft carriers.

Everything has now changed.....


LHA/LHD did usually operate a flight of 6 Harriers. (from a squadron of 16) Yet, rarely operated many more....Nor, was the Sea Control Concept ever adopted....Regardless, it isn't the same thing that the USN is developing today for the F-35B. Two different animals...


We seem to be living in different worlds again. Source pls.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2019, 12:25
by weasel1962
Corsair1963 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:US squadron on UK carriers? Carrier sharing is so new, they've only been doing it for 70+ years.
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item ... /205152271

and if anyone thinks its only world wars...
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item ... /205163850



Your confusing "cross decking" we being regularly deployed as part of an Air Wing. The latter has rarely happen...the French did send a single squadron of Rafales (12) and one Hawkeye. When the Charles De Gaulle was in refit a couple years back. Yet, even then just a few weeks. As it didn't complete the full deployment with the Air Wing (CVW-8) and US Carrier (USS George H.W. Bush).


I did not know lending an aircraft carrier is called cross decking. We learn something new everyday.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2019, 18:52
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Yeah, there is no reason for the USN to acquire the F-35B........ :roll:

There's nothing in that article, that suggested the USN buying F-35Bs would be a better course of action, than buying more F-35Cs. No MEU is going to do without aircraft availability, due to other squadrons conducting joint operations with the Royal Navy. Even if both British carriers were deployed with USMC jets, that's 2 squadrons out of 340 F-35Bs they're buying.



HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF??? "I HAVE NEVER SUGGESTED OR EVEN IMPLIED THE USN SHOULD REPLACE F-35C'S WITH F-35B'S.......

:roll: :roll: :roll:

In addition the USMC doesn't have an "infinite" number of F-35B's. Yet, has more and more commitments by the day...from the USN in the new role as Mini Aircraft Carriers. To Japanese and British Aircraft Carriers. (i.e. Izumo and Queen Elizabeth Classes) So, please tell us MEU's will always have enough aircraft availability???

That's not the point I'm making, nor did I suggest you'd made that argument. The point that I AM making, is that the USN doesn't need any F-35Bs. There is no scenario where that makes any sense, just as there is no scenario where the USMC is going to be short of F-35Bs because of a squadron being deployed on a British carrier. There are currently 7 MEUs. 3 East Coast, 3 West Coast, and 1 in Japan. Till the F-35B, MEUs deployed with 6 AV-8B in support. If we go with the higher number of 13 per MEU, that's still only 91 aircraft if all 7 were simultaneously deployed. Even if we go with 20 aircraft per MEU, that's only 140 aircraft. All 7 MEUs could be deployed with 20 aircraft, both British carriers, and the Japanese carrier, and there'd still be half the F-35B fleet left over.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 01:01
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:
That's not the point I'm making, nor did I suggest you'd made that argument. The point that I AM making, is that the USN doesn't need any F-35Bs. There is no scenario where that makes any sense, just as there is no scenario where the USMC is going to be short of F-35Bs because of a squadron being deployed on a British carrier. There are currently 7 MEUs. 3 East Coast, 3 West Coast, and 1 in Japan. Till the F-35B, MEUs deployed with 6 AV-8B in support. If we go with the higher number of 13 per MEU, that's still only 91 aircraft if all 7 were simultaneously deployed. Even if we go with 20 aircraft per MEU, that's only 140 aircraft. All 7 MEUs could be deployed with 20 aircraft, both British carriers, and the Japanese carrier, and there'd still be half the F-35B fleet left over.



If, there is no case for USN F-35B's. Then clearly there is no case for USMC F-35C's either! Are you stating that USMC F-35C's should be given to the USN??? While, taking USMC aircraft from the decks of USN Navy Aircraft Carriers (CVN) altogether???

Nor, does your numbers add up that the USMC would have "enough" F-35B's to go around either. As in a actual conflict the demands would be nothing short of extreme. This is "exasperated" by the need to provide US F-35B's to allies like the Japan, Italy, Spain, and UK. Which, don't have enough to fill their decks and with no to little spares to support attrition. Good example is Italy with 30 (total) F-35B's split between Navy and Air Force. While, Spain and Australia don't have F-35B's at all.

Sure in peace time your average LHA/LHD would likely operate with ~ dozen F-35B's. Yet, that number would boom in any conflict. As surely the USMC would want to move great numbers of F-35B's to austere runways. To support troop movements going ashore.

The core of the issue here is USMC F-35B's need to focus on their "Core Mission". That is to support MEU's. Adding new roles like Mini-Carriers and supporting Allied Carriers. Takes them away from that....



Issue here is USMC F-35B's that should be 100% dedicated to supporting the MEU's.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 01:07
by spazsinbad
'Corsair1963' said above: "...Australia don't have F-35B's at all...." SHIRLEY you exaggerate. Our ADF/RAN particularly does not EVEN WANT any F-35Bs to CROSS DECK on our two LHDs. Did you forget that? RAAF does not want any F-35Bs either.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 01:52
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:'Corsair1963' said above: "...Australia don't have F-35B's at all...." SHIRLEY you exaggerate. Our ADF/RAN particularly does not EVEN WANT any F-35Bs to CROSS DECK on our two LHDs. Did you forget that? RAAF does not want any F-35Bs either.



Things change all the time....... :wink:


Honestly, few would be surprised. If, Australia acquires the F-35B at some point in the future.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 01:53
by weasel1962
Corsair1963 wrote:Then clearly there is no case for USMC F-35C's either!


having to repeat 70+ years of naval tradition, the fight for tacair priority from CVs etc....Tradition! (in Topol's deepest voice!)

To be fair to the USMC, there were certain sections that resisted the C for a purely B force in the USMC.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 01:56
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:




If, there is no case for USN F-35B's. Then clearly there is no case for USMC F-35C's either! Are you stating that USMC F-35C's should be given to the USN??? While, taking USMC aircraft from the decks of USN Navy Aircraft Carriers (CVN) altogether???


That's an entirely different argument. Whether or not it makes sense for the USMC to operate Cs off of CVNs has no bearing on whether the USN should buy Bs.

Nor, does your numbers add up that the USMC would have "enough" F-35B's to go around either. As in a actual conflict the demands would be nothing short of extreme. This is "exasperated" by the need to provide US F-35B's to allies like the Japan, Italy, Spain, and UK. Which, don't have enough to fill their decks and with no to little spares to support attrition. Good example is Italy with 30 (total) F-35B's split between Navy and Air Force. While, Spain and Australia don't have F-35B's at all.


My numbers absolutely add up. There have been no talks whatsoever for USMC F-35Bs to deploy on any ships other than the 2 British carriers (which most likely wouldn't both be deployed simultaneously). Any USMC jets operating off other allied ships, would be supporting MEUs, as part of the EABO/distributed lethality concept. Not going on unrelated cruises. At most, you'd have 4 MEUs in a given theater, and even that's not for certain, as you need to be able to rotate forces.


Sure in peace time your average LHA/LHD would likely operate with ~ dozen F-35B's. Yet, that number would boom in any conflict. As surely the USMC would want to move great numbers of F-35B's to austere runways. To support troop movements going ashore.

The core of the issue here is USMC F-35B's need to focus on their "Core Mission". That is to support MEU's. Adding new roles like Mini-Carriers and supporting Allied Carriers. Takes them away from that....

Issue here is USMC F-35B's that should be 100% dedicated to supporting the MEU's.


LHAs wouldn't be supporting CVNs. They'd be providing air support for MEUs. Only 2 ships are designed as primarily aviation oriented, so the other ships won't be carrying 20 jets. They may carry 10 to 13, at the expense of helicopters. There hasn't been a shift in the core mission. The only shift has been in how the core mission is accomplished. Like I said before, there's never going to be a mission where F-35Bs aren't available, because they're on someone else's ship, in another part of world.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 02:10
by weasel1962
The F-35B replaces both USMC F-18s (which doesn't operate on LHDs) and AV-8Bs (which do). No surprise why there would be an excess of Bs for LHDs.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 02:17
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:
That's an entirely different argument. Whether or not it makes sense for the USMC to operate Cs off of CVNs has no bearing on whether the USN should buy Bs.

Not at all....you claim no case for USN F-35B's. Yet, disregard that USMC F-35C's already operate from USN Carriers. So, ok for USMC to operate F-35C from Navy Ships in a Navy Role. Yet, for some reason the US Navy can't operate F-35B's in a "Navy Role". I think that is an "Oxymoron" or close to it....

My numbers absolutely add up. There have been no talks whatsoever for USMC F-35Bs to deploy on any ships other than the 2 British carriers (which most likely wouldn't both be deployed simultaneously). Any USMC jets operating off other allied ships, would be supporting MEUs, as part of the EABO/distributed lethality concept. Not going on unrelated cruises. At most, you'd have 4 MEUs in a given theater, and even that's not for certain, as you need to be able to rotate forces.

Really.....

USMC to Fly First F-35B from Japan’s Izumo-class Aircraft Carriers

U.S. Marine Corps' F-35B STOVL fighters will be the first fixed wing aircraft to fly from Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) Izumo-class "helicopter destroyers", following the conversion of both JS Izumo and JS Kaga into aircraft carriers.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -carriers/


.....and your "numbers' don't remotely add up in the real world. As you don't add many of the variables. (attrition, forward deployed - austere runways, allied commitments, etc. etc.)

LHAs wouldn't be supporting CVNs. They'd be providing air support for MEUs. Only 2 ships are designed as primarily aviation oriented, so the other ships won't be carrying 20 jets. They may carry 10 to 13, at the expense of helicopters. There hasn't been a shift in the core mission. The only shift has been in how the core mission is accomplished. Like I said before, there's never going to be a mission where F-35Bs aren't available, because they're on someone else's ship, in another part of world.


The USN hasn't said that only the USS America and USS Tripoli will be used in the role of Mini- Carrier. Of course they're better suited in some respects.

Sounds like we will have to agree to disagree on this one...

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 02:20
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:The F-35B replaces both USMC F-18s (which doesn't operate on LHDs) and AV-8Bs (which do). No surprise why there would be an excess of Bs for LHDs.



In a real conflict against a near peer threat. They would need everyone and then some.... :shock:

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 03:04
by steve2267
wrightwing wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:My numbers absolutely add up. There have been no talks whatsoever for USMC F-35Bs to deploy on any ships other than the 2 British carriers (which most likely wouldn't both be deployed simultaneously). Any USMC jets operating off other allied ships, would be supporting MEUs, as part of the EABO/distributed lethality concept. Not going on unrelated cruises. At most, you'd have 4 MEUs in a given theater, and even that's not for certain, as you need to be able to rotate forces.


Minor quibble: I believe the Japanese have discussed, and possibly requested from the USMC, that USMC Killer Bees fly off their new Lightning carrier (or whatever they're calling it -- I forget) when they first get it up and running.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 03:20
by quicksilver
The Japanese haven’t operated fast jets from ships, ever. The request is not to use USMC jets for operational deployment, it is to help them learn how to operate Bs on the ship. They want some of that ‘learning‘ to occur before their own jets show up.

This thread has gone ‘full interweb’ with all kinds of goofy ideas that have their basis in substantial misunderstanding and/or fantasy.

Good luck sorting it out.

Corsair, you don’t know what you’re talking about. None of these concepts are new; the difference is a new enabling element — the F-35B and all that its capabilities represent both tactically and at the operational level of war.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 03:39
by Corsair1963
quicksilver wrote:The Japanese haven’t operated fast jets from ships, ever. The request is not to use USMC jets for operational deployment, it is to help them learn how to operate Bs on the ship. They want some of that ‘learning‘ to occur before their own jets show up.

This thread has gone ‘full interweb’ with all kinds of goofy ideas that have their basis in substantial misunderstanding and/or fantasy.

Good luck sorting it out.

Corsair, you don’t know what you’re talking about.


Clearly, more than you....

1.) There is a need for additional US F-35B's. (with existing and future commitments)

2.) The Marines main focus is providing direct Air Support for the troops going ashore. Not projecting power in Blue Water Operations or providing F-35B's to Allied Aircraft Carriers. (the latter is a navy mission)

3.) These additional F-35B's would have a maritime role. So, if not operated by the USMC. Then the USN would be best suited to take over the role....

Simple and well established facts......

:doh:

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 03:45
by quicksilver
Internet fantasy.

“There is a need for additional US F-35B's. (with existing and future commitments)”

According to whom? You don’t even know USMC force structure nor how that force structure would be equipped going forward. But go ahead — look those up and get back to us.

“The Marines main focus is providing direct Air Support for the troops going ashore.”

Look up the ‘Six Functions of Marine Aviation.” And, if they’re going to be used in new ways, they will be trained toward those ends before they deploy. The Jedis at Fallon and Yuma will be involved.

“These additional F-35B's would have a maritime role.”

According to you. In reality, they will have many roles. As I and others have pointed out to you, the Navy’s not gonna spend billions on capabilities that USMC units already possess and can provide at a cost of only additional training.

Even Rogoway gets it. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8 ... ith-f-35bs

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 04:12
by wrightwing
Corsair1963 wrote:

The USN hasn't said that only the USS America and USS Tripoli will be used in the role of Mini- Carrier. Of course they're better suited in some respects.

Sounds like we will have to agree to disagree on this one...

The USMC will be acquiring enough F-35Bs to support 7 MEUs and every proposed allied carrier/amphibious assault ship, with a large margin to spare. There's absolutely no military necessity for Navy F-35Bs. Like I said before, if they wanted to buy more Cs and have more on each carrier, that would make sense. Bs, not so much.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 04:26
by weasel1962
quicksilver wrote:This thread has gone ‘full interweb’ with all kinds of goofy ideas that have their basis in substantial misunderstanding and/or fantasy.

Good luck sorting it out.


Easy if sorted by poster. No luck required.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 04:31
by Corsair1963
wrightwing wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:

The USN hasn't said that only the USS America and USS Tripoli will be used in the role of Mini- Carrier. Of course they're better suited in some respects.

Sounds like we will have to agree to disagree on this one...

The USMC will be acquiring enough F-35Bs to support 7 MEUs and every proposed allied carrier/amphibious assault ship, with a large margin to spare. There's absolutely no military necessity for Navy F-35Bs. Like I said before, if they wanted to buy more Cs and have more on each carrier, that would make sense. Bs, not so much.



I support acquiring as many F-35C's for the CVN's as possible. Personally, I think we need two 12 aircraft squadrons per airwing between now and 2030. After that increase to 3-4. That is until the new F/A-XX enters service...

As for the F-35B we will have to agree to disagree....

Respectfully

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 05:52
by madrat
quicksilver talks about interweb fantasy and then conjures up how something doesn't exist when there was never an argument there was or it did exist. The guy making the point was pretty clear it was speculation on how it could.

He came at me sideways suggesting a pragmatic way to buy more C models for our carriers. He was 'quick' to say what I did not actually say. But let him have his day in the sun. Ignore facts like how T-45A doesn't support his argument that an aircraft not made for carriers is pointless to use to train naval aviators...

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 06:23
by weasel1962
madrat wrote:quicksilver talks about interweb fantasy and then conjures up how something doesn't exist when there was never an argument there was or it did exist. The guy making the point was pretty clear it was speculation on how it could.

He came at me sideways suggesting a pragmatic way to buy more C models for our carriers. He was 'quick' to say what I did not actually say. But let him have his day in the sun. Ignore facts like how T-45A doesn't support his argument that an aircraft not made for carriers is pointless to use to train naval aviators...


Not sure whether QS was referring to you since your last post on the subject was like several pages back. In terms of A for navy training, its not necessary because its easier (and cheaper) to just use simulators. Simulators not just create different scenarios which can't be recreated on the actual plane, it reduces the need to be in the actual plane and hence less time spent.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/pr ... stems.html

A single simulator supports training for all variants...

Each simulator costs less than $10m, can run 24/7, doesn't need fuel and doesn't crash. Even if A works as a trainer, the simulator is a better option.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 06:34
by Corsair1963
madrat wrote:quicksilver talks about interweb fantasy and then conjures up how something doesn't exist when there was never an argument there was or it did exist. The guy making the point was pretty clear it was speculation on how it could.

He came at me sideways suggesting a pragmatic way to buy more C models for our carriers. He was 'quick' to say what I did not actually say. But let him have his day in the sun. Ignore facts like how T-45A doesn't support his argument that an aircraft not made for carriers is pointless to use to train naval aviators...




Honestly, I was just speculating and making a case for USN F-35B's. Why some have to get their underwear in a knot is beyond me?

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 07:03
by weasel1962
Each simulator costs less than $10m, can run 24/7, doesn't need fuel and doesn't crash. Even if A works as a trainer, the simulator is a better option.


Catering to the level of some readership, thought I better also clarify the part about crash, which in a simulator, a crash can of course occur virtually. The above being a reference to a physical fighter airplane crash.

Also just in case its relevant, I plead the fifth on whether underwear is applicable to weasels...

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 10:11
by spazsinbad
'madrat' said above: "...Ignore facts like how T-45A doesn't support his argument that an aircraft not made for carriers is pointless to use to train naval aviators..."

QUE? T-45A/C info from USN:
T-45A Goshawk training aircraft - Description
The T-45 Goshawk is a tandem-seat, carrier capable, jet trainer whose mission is to train Navy & Marine Corps pilots.

Features
The T-45 aircraft, the Navy version of the British Aerospace Hawk aircraft, was designed for intermediate and advanced portions of the Navy/Marine Corps pilot training program for jet carrier aviation and tactical strike missions. The T-45 Goshawk replaced the T-2C Buckeye and the TA-4J Skyhawk with an integrated training system that included the aircraft, operations and instrument fighter simulators, academics and training integration system. There were two versions of T-45 aircraft, the T-45A and T-45C derivatives. The T-45A, which became operational in 1991, contained an analog design cockpit and the T-45C was built around a digital cockpit design. All T-45A's have undergone the Required Avionics Modernization Program (RAMP) bringing all to a T-45C configuration…."

Photo: "040417-N-4565G-001 Atlantic Ocean (Apr. 17, 2004) - Lt.j.g. Julin Rosemand, assigned to Fixed Wing Training Squadron One (VT-1), completes a successful landing in a T-45C Goshawk aboard USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67). VT-1 is going through Carrier Qualifications (CQ) as Kennedy is completing her final training prior to a scheduled upcoming deployment. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate Airman Tommy Gilligan." https://www.navy.mil/management/photodb ... 5G-001.jpg (220Kb)


Source: https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_disp ... =2000&ct=1

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 10:29
by weasel1962
If I read Madrat's contention correctly, it is that if USN can use T-45A for carrier training, why can't they use the F-35A, in which case he proposes 2 squadrons worth. No one is questioning that the T-45 is not used by the navy.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 10:32
by spazsinbad
weasel1962 wrote:If I read Madrat's contention correctly, it is that if USN can use T-45A for carrier training, why can't they use the F-35A, in which case he proposes 2 squadrons worth. No one is questioning that the T-45 is not used by the navy.

Someone has their wires crossed methinks. The original RAF Hawk trainer was heavily modified to become the T-45A and carrier capable. So in some universe we may claim the F-35A was HEAVILY MODIFIED to become the F-35C carrier capable?

More blahblahblah about HAWKs 'n GosHAWKS compared to quotes below here: https://www.fighter-planes.com/info/hawk.htm & 'seven years of modifications later': https://www.aeroresource.co.uk/operatio ... c-goshawk/
Historical Snapshot - T-45 Goshawk Trainer

"In 1978, McDonnell Douglas and British Aerospace developed the T-45A Goshawk, a carrier-suitable version of the British Aerospace Hawk. The first Hawk, which flew Aug. 21, 1974, was established as the Royal Air Force principal jet trainer and served the U.S. and European air forces.

The Navy awarded the T45 Training Systems contract to the McDonnell Douglas and British Aerospace team in November 1981, with McDonnell as the prime contractor. McDonnell and British Aerospace collaborated on significant modifications to make the basic Hawk design aircraft carrier suitable as the T-45A…"

Source: https://www.boeing.com/history/products ... ainer.page

HAWK Modifications required to produce a T-45A outlined here:
Boeing/BAE Systems T-45 Goshawk
27 Jun 2016 admin aeroflight

"...Changes from the standard export Hawk Mk 60 comprised a deeper profile forward fuselage to accommodate a new stronger twin-wheel nose landing gear, with catapult launch bar and improved nosewheel steering; new long-stroke main landing gear stressed to withstand carrier deck landings; main landing gear doors sequenced to close after wheels locked down; twin lateral perforated air brakes on the sides of the rear fuselage, in place of the single ventral air brake; a substantially strengthened airframe and intermediate engine casing; revised US Navy standard cockpit instruments and radios; On-Board Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS) and Martin Baker Mk 14 NACES ejection seats. SMURFs (Side-Mounted Under Root Fins) – small curved surfaces mounted ahead of and below each tailplane – provided a beneficial aerodynamic tweak which was soon introduced on the Hawk Mk 100 and Mk 200. The resulting aircraft was renamed ‘Goshawk’ to avoid any possible confusion with the US Army Hawk missile....

...Although the T-45 met the original VTX requirements, detailed operational flight testing and evaluation by NATC identified a number of performance and flying shortcomings which would adversely affect its ability to safely conduct day-to-day training operations. Accordingly a modification programme was put in place to rectify the perceived deficiencies. The F405-RR-400 turbofan originally fitted, (a derated version of the original 5,450 lb st (2472 kg) Adour 861 engine), was replaced by the 5,845 lb st F405-RR-401, based on the Adour 871 used in the Hawk 100 and 200. The -400 engine had been derated to meet Navy demands for fuel economy and longevity, but it was determined that more thrust was needed in the critical high drag carrier approach configuration. Full-span wing leading edge slats were added, (to improve stall characteristics), and the wing-tips squared off, while a 6-inch (0.152 m) extension to the tail fin was added, and an increased span tailplane with squared tips fitted. A single ventral fin was added in front of the arrestor hook hinge fairing. Control harmonisation was also improved, and airbrake/tailplane movement interconnected....

Source: http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/aircraft/ty ... oshawk.htm

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 20:22
by quicksilver
As spaz’ article(s) point out, the T-45 is a very different aircraft than the aircraft from which it descended. The original T-45 design was significantly mod’d from the BAE Hawk, and essentially failed its first round of carrier suit’y testing and had to be extensively modified — again. One can see its lineage but it is a very different jet than its ancestor, and the Navy would never deprive young pilots from routine exposure and development of those skills that set them apart from their land-based brethren. I (like most of my colleagues — both USN and USMC) was already pretty good at flying the ball by the time I got to initial FCLPs because I already had dozens of passes in the jet(s), accumulated at the end of every other sortie I had flown up to that point —whether it was Nav, or A-G or BFM or whatever. Save some money in procurement and short-sheet pilot training? Notta chance.

‘Navy’ F-35Bs? They would rather eat raw chicken; that’s how strong the institutional aversion is to that idea amongst Tailhookers. It’s also a zero-sum budget environment; one ‘Navy’ F-35B squadron (about $1B for starters) would come at the expense of $1B for other stuff. And why spend Navy money on the idea when the Marines are already doing it in numbers that will more than fulfill the notional requirements for such a capability?

Lotsa ideas look good until they have to emerge into the often harsh light of reality. If we want the discussions here to be informed by reality (unlike other sites), we should not fairy-dust inconvenient truths.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2019, 21:01
by quicksilver
There’s also been some references to command and organizational relationships afloat that are at odds with the reality. Few things can be more contentious than ‘command authorities’ and the relationships between organizations and individuals with command authorities conferred.

Here’s a couple references; a lot to digest but pay particular attention to adcon, opcon, and tacon. Also, ‘supporting’ and ‘supported’ relationships. Did not find the USN ref but will look some more.

https://www.marines.mil/portals/1/Publi ... 121918-920

https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/ ... nships.pdf

https://www.jag.navy.mil/distrib/instru ... imeOps.pdf

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2019, 02:36
by weasel1962
quicksilver wrote:As spaz’ article(s) point out, the T-45 is a very different aircraft than the aircraft from which it descended.


In summary, the equivalent navalized version of the F-35A is the F-35C.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2019, 02:45
by spazsinbad
weasel1962 wrote:
quicksilver wrote:As spaz’ article(s) point out, the T-45 is a very different aircraft than the aircraft from which it descended.

In summary, the equivalent navalized version of the F-35A is the F-35C.

Bin dere Dun dat: [previous page this thread]
"Someone has their wires crossed methinks. The original RAF Hawk trainer was heavily modified to become the T-45A and carrier capable. So in some universe we may claim the F-35A was HEAVILY MODIFIED to become the F-35C carrier capable?…" viewtopic.php?f=61&t=56231&p=429042&hilit=methinks#p429042

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2019, 03:05
by weasel1962
In summary, the equivalent navalized version of the F-35A is the F-35C, which Spaz has already pointed out. :notworthy:

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2019, 07:06
by madrat
Several years ago spaz answered why the B model would hinder CATOBAR operations on a carrier, not help increase operational tempo. The B would never add anything to what can already be done on a carrier. And without the support of the carrier aircraft already on the big deck, it doesn't make much sense to disperse B's where you have helicopter decks because then you lose the use of the helicopters.
weasel1962 wrote:If I read Madrat's contention correctly, it is that if USN can use T-45A for carrier training, why can't they use the F-35A, in which case he proposes 2 squadrons worth. No one is questioning that the T-45 is not used by the navy.

Actually using F-35A for carrier landing was never my proposal. I suggested learning to fly F-35 could be done in an A model and then specialize to carrier qualifications in the C. Quicksilver was the one suggesting I said land an A on a carrier. Your still have to learn approaches using the navigational aids prior to going out to sea. That can easily be done on land bases using A models. When you can buy 3 or more A for every pair of C models, it makes sense to utilize the lower operational costs. That leaves more money to buy C models for the carriers.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2019, 08:06
by spazsinbad
'madrat' said above: "...Your still have to learn approaches using the navigational aids prior to going out to sea. That can easily be done on land bases using A models...." This may be true in the case of INSTRUMENT approaches but NOT THE FINAL LEG - the CARRIER APPROACH (olden slang: "MEATBALL LINEUP and Airspeed [Optimum Angle of Attack"]). What concerns NAVAL AVIATORS is flying EVERY APPROACH to a no flare touchdown. Can this be done in an F-35A? Can FCLP be conducted in an F-35A? Not only that but there are flying differences with the F-35 variants which probably indicates to most pilots - fly the friendly skies with the F-35C and the F-35C in the simulator if one is to be an F-35C pilot.

Your first paragraph is incorrect methinks. Someone else has explained whatever it is you cite. "Several years ago spaz answered why the B model would hinder CATOBAR operations on a carrier, not help increase operational tempo...." I could probably argue the reverse but would not dare. Why? Because I don't have enough knowledge of CVN/STOVL ops.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2019, 09:03
by quicksilver
“I suggested learning to fly F-35 could be done in an A model and then specialize to carrier qualifications in the C. Quicksilver was the one suggesting I said land an A on a carrier.”

No. What I pointed out was that you can’t fly an A to a no-flare landing ashore, any more than one can do so at-sea. (As spaz notes above). One would therefore lose exposure to all the (substantial) ball flying that goes on at the end of every training flight one has before the first FCLP ever starts. Do you understand how no-flare landings are different from flared landings? Do you understand that ‘ball’ (fresnel lens) flying and non-flare touch-and-go landings are practiced (multiple passes) at the end of almost every trading sortie one flies, whether it be Nav, or Air-to-Ground, or BFM, whatever?

The A and the C also ‘handle’ (respond to ones inputs) differently. Some of it is nuanced, some of it is more pronounced; all of it is vital exposure because in some circumstances, knowing those differences allows you to avoid the loss of the jet and/or your own hide. Your idea would kind of be like qualifying for an Indy car race in one car and then be handed a different car on race day — cockpit looks the same, but you can’t adjust how it handles.

“...it makes sense to utilize the lower operational costs.”

If you’re a bean-counter it might.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2019, 09:11
by quicksilver
“And without the support of the carrier aircraft already on the big deck, it doesn't make much sense to disperse B's where you have helicopter decks because then you lose the use of the helicopters.“

Helps us understand what you mean here, because that statement doesn’t add-up right.

“...the B model would hinder CATOBAR operations on a carrier...”

Debatable...but not worth re-examining. Have heard the story face-to-face many times. Saw some of the briefs in my previous life. But I also heard how the B was going to blow sailors and Marines overboard, and melt flight decks. I also read the after-action report from the FDR many, many years ago, which suggested otherwise.

However, once again, the intrepid Tyler Rogoway found it worthy of writing about —

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-t ... 1692022146

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2019, 09:57
by weasel1962
madrat wrote:Actually using F-35A for carrier landing was never my proposal. I suggested learning to fly F-35 could be done in an A model and then specialize to carrier qualifications in the C. Quicksilver was the one suggesting I said land an A on a carrier. Your still have to learn approaches using the navigational aids prior to going out to sea. That can easily be done on land bases using A models. When you can buy 3 or more A for every pair of C models, it makes sense to utilize the lower operational costs. That leaves more money to buy C models for the carriers.


...or you can just buy simulators which is what the navy has done, in this case 8 simulators for the cost of every engineless A. Training is now 50-50 on simulators to actual flight.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2019, 17:37
by blindpilot
madrat wrote:... Actually using F-35A for carrier landing was never my proposal. I suggested learning to fly F-35 could be done in an A model and then specialize to carrier qualifications in the C. ... it makes sense to utilize the lower operational costs. That leaves more money to buy C models for the carriers.


While it could be argued that the Navy has gone to the extreme replacing F-14, A-7, F-18A/C, KA-6, E=6, S-3 etc. or half a dozen types being replaced by the Super Hornet across the board, it is worth examining why they did so. "Lower operational costs," (especially on a carrier, or supporting carrier wings,) is misleading..., as even a cheap cost is additive when you address spares, maintenance personnel/training. It simply can be cheaper to maintain one type, no matter how expensive that type might be.

I would propose that for this reason, even if ... and I 'm not sure we can say this ..., even if the basic training on the A could transfer to C operations, it is not going to save any money, but in fact would cost more. I would propose that even if you offloaded the training to the Air Force, which the Navy would not do, laison and TDY costs would likely offset any savings.

Thus in general trying to shove a square peg into a round hole rarely works out, certainly not when it comes to $$$$.

MHO,
BP

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2019, 19:23
by steve2267
In my opinion, weasel has already summed up the answer quite well:

weasel1962 wrote:...or you can just buy simulators which is what the navy has done, in this case 8 simulators for the cost of every engineless A. Training is now 50-50 on simulators to actual flight.


By the time an F-35 pilot steps to the jet for the first time, (s)he already knows how to fly it. They learned how in a simulator -- they had to, because the F-35, as we all know, is not dual seat... there IS NO SEAT for an instructor.

So what is to be gained by a nasal radiator piloting an Aye model? Nothing. The savings have already been realized in the simulators purchased; a decision made by the JSF program long ago.

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2019, 19:26
by quicksilver
steve2267 wrote:In my opinion, weasel has already summed up the answer quite well:

weasel1962 wrote:...or you can just buy simulators which is what the navy has done, in this case 8 simulators for the cost of every engineless A. Training is now 50-50 on simulators to actual flight.


By the time an F-35 pilot steps to the jet for the first time, (s)he already knows how to fly it. They learned how in a simulator -- they had to, because the F-35, as we all know, is not dual seat... there IS NO SEAT for an instructor.

So what is to be gained by a nasal radiator piloting an Aye model? Nothing. The savings have already been realized in the simulators purchased; a decision made by the JSF program long ago.


x2

Re: F-35B for USN???

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2019, 03:11
by spazsinbad
This quotable quote has been quoted before I guess - but it is a doozy indeedy: http://www.navy.mil/ah_online/ussford/
Introducing Gerald R. Ford Class
...Ford will be capable of carrying the Navy’s most advanced aircraft, such as the F-35C Lightning II; F/A-18E/F Super Hornet; E-2D Advanced Hawkeye; EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft; MH-60R/S helicopters and unmanned air vehicles. Adding to its versatility, Ford will also be able to recover and launch various Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft flown by the United States Marine Corps. Finally, the design margins built into the ship will allow for integration of future manned and unmanned aircraft with minimal ship alterations...."