F-35B for USN???

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

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2514
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post17 Oct 2019, 02:21

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.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 870
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post17 Oct 2019, 02:55

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.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6410
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post17 Oct 2019, 03:01

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:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24105
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Oct 2019, 03:14

I said 'more per year' not 'more'. The question about F-35Bs on CVNs still hangs out there for a NO WAY JOSE?
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2955
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post17 Oct 2019, 03:32

“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.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6410
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post17 Oct 2019, 03:33

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....
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2955
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post17 Oct 2019, 03:40

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.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6410
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post17 Oct 2019, 03:44

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:
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6410
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post17 Oct 2019, 03:50

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:
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2955
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post17 Oct 2019, 03:55

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...
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2955
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post17 Oct 2019, 04:09

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
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6410
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post17 Oct 2019, 04:12

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........
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6410
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post17 Oct 2019, 04:16

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:
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2498
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post17 Oct 2019, 04:29

: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?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6410
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post17 Oct 2019, 04:56

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...
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest