F-35B for USN???

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

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5812
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post24 Oct 2019, 02:20

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:
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2204
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post24 Oct 2019, 03:04

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.
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

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2731
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post24 Oct 2019, 03:20

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.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5812
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post24 Oct 2019, 03:39

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:
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2731
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post24 Oct 2019, 03:45

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
Last edited by quicksilver on 24 Oct 2019, 04:12, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3306
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post24 Oct 2019, 04:12

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.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1786
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post24 Oct 2019, 04:26

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.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5812
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post24 Oct 2019, 04:31

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
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2331
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post24 Oct 2019, 05:52

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...
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1786
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post24 Oct 2019, 06:23

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.
Last edited by weasel1962 on 24 Oct 2019, 06:36, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5812
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post24 Oct 2019, 06:34

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?
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1786
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post24 Oct 2019, 07:03

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...
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23466
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post24 Oct 2019, 10:11

'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
Attachments
T-45C Goshawk Arrest 040417-N-4565G-001 ED.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1786
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post24 Oct 2019, 10:29

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.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23466
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post24 Oct 2019, 10:32

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

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests