Italian AF F-35B Official Debut in Exped Proof Concept Ex

Variants for different customers or mission profiles
User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 28404
Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
Location: Australia

by spazsinbad » 31 Jul 2020, 20:45

Italian Air Force F-35B Makes Official Debut During Expeditionary Proof of Concept Exercise
31 Jul 2020 David Cenciotti

"...On Jul. 30, 2020, the Italian Air Force presented its capability to use short runways and project power on very short notice from forward operating locations as part of an “Expeditionary” PoC (Proof of Concept) held at Pantelleria, the tiny island located in the Strait of Sicily in the Mediterranean Sea, some 100 km (62 mi) southwest of Sicily and 60 km (37 mi) east of the Tunisian coast.

The exercise saw the participation of the first F-35B STOVL aircraft of the Italian Air Force, the airframe serialled MM7453/32-14: the goal of the PoC was to deploy an F-35B aircraft to the Pantelleria airport with accompanying operational/technical-logistical support, in order to demonstrate the ability of the air force to project and use the 5th generation aircraft far from home, in a semi-permissive environment, on an austere/bare runway normally not usable by other conventional aircraft and with limited Force Protection provided by the host nation....

...As part of the PoC, after performing a short landing, the F-35B was refueled on the ground directly from the KC-130J tanker aircraft using the Air Landed Aircraft Refuelling Point (a special system providing simultaneous refueling on of up to 4 aircraft by pumping fuel from the KC-130’s tanks) and was armed in a very short time before taking off again...

...[ Lt. Gen. Rosso, Italian Air Force Chief of Staff] "The ability to operate from shorter runways can allow the selection of a closer airbase and solve the problem. In terms of flexibility, just think that in Africa there are about 100 runways that have a length between 2,800 and 3,000 meters but there are 20 times as many runways between 1,000 and 1,500 meters in length. Being able to use short runways allows you to multiply your ability to deploy where needed, in a more convenient and faster way, especially closer to the area of operation. Having an aircraft that is capable of taking off from shorter runways allows incredible flexibility even in those scenarios that are currently only barely conceivable. In case of conflict, aircraft that are able to operate from shorter runways can also be dispersed to increase their survivability. This flexibility to operate from bare/austere runways or even highways makes the air power more unpredictable and represents a fundamental capability in any scenario. For this reason, after carefully studying all the scenarios and costs, the Italian Air Force has identified, as done by other air arms, a mixed fleet of F-35A and B aircraft, as the most economically convenient and effective configuration.”

When asked about the possible creation of a joint management of the F-35B fleet between the Italian Air Force and Navy, Rosso said: “This is one of the things we are discussing. I believe that a joint capability is important regardless of the machine and the systems you use. I think nobody can afford to work alone, but we have to do teamwork, because we are a single defense tool at the service of the country. Beyond what may be some controversies, as reported in the newspapers, I think there is the awareness and desire to make each one’s own competence and skills available to the country in a synergistic way. It is clear that the F-35B is an aircraft that has great flexibility and is capable of solving a series of problems or addressing a series of needs of both the Navy and, in my opinion even more, the Air Force. Being able to put together the skills and experiences that the individual Armed Forces are able to make available, respecting the tasks of each, I think is something the whole country will benefit of....

Reference: https://theaviationist.com/2020/02/26/t ... py-at-all/

Photo: "The ItAF F-35B was refueled by the KC-130J both in the air and on the ground." https://i2.wp.com/theaviationist.com/wp ... LLA-08.jpg


Source: https://theaviationist.com/2020/07/31/i ... -exercise/
Attachments
F-35BarfC-130italy.jpg


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 5319
Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
Location: Parts Unknown

by mixelflick » 05 Aug 2020, 15:39

Given the asymetrical nature of its basing and how it complicates enemy planning, more F-35B's for the US seems logical.

The question though, is whether USAF would spring for it. It would be something new, a change in mindset that would probably be most problematic - even moreso than the funding. To my knowledge, USAF has never been in the STOVL game and has no desire to be. Even if they re-tooled to have 20% of the remaining fleet be B's (300 or so), would they even know how best to use them?

Someone would have to sell them on the fact they could be used for more than CAS, that's for sure...


Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1451
Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

by jessmo112 » 06 Aug 2020, 02:29

mixelflick wrote:Given the asymetrical nature of its basing and how it complicates enemy planning, more F-35B's for the US seems logical.

The question though, is whether USAF would spring for it. It would be something new, a change in mindset that would probably be most problematic - even moreso than the funding. To my knowledge, USAF has never been in the STOVL game and has no desire to be. Even if they re-tooled to have 20% of the remaining fleet be B's (300 or so), would they even know how best to use them?

Someone would have to sell them on the fact they could be used for more than CAS, that's for sure...


If you put them in Guam or any other pacific base in HAS they would be nearly unstoppable. The Chinese could go for the airfields and Aprons, but still couldn't overfly the base because of F-35Bs on air patrols.


Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3059
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
Location: Singapore

by weasel1962 » 06 Aug 2020, 02:56

mixelflick wrote:Given the asymetrical nature of its basing and how it complicates enemy planning, more F-35B's for the US seems logical.

The question though, is whether USAF would spring for it. It would be something new, a change in mindset that would probably be most problematic - even moreso than the funding. To my knowledge, USAF has never been in the STOVL game and has no desire to be. Even if they re-tooled to have 20% of the remaining fleet be B's (300 or so), would they even know how best to use them?

Someone would have to sell them on the fact they could be used for more than CAS, that's for sure...


Flashback...
https://www.flightglobal.com/usaf-embra ... 03.article


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 5319
Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
Location: Parts Unknown

by mixelflick » 06 Aug 2020, 16:21

weasel1962 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Given the asymetrical nature of its basing and how it complicates enemy planning, more F-35B's for the US seems logical.

The question though, is whether USAF would spring for it. It would be something new, a change in mindset that would probably be most problematic - even moreso than the funding. To my knowledge, USAF has never been in the STOVL game and has no desire to be. Even if they re-tooled to have 20% of the remaining fleet be B's (300 or so), would they even know how best to use them?

Someone would have to sell them on the fact they could be used for more than CAS, that's for sure...


Flashback...
https://www.flightglobal.com/usaf-embra ... 03.article


Thanks! It makes you wonder though.... what happened? 16 years later and no STOVL in USAF service...


Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3059
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
Location: Singapore

by weasel1962 » 06 Aug 2020, 19:59

Three things happened.
1. Recognition of higher B price = need to protect A budget
2. Threat of B cancellation then.
3. Retention of A-10s as CAS platform. Argument was so skewed that many claimed Bs had too low a sortie rate vis A-10. Also McCain effect - note many here still have strong views of McCain.

https://www.airforcemag.com/1050STOVL/


Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1496
Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

by marauder2048 » 06 Aug 2020, 21:49

weasel1962 wrote:Three things happened.
1. Recognition of higher B price = need to protect A budget
2. Threat of B cancellation then.
3. Retention of A-10s as CAS platform. Argument was so skewed that many claimed Bs had too low a sortie rate vis A-10. Also McCain effect - note many here still have strong views of McCain.

https://www.airforcemag.com/1050STOVL/


I would hope that Iran being only a runway penetrator away from wrecking an Air Force base with
ballistic missiles would be strong motivator for reconsideration.


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 5319
Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
Location: Parts Unknown

by mixelflick » 07 Aug 2020, 14:42

marauder2048 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Three things happened.
1. Recognition of higher B price = need to protect A budget
2. Threat of B cancellation then.
3. Retention of A-10s as CAS platform. Argument was so skewed that many claimed Bs had too low a sortie rate vis A-10. Also McCain effect - note many here still have strong views of McCain.

https://www.airforcemag.com/1050STOVL/


I would hope that Iran being only a runway penetrator away from wrecking an Air Force base with
ballistic missiles would be strong motivator for reconsideration.


This is a really good point. The plan for that seems to be Patriot/THAAD, but what do we really know about those systems' effectiveness? Not much, outside of whatever testing they've done. I would think fielding even a small STOVL contingent of aircraft would make a lot of sense, meaning solving the problem from 2 angles vs. 1. If the worst happens, they'll be the only aircraft available to "hold off" an adversary - at least until the runways are patched. Or over-run...

A lot of eggs in one basket there...


User avatar
Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1396
Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
Location: Colorado

by blindpilot » 07 Aug 2020, 16:39

mixelflick wrote:... make a lot of sense, meaning solving the problem from 2 angles vs. 1. If the worst happens, they'll be the only aircraft available to "hold off" an adversary - at least until the runways are patched. Or over-run...

A lot of eggs in one basket there...


Sometimes we as observers get myopic tunnel vision as well. In this case thinking the issue is air frames alone.

The US does not seek to engage "with advantage" (having more flyable fighters). The goal is to dominate in an overwhelming way such that the enemy is paralyzed while being pummelled.

So while I may agree that having a squadron of STOVL out in a field would be nice, keep in mind, Also we want to eliminate/freeze their entire C&C network, chop off the head of leadership, launch from land sea and air simultaneously from every direction and turn their airfields into glass parking lots, while confusing and scattering their entire force.

Remember DS 1, in concept if not with the same tools. Tin foil strips in the power lines defeats Migs. Carpet bombing the desert shuts down missile launches. Does it turn into "Whack a mole" sometimes (see Scuds)? Yes. But it's not (all) about numbers of surviving airframes. The Russians pretty much only use their air forces to flatten cities into concrete rubble. They also can use artillery for that.

So STOVL in USAF? Sure if the cost effect balance isn't met better with foil out of a cargo plane. Just saying, broaden your vision.

MHO,
BP



Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests