F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

Status
Not open for further replies.

JWCook

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
^wow, interesting site there, Lockheed is getting really worried about the F35, given they are asking for members of the public to post their support:

Statement of Support – F-35 Lightning II Website

I think you'll find non US supporters are locked out of the support statement... :eek:nfloorl:

I'm sure there will be a International Partner Version Delta System version soon - International JSF support statement (lite).

Cheers
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I think you'll find non US supporters are locked out of the support statement... :eek:nfloorl:
there are morons who are unswerving supporters of all platforms - even Typhoon has them.

interesting to note that the JSF flyaway price to Japan (July 25) is still touted as being close to late Block F16's or Superhornets...

but that doesn't stop the regular internet tools saying that they'll cost as much as a B2 by the time they're in service.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Whats wrong with Typhoon? If I remember correctly you used to be a fan....
nothing wrong with the typhoon at all, and I'm still a fan...

in a world where budgets weren't tight and where we could mitigate against platform risk by running two of type, it would be my second platform of choice.

but in a world where we are wanting to have a single platform solution, and one that is easier to integrate into our future force construct (which includes our 2030 purple vision), it's not an easy fit.

I'd rather have Typhoons than Shornets but thats because of a number of other issues. Unfort Typhoon also doesn't come in a Growler equiv, so the US option is a whole lot more attractive on overall force capability.
 

GelbOne

New Member
nothing wrong with the typhoon at all, and I'm still a fan...

in a world where budgets weren't tight and where we could mitigate against platform risk by running two of type, it would be my second platform of choice.

but in a world where we are wanting to have a single platform solution, and one that is easier to integrate into our future force construct (which includes our 2030 purple vision), it's not an easy fit.

I'd rather have Typhoons than Shornets but thats because of a number of other issues. Unfort Typhoon also doesn't come in a Growler equiv, so the US option is a whole lot more attractive on overall force capability.
Hornets are respectable overall, but Eurofighter has offered a Thrust-vectoring upgrade package for new-block Typhoons (at least, it has for the Indian MMRCA competition...)

the problem with the JSF is that its target customer group is the group of countries which wanted to buy the F-22 but couldn't because of the Military-Secret trade ban. Primarily, Japan, Australia, and Israel. I guess they're worried about getting a bastardized version of F-22 tech and F-16 combat role.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
the problem with the JSF is that its target customer group is the group of countries which wanted to buy the F-22 but couldn't because of the Military-Secret trade ban. Primarily, Japan, Australia, and Israel. I guess they're worried about getting a bastardized version of F-22 tech and F-16 combat role.
I attended the military conference in 2007 where John Ashcroft point blank stated if the Aust Govt wanted F-22 the US Govt would favourably support it and seek carriage of the issue through Congress.

It's an urban myrth that Australia wanted the F-22, it was rejected by RAAF when they were doing force analysis, it was not seen as providing force balance or benefit. It was used as a baseline for capability development definition issues, but it was not under consideration despite all the moronic press claims and agendas pushed by the usual media stalkers in australia

The ITARS issues around F-22 were also a canard - esp as both the UK and Australia had access to US tech way more complex at a systems level - the platform wasn't and isn't needed.

Ther mythology about bastardised F-22's is the same mythology that the trolls on other forums trot out about JSF - despite the fact that a few of us in here have attended closed hearing as well as open sessions where CAF, CDF and the ADO military scientists (as well as Burbridge) have categorically stated that the JSF australia gets is identical to what the US will have - in fact the Aust version will have slightly more comms gear.

Japans bid for F-22 was never a serious attempt and was more based around a "me too" bid by Sth Korea, they were never in the running - and neither was Israel.
 
Last edited:

wormhole

New Member
The B makes a lot of sense. Having an additional 11 decks from which to launch supersonic Gen5 fighters is a very big plus. You're never guaranteed having nice long concrete runways when and where you may need them in an emergency to operate conventional strike fighters from. If they are available, they may be farther from the action, stressing your A2A assets. Austere short runways are going to be the rule and these are fine with the B. In many instances, a small-deck carrier can get the job done and won't need to call upon a CVN. Those big decks are already under cost pressure and are wasted on low-intensity/COIN conflicts. They can be put to better use elsewhere.

America's Third Air Force: Future of the Marines
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
F-35B for the LHD's and Marines are a 'want', they are not a 'need'. In most cases, such as in CI ops, the Cobra gunships are more then enough.

The same goes for the people wanting F-35B's for the RAN, Army Tigers should be more than sufficient for most situations.
 

wormhole

New Member
To the USMC and in their envisioned concept of operations, they are a "need". Now if they are removed then inevitably the CONOPs will have to change correspondingly to one that will be degraded in capability. You'll still have a USMC but a far less capable one.
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
To the USMC and in their envisioned concept of operations, they are a "need". Now if they are removed then inevitably the CONOPs will have to change correspondingly to one that will be degraded in capability. You'll still have a USMC but a far less capable one.
I disagree, especially given the small numbers their Harrier units currently deploy in. Isnt the standard Harrier detachment a massive 6 aircraft? I think i'd prefer to have 10 Cobra's rather then 6 Harriers and 4 Cobra's, especially since they are unlikely to make it 10 F-35B's.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
To the USMC and in their envisioned concept of operations, they are a "need". Now if they are removed then inevitably the CONOPs will have to change correspondingly to one that will be degraded in capability. You'll still have a USMC but a far less capable one.
Yeah, they'll be back to where every other major land force is, including the US Army and reliant upon others for the bulk of their aerial fire support. So all the US Army has to do is change it's "CONOPS" and it too will get it's own TACAIR fleet, given the enormous CAS resources maintained by the USAF and USN are apparently unable to meet the demand?

Viewed in such a light the question becomes in this time of vastly reduced financial resources, COULD the USMC lose it's STOVL capability and yet still provide an effective capability or is the whole "CONOPS" idea so precious and essential to the US's national interest that the USMC is therefore immune to cuts? I remember a pretty strong argument not so long ago about how essential the EFV was to the USMC "CONOPS" tooo. How'd that work out?

Seems to me the USMC just had to live with the decision and crack on and find capability another way within limited resources. So it would be if the F-35B were cancelled.

USMC would still maintain integral TACAIR capability given they are acquiring -C model aircaft and an enormous amount of funding, project management, engineering and flight test resources would be freed up if the -B were to be cancelled, helping the DoD bottom line and L-M deliver the other models in a timely fashion...
 

wormhole

New Member
The F-35B is going to impact the Marines far greater than the EFV ever would. Air support/superiority/dominance is that critical. The Corps will still be getting a new cheaper water taxi to get the job done and the CONOPs really hasn't been afffected that much.. they'll just launch a bit closer to shore I believe.


You task the Marines to do a job and they come up with their vision of how they want to fight the coming wars, not how they were fought even in the recent past. The threat is changing and the Corps has thought long and hard how they can get best get the job done with least cost of lives and treasure. That vision is built around the F-35B. What really is the cost differential between buyng the C and the B in the first place? If you're going to give the USMC TacAir, why not give them what they want? Its their lives at risk. Its tyhey who'll get the blame if body bags start piling up. They've learned the some hard lessons along the way. I don't get that compromise deal with the Navy to buy both the C and the B for the Marines..purely a political maneuver to finally get the Navy to stop pushing for an All-F-35C fleet.


The Need for a Reinvigorated “Revolt of the Admirals” | SLDInfo

Joint isn’t always the answer…

Despite the great successes over the years inside of the Joint arena, there are still many challenges that loom in combat operations despite the overwhelming technological advantage that our services hold. This becomes particularly acute as we begin to examine our current and future operational capabilities in the light of service doctrinal roles.

The Marine Corps, as an example, is now actively moving toward reestablishing its amphibious and expeditionary roots aboard naval shipping. When embarked, and furthermore when employed across the spectrum of operations, what has typically been readily available in terms of Joint fire support over the last decade—as an example—will no longer be readily available. The service, then, has to be prepared to address that and other capability shortfalls as part of its doctrinal responsibilities when embarked aboard the Amphibious Readiness Group (ARG).

It is this particular operational shortfall, which has driven the Marine Corps to define a requirement for the F-35B. In addition to that particular niche, however, the F-35B is capable of not only providing V/STOL Close Air Support (CAS) like its predecessor the AV-8 Harrier, but through the benefits of technological innovation, also provides enhanced force protection through kinetic and non-kinetic fires, provides Electronic Warfare (EW) capabilities to support the MAGTF in all phases of operations, as well as providing a critical enabler for the command and control at sea or ashore.

At the same time, it also brings the attributes of a 5th Generation Fighter along with it, which simultaneously enhances the force protection umbrella for the ARG. Despite the fact that many would argue those capabilities are resident within the Joint Services as a whole, even when those capabilities are available for tasking, they may not present a solution that best serves the operational, tactical and environmental conditions on the ground.


Case and point: for the first time since Vietnam, a living Marine–Corporal Dakota Meyer–will receive the Medal of Honor for his actions in Afghanistan in September, 2009. Corporal Meyer bravely raced into the kill zone of a firefight in the Ganjgal Valley to retrieve the bodies of three Marines and a Navy Corpsman who were killed by enemy fire.

While the award is a celebration of Corporal Meyer’s ultimate bravery, what will not be listed on his Summary of Action are many of the external conditions that led to his bravery in the first place; much of which was the result of a glaringly tragic operational shortfall. In the executive summary of the investigation into the incident in the Ganjgal Valley in Afghanistan on 8 September 2009[1], it was clearly noted that Joint fire support was available within the Coalition Joint Task Force (CJTF-82) during the operation, but “Timely aviation and indirect fire support were not provided.” The report also goes on to state that repeated requests for the Quick Response Force (QRF) were not supported, and that a lack of situational awareness, decisive action and a sister services “…lack of commitment to support partner units with the same focus and emphasis as organic units” contributed to the operational failure.

While it is not my intent to minimize this tragedy to just a few sound bites or to commercialize the loss of lives, what is clear is that the Joint fire support system broke down enough to contribute to the death of three Marines, a Navy Corpsman and an Army soldier—along with several coalition Afghan Soldiers—due to lack of dedicated, responsive fire support that could have reacted when they needed it most.

An organic, USMC F-35B in the mix could have made a significant—if not life saving—difference in terms of building situational awareness for the ground force and the Tactical Operations Center (TOC) before, during and after the attack. The F-35B could also have supported through decisive action and the delivery of kinetic and non-kinetic fires, or by providing multi-spectral support prior to the operation to inhibit or deter the enemy’s desires to do harm in the objective area prior to the coalition troops ever arriving. Want to know why the Marines want and need the F-35B? Look no further than the loss of life in Ganjgal Valley.
 

GelbOne

New Member
the problem with using the F-35B as a ground attack unit is that it simply doesn't have the loiter time. With the STOVL configuration, it sacrifices the fuel which is needed to sustain vertical thrust or even fly a few extra circles around the combat zone.

I don't know who said this earlier, but a helicopter gunship with extra fuel stores could easily provide top cover for ground troops.
 

SpudmanWP

The Bunker Group
While choppers are great at some things, they do not have the range, response time, ability to carry bombs, or SA of the F-35. Any military will say the same as they all have both planes and helicopters in their forces.

If fast jets are not needed then why not have all AH-64s instead of A-10s? We need both jets and helos as they each provide unique abilities on the battlefield.
 

GelbOne

New Member
well, in the Afghanistan Theater of Operations, there aren't exactly tanks, or vehicles, or armored, hardened buildings to destroy.

as proved in Tora Bora. Bombing isn't really effective in asymmetrical warfare. Precision munitions or AGMs are useful for targeting buildings or residences, but useless when it comes to real time air support. I maintain that a heavy MG and unguided rocket/flechette pod would be more useful than a PGB in a thick firefight.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
well, in the Afghanistan Theater of Operations, there aren't exactly tanks, or vehicles, or armored, hardened buildings to destroy.

as proved in Tora Bora. Bombing isn't really effective in asymmetrical warfare. Precision munitions or AGMs are useful for targeting buildings or residences, but useless when it comes to real time air support. I maintain that a heavy MG and unguided rocket/flechette pod would be more useful than a PGB in a thick firefight.
Then why, pray tell, is the USAF having B-52's and B-1's loitering over Afghanistan, armed with PGM's to provide CAS? Why is SDB II being developed? Why has there been a JCM programme?

The reality is that PGM's are very useful to support a unit which gets engaged in a firefight. While there can be some inaccuracy even with precision munitions, fires can potentially be brought much closer to bear on hostiles, with a much lower risk of Blue on Blue kills, than 'dumb' rockets would have.

Also, while this is an infrequent mantra at DT, is exists for a reason. Consider the overall system performance and how platforms tie into that, and stop focusing so much on the capabilities of an individual platform.

-Cheers
 

t68

Well-Known Member
I hardly think it would be the end of the world for the USMC if the F35B model was cancelled, the 6 harriers currently on board a Wasp LHD will be replaced either by V22 Osprey or additional helicopters.

The USMC concept now is to build 12 pocket carriers like the America class, a modified America class with an angled deck and EMALS to launch/retrieve USMC F35C aircraft will still give the USMC TacAir if and when required, I think that a STOVL aircraft has its place within the CONOPS of the USMC, but if the project is cancelled it will not be the end of USMC TacAir just a revision on how that capability can be maintained. A pocket carrier for the USMC would still be a more than a match for most interventions with a typical air wing of 12 F35C, 8 Viper gunships, 4 CH-53K, 4 MH-60S, 10 V22 Osprey plus a fighting force of about 1600 Marine’s on board.

Looks more like the ship the RN needs; it makes more sense than a hybrid out of the Queen Elizabeth carriers and their shrinking airwings.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Cancellation of the F-35B (and switch to F-35C by the USMC) could eventually see the replacement of the Wasps with additional evolved CVNs operating in a hybrid strike / air assault role as proposed for the RNs Queen Elisabeth Class. Alternatively removal of the need to operate STO/VL could see the merging of a number of LPD, LSD etc. into perhaps classes of small and medium LHDs.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Cancellation of the F-35B (and switch to F-35C by the USMC) could eventually see the replacement of the Wasps with additional evolved CVNs operating in a hybrid strike / air assault role as proposed for the RNs Queen Elisabeth Class. Alternatively removal of the need to operate STO/VL could see the merging of a number of LPD, LSD etc. into perhaps classes of small and medium LHDs.
There are already a few foreign force planners who see LnnD as CVL's
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top