F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Extract from the latest insider's update on the program:-
The full scoop.
Hat, coat, door...
The Australian Minister of Defence, Senator the Honourable David Johnston said he shared Canada’s blind faith in the dumpy fighter and would buy it however expensive, late or ineffective it was. British Secretary of State for Defence Richard ‘The Hamster’ Hammond has fought hard to ensure that Britain has the minimum amount of F-35s at the maximum price. He noted that “By making sure our biggest defence contractor is making tail-planes for a US design we have ensured that Britain will never again be able to make a front-line military aircraft by itself. Following the rather mental Nimrod MRA.4, this is considered a good idea” .
Britain’s force of four F-35Bs will enter service in 2022 and will replace the Typhoon, A400M, Grob Tutor and take over the role of Joey in The Only Way is Essex.
Britain’s force of four F-35Bs will enter service in 2022 and will replace the Typhoon, A400M, Grob Tutor and take over the role of Joey in The Only Way is Essex.
Hat, coat, door...
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely it can't be clubbed exactly like a baby seal: baby seals are cute.
Perhaps clubbed like something that's uglier and helpless.
But then again, if it works closely with its friends, from arm's length, then it might do much better, especially if it's supported by ground-based and maritime helpers in the seas around to turn the tide of maneuverable, hostile but more visible adversaries.
On the third hand, why would China risk its adversaries defaulting on the debt they've issued to let them buy the F35s in the first place?
Perhaps clubbed like something that's uglier and helpless.
But then again, if it works closely with its friends, from arm's length, then it might do much better, especially if it's supported by ground-based and maritime helpers in the seas around to turn the tide of maneuverable, hostile but more visible adversaries.
On the third hand, why would China risk its adversaries defaulting on the debt they've issued to let them buy the F35s in the first place?
Oh dear....
From my mole over the water....
Man arrested for attempted transfer of F-35 data to Iran | Marine Corps Times | marinecorpstimes.com
Nice pic tho!
Man arrested for attempted transfer of F-35 data to Iran | Marine Corps Times | marinecorpstimes.com
Nice pic tho!
Damn clodhopping Feds. We had this great plan to get the Iranians to copy the F-35B. It would have set them back by decades, and these dumb Plods blew the whole thing. 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was thinking, if the Marines had not insisted on a VSTOL aircraft, say decided to put catapults on their new LPA ships.
I wonder how long ago the F35 would have come into service? Not having to put lift fans on the plane, possibly having it twin engined, surely the process would have been quicker and cheaper.
It could be argued that if the USMC was trying to catapult F35s off LHAs then the EMALS catapult system might have been sorted. Even if the Marines had had to refit all if their LHDs and LHAs to have angled decks, catapults and arrester gear, the whole program costs I do feel would have been more in line with the initial estimates for cost and time scale.
The undercurrent to this train of thought is how realistic is it for the USMC to operate F35Vs from austere fields, when just offshore is a small carrier with all the necessary support infrastructure?
I wonder how long ago the F35 would have come into service? Not having to put lift fans on the plane, possibly having it twin engined, surely the process would have been quicker and cheaper.
It could be argued that if the USMC was trying to catapult F35s off LHAs then the EMALS catapult system might have been sorted. Even if the Marines had had to refit all if their LHDs and LHAs to have angled decks, catapults and arrester gear, the whole program costs I do feel would have been more in line with the initial estimates for cost and time scale.
The undercurrent to this train of thought is how realistic is it for the USMC to operate F35Vs from austere fields, when just offshore is a small carrier with all the necessary support infrastructure?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,578
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
'PhilipG' perhaps the USMC getting back to operating in the littorals has been missed by you. Perhaps using a Sea Base is where they are at? These concepts promulgated by the USMC for several years now (rather than being seen as a second land army) has been tested in the 'Bold Alligator' series of recent exercises. Sea Base has other acronyms such as OMFTS and whatnots. But anyway searching the internet or reading (shock horror) some SLDinfo articles or even a USMC website might give you some info?
Good news for some.....if the F-35 gets cancelled.....Iran will be building them.
US: Defense Contractor Tried to Smuggle F-35 Blueprints to Iran - ABC News
US: Defense Contractor Tried to Smuggle F-35 Blueprints to Iran - ABC News
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spaz, my point was: - How important to the USMC is VSTOL?
The LHDs are as big as say FS Foche, so if designed/ re fitted appropriately they could have a catapult, EMALs as there is little steam generation capacity, with the new arresting gear.
Thus 6 F35Cs or in the meantime USMC Hornets could be embarked.
I personally think that operating an F35B from an austere base is far more of an ask than operating a Harrier from a road in Germany say. The support requirements for a stealth jet are far greater than for Harriers.
We can all recall that the USMC stated recently that only 10% of F35 flights would be VSTOL.
I reiterate if the STOVL requirement had not been there and I am in a way questioning its validity, very late etc etc, would the different JSF by now be delivering the performance and cost base it initially promised?
The LHDs are as big as say FS Foche, so if designed/ re fitted appropriately they could have a catapult, EMALs as there is little steam generation capacity, with the new arresting gear.
Thus 6 F35Cs or in the meantime USMC Hornets could be embarked.
I personally think that operating an F35B from an austere base is far more of an ask than operating a Harrier from a road in Germany say. The support requirements for a stealth jet are far greater than for Harriers.
We can all recall that the USMC stated recently that only 10% of F35 flights would be VSTOL.
I reiterate if the STOVL requirement had not been there and I am in a way questioning its validity, very late etc etc, would the different JSF by now be delivering the performance and cost base it initially promised?
IF!
If sh*t was sugar it would make your coffee taste better!
But that would not much change the difficulties with the JSF programme. Like most major engineering projects with political management, the -A and the -C have both had problems. Eliminating the -B would not have eliminated the problems of the other models.
Eliminating VSTOL at the start might probably have produced a different solution , but things like one engine, single crew (both political needs) and stealth would still have been in the requirements list. There would certainly have been a tailhook for the USN and probably the clever helmet would have been there too. There would also have been things which were not over-ridden by VSTOL and some of these would have generated extra problems.
In short VSTOL is not a sole cause of the F35's struggles. I don't even think it's a contributing one.
N
But that would not much change the difficulties with the JSF programme. Like most major engineering projects with political management, the -A and the -C have both had problems. Eliminating the -B would not have eliminated the problems of the other models.
Eliminating VSTOL at the start might probably have produced a different solution , but things like one engine, single crew (both political needs) and stealth would still have been in the requirements list. There would certainly have been a tailhook for the USN and probably the clever helmet would have been there too. There would also have been things which were not over-ridden by VSTOL and some of these would have generated extra problems.
In short VSTOL is not a sole cause of the F35's struggles. I don't even think it's a contributing one.
N
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PhilipG,
Perhaps I can help here.
The first point to understand is that putting a capable cat and trap aircraft (like F-35) on to a ship is not just a matter of laying down catapults - the arresting gear requirements are also very demanding. The ship also needs to be big, fast, and able to carry the fuel and weapons required to support the desired sortie rate. The USN's experience over the past 40 years (and it's being borne out by the UK and China, as well as France) is that a ship design under around 65,000 tons is going to struggle to deliver a meaningful (i.e USN meaningful) cat and trap capability. It's probably going to need to be nuclear powered (mainly to provide the power required at an acceptable volume without having to trunk air down and exhaust up through the ship).
Bottom line (in my view, but happy to explain further) is that LHDs would definitely not be a practicable cat and trap platform. Too small, too slow and not enough internal volume (those tank decks and dock wells take a lot of space). (By the way, EMALS requires more volume than a steam catapult - and a whole lot more electricity). The books by Norman Friedman are an excellent reference source on this complicated matter.
As I've posted before, the genesis of F-35 was a series of failed US combat aircraft programmes. The people in the Pentagon came to the conclusion that the next attempt had to be a single seat single engined aircraft, so as to contain cost. At this stage, people will be jumping in and pointing out how much the F-35 has cost, and they'll be right to do so. However, that was the idea.
The next step in the Pentagon's plan was to make sure the design stayed single seat, single engined (because the USN really wanted a twin engined aircraft) , and they did this by adding in the STOVL requirement. At the time (early 90s) and even now, there are no feasible twin engined STOVL combat designs out there. STOVL adds in a powerful discipline to keep weight down (which LM went and forgot) and lower weight keeps down size, which keeps down cost.
The USMC had been working on advanced STOVL for many many years, via various open and 'black' programmes. The Pentagon planners just took in their STOVL Strike Fighter (SSF) requirements and added them to what was becoming JAST/JSF.
My view is that if the STOVL requirement had not been added to F-35, it would have been a very different outcome - and probably more expensive than the result we see today. But I recognise that many on this thread would differ. That's fine - it's a free forum, and all the better for it.
As far as the USMC's commitment to STOVL - I'd say total. It's long been a core ambition of theirs to deliver the capability to their amphibs and also to forward bases. As Spaz pointed out, these plans are based on a lot of doctrinal development, as well as the basic fact that the Marines want their close support aircraft, well, close, and under their control. They have a collectively scarred memory of failure by other services (USAF, USN) to deliver the support when and where required, and they are not going to surrender their ability to give the marine on the ground what they need. I had the pleasure of working with them for a few years, and it's vital to realise that they are not remotely interested in 'Air Power'. Every ounce of USMC combat capability is aimed at supporting the Marine on the ground.
Again, there are plenty of people who disagree with this vision, doctrine and approach. Fine. But the USMC have, over many years, fought their corner with skill, persistence and some cunning. They know where they are going, they make their arguments consistently and clearly, and the politicians support them.
Best regards as ever
Engines
Perhaps I can help here.
The first point to understand is that putting a capable cat and trap aircraft (like F-35) on to a ship is not just a matter of laying down catapults - the arresting gear requirements are also very demanding. The ship also needs to be big, fast, and able to carry the fuel and weapons required to support the desired sortie rate. The USN's experience over the past 40 years (and it's being borne out by the UK and China, as well as France) is that a ship design under around 65,000 tons is going to struggle to deliver a meaningful (i.e USN meaningful) cat and trap capability. It's probably going to need to be nuclear powered (mainly to provide the power required at an acceptable volume without having to trunk air down and exhaust up through the ship).
Bottom line (in my view, but happy to explain further) is that LHDs would definitely not be a practicable cat and trap platform. Too small, too slow and not enough internal volume (those tank decks and dock wells take a lot of space). (By the way, EMALS requires more volume than a steam catapult - and a whole lot more electricity). The books by Norman Friedman are an excellent reference source on this complicated matter.
As I've posted before, the genesis of F-35 was a series of failed US combat aircraft programmes. The people in the Pentagon came to the conclusion that the next attempt had to be a single seat single engined aircraft, so as to contain cost. At this stage, people will be jumping in and pointing out how much the F-35 has cost, and they'll be right to do so. However, that was the idea.
The next step in the Pentagon's plan was to make sure the design stayed single seat, single engined (because the USN really wanted a twin engined aircraft) , and they did this by adding in the STOVL requirement. At the time (early 90s) and even now, there are no feasible twin engined STOVL combat designs out there. STOVL adds in a powerful discipline to keep weight down (which LM went and forgot) and lower weight keeps down size, which keeps down cost.
The USMC had been working on advanced STOVL for many many years, via various open and 'black' programmes. The Pentagon planners just took in their STOVL Strike Fighter (SSF) requirements and added them to what was becoming JAST/JSF.
My view is that if the STOVL requirement had not been added to F-35, it would have been a very different outcome - and probably more expensive than the result we see today. But I recognise that many on this thread would differ. That's fine - it's a free forum, and all the better for it.
As far as the USMC's commitment to STOVL - I'd say total. It's long been a core ambition of theirs to deliver the capability to their amphibs and also to forward bases. As Spaz pointed out, these plans are based on a lot of doctrinal development, as well as the basic fact that the Marines want their close support aircraft, well, close, and under their control. They have a collectively scarred memory of failure by other services (USAF, USN) to deliver the support when and where required, and they are not going to surrender their ability to give the marine on the ground what they need. I had the pleasure of working with them for a few years, and it's vital to realise that they are not remotely interested in 'Air Power'. Every ounce of USMC combat capability is aimed at supporting the Marine on the ground.
Again, there are plenty of people who disagree with this vision, doctrine and approach. Fine. But the USMC have, over many years, fought their corner with skill, persistence and some cunning. They know where they are going, they make their arguments consistently and clearly, and the politicians support them.
Best regards as ever
Engines
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines, as always an excellent contribution to the debate. Thanks.
You mentioned Norman Friedman. I would recommend another of his books to those who are interested. It's a short and at circa £13 well priced paperback he co-authored entitled "Innovation in Carrier Aviation". This confirms that most innovation in the immediate post war period was from Britain rather than the USA and suggests why this was the case.
Without steam catapults, the angled deck and mirror deck landing aid the USN would have found it much more difficult at that time to meet it's need to operate the large aircraft then required to carry nuclear bombs from it's carriers. The USN was unwilling to surrender this "Strategic" role to the newly formed USAF.
As you say the USMC is not interested in such broad concepts although I remain puzzled why the ski jump has remained the only significant British carrier innovation the US has not used.
Looking ahead the USMC and RN/RAF will not always share a common modus operandi for the F-35B. That will not stop a great deal of co-operation though.
l
You mentioned Norman Friedman. I would recommend another of his books to those who are interested. It's a short and at circa £13 well priced paperback he co-authored entitled "Innovation in Carrier Aviation". This confirms that most innovation in the immediate post war period was from Britain rather than the USA and suggests why this was the case.
Without steam catapults, the angled deck and mirror deck landing aid the USN would have found it much more difficult at that time to meet it's need to operate the large aircraft then required to carry nuclear bombs from it's carriers. The USN was unwilling to surrender this "Strategic" role to the newly formed USAF.
As you say the USMC is not interested in such broad concepts although I remain puzzled why the ski jump has remained the only significant British carrier innovation the US has not used.
Looking ahead the USMC and RN/RAF will not always share a common modus operandi for the F-35B. That will not stop a great deal of co-operation though.
l
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Draken,
Thanks a lot for the steer to the 'Innovation' paperback - I'll be placing an order tonight! (And glad you appreciated the post)
Like you, I've been puzzled as to why the ski jump hasn't been taken up by the USMC, but I guess it was to do with the fact that their main AV-8B operating base was ashore, coupled with their requirement for a number of spots on the L class ships for a helo assault. (I was told by a senior USMC officer that they wouldn't sacrifice a single spot for the Harriers)
That may be changing - the MV-22 will be using rolling takeoffs as standard, and I would be intrigued to see if they could get a single ramp to give both the F-35B and the V-22 decent increases in launch load. This naval aviation stuff can be interesting, can't it?
Best Regards as ever to all those who ARE interested,
Engines
Thanks a lot for the steer to the 'Innovation' paperback - I'll be placing an order tonight! (And glad you appreciated the post)
Like you, I've been puzzled as to why the ski jump hasn't been taken up by the USMC, but I guess it was to do with the fact that their main AV-8B operating base was ashore, coupled with their requirement for a number of spots on the L class ships for a helo assault. (I was told by a senior USMC officer that they wouldn't sacrifice a single spot for the Harriers)
That may be changing - the MV-22 will be using rolling takeoffs as standard, and I would be intrigued to see if they could get a single ramp to give both the F-35B and the V-22 decent increases in launch load. This naval aviation stuff can be interesting, can't it?
Best Regards as ever to all those who ARE interested,
Engines
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,578
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Some grist for the USMC non-existent skijumpmill. Plenty of USN/USAF testing of various ski jumps with various aircraft has been carried out over the years.
STOVL Air Power | The Ramps, Roads, and Speedbumps to Exploiting Maneuver Air Warfare
Major Charles R. Myers, 01 April 1996
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a527872.pdf (50 Kb)
STOVL Air Power | The Ramps, Roads, and Speedbumps to Exploiting Maneuver Air Warfare
Major Charles R. Myers, 01 April 1996
“Amphibious Ships
page 9:
page 9:
“...The skeptics insist that ramps will displace landing spots. Tests prove otherwise. On a 12 degree ski jump approximately 150 feet long, the slope gradually increases from zero up to 12 degrees at the bow. The first half of the ski jump has a slope no greater than that of an LHA during wet-well operations with the well-deck flooded – both Harriers and helicopters can land on it...." [Major Art Nalls, USMC, "Why Don't We Have Any Ski Jumps," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, November 1990, 81.]"
EMALS was demonstrated in 2011, but I think it was at NAS where the land based development has been ongoing for years.
The Navy Just Released This Video Of The F-35 Being Launched By An Electromagnetic Catapult - Business Insider
The USS Gerald Ford will have EMALS.
Engines: thanks for saving me the trouble on why we no longer build "jeep carriers" in the USN.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was lead to believe that the main reason the LHA-LHD's don't have a ski-jump was because of politics.
The NAVY basically cannot tolerate any vessel that can be seen as a direct competitor to it's big Super-Carriers.
A 40,000T+ LHD(A) with a ski-jump and a substantial VTOL/STOVL-jet fleet is a direct competitor with the large carriers and since the number of those is congressionally limited (these days 11 IIRC), the NAVY won't allow for them to exist, the LHA America class was already deemed too much of a carrier.
Fitting an extended ski-jump ala JUAN CARLOS class would be avery straightforward retrofit and by no means a limit to available deck-area, it would add enough capacity for them to be considered real aircraft carriers so we won't ever see it happening if not the military need demands it.
The NAVY basically cannot tolerate any vessel that can be seen as a direct competitor to it's big Super-Carriers.
A 40,000T+ LHD(A) with a ski-jump and a substantial VTOL/STOVL-jet fleet is a direct competitor with the large carriers and since the number of those is congressionally limited (these days 11 IIRC), the NAVY won't allow for them to exist, the LHA America class was already deemed too much of a carrier.
Fitting an extended ski-jump ala JUAN CARLOS class would be avery straightforward retrofit and by no means a limit to available deck-area, it would add enough capacity for them to be considered real aircraft carriers so we won't ever see it happening if not the military need demands it.
peter we - Negative. As already discussed here and elsewhere, previous Marine op cost estimates were based on Harrier stats. But, unlike the Harrier, the F-35B (1) lands/takes off quite normally in CTOL mode and (2) is easy to fly in STOVL mode, so STOVL will actually be done only aboard ship (small detachments, on not all deployments), when training for same, and on the Marines' once-per-war off-base operations (with cameras rolling). That's about ten per cent, or under 50 aircraft.
Should we have let that case drive so much of the JSF design? But... Marines! But... Guadalcanal! Too late now.
Engines & KB - I think the ski-jump aversion has to do with deck space. Once you add fixed-wing to the mix aboard the amphib, the last thing you want to do is give up even more helicopter spots.
Currently, the Navy, Marines and the shipbuilders are all scratching their heads about what to do with LHA-8 and subsequent ships. It appears to be agreed that the well deck has to come back, but replacing Harriers with F-35Bs, medium helos with V-22s and bringing on the bigger CH-53K places a strain on fuel capacity and other aviation spaces. Some years ago there was hope for a redesigned LHA-X, but after the Ford problems nobody wants to touch that with a ten foot pole.
So the result will be some sort of compromise that the operators will have to figure out as best they can.
Meanwhile, speaking of non-existent issues - even the brand-new America will have a restriction on F-35B operations:
SNA 2014: Heat From F-35, MV-22 Continue to Plague Big Deck Amphibs | USNI News
Should we have let that case drive so much of the JSF design? But... Marines! But... Guadalcanal! Too late now.
Engines & KB - I think the ski-jump aversion has to do with deck space. Once you add fixed-wing to the mix aboard the amphib, the last thing you want to do is give up even more helicopter spots.
Currently, the Navy, Marines and the shipbuilders are all scratching their heads about what to do with LHA-8 and subsequent ships. It appears to be agreed that the well deck has to come back, but replacing Harriers with F-35Bs, medium helos with V-22s and bringing on the bigger CH-53K places a strain on fuel capacity and other aviation spaces. Some years ago there was hope for a redesigned LHA-X, but after the Ford problems nobody wants to touch that with a ten foot pole.
So the result will be some sort of compromise that the operators will have to figure out as best they can.
Meanwhile, speaking of non-existent issues - even the brand-new America will have a restriction on F-35B operations:
SNA 2014: Heat From F-35, MV-22 Continue to Plague Big Deck Amphibs | USNI News
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,578
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
'LO' said here: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post8008313
My bold emphasis on "(it seems)". And does 'LO' have a source for "...what the Marines are saying now..."? It seems to me that 'LO' has just made that up.
Here is another journalistic viewpoint:
Marines Put F-35B Flight Costs 17 Percent Lower Than OSD 21 Aug 2013 Colin Clark
Marines Put F-35B Flight Costs 17 Percent Lower Than OSD « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
And another journo viewpoint:
Pentagon cuts F-35 operating estimate below $1 trillion: source 21 Aug 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
Pentagon cuts F-35 operating estimate below $1 trillion: source | Reuters
I guess what is crucial is what "...10 percent of the time..." means: 10% of sorties? 10% of total flight time?
My assumption is that the good generale speaks about 10% of total flight time. Already there has been a discussion on this thread I believe about 'not all F-35B landings will be vertical' with many practiced F-35B RVLs (Rolling Vertical Landings) to various available runway lengths, as well as VLs; which we seem to agree are much easier than with the Harrier. Throw in a few 'creeping landing' practices and we seem to start building up some STOVL Mode flight time for the F-35B - even when ashore. Not forgetting the STO (Short Take Off) requirements which come in many flavours apparently, depending on runway distance available, AUW, environmental conditions, etc.
The USMC plan to operate not only from luxurious golf course resort style crab airfields ashore but also from roads/damaged runways and other suitable austere locations where STOVL Mode is essential - not just from flat decks.
_________________________
Bad luck (sort of) for AMERICA eh. But anyways:
"...Some people are getting the Marine op cost story wrapped around their necks, by the way. CAPE's assumption was that 80 per cent of sorties would use STOVL, not that 80 per cent of flight time would be in STOVL, in which case the op cost per hour would be in six digits.
80 per cent is about right for the Harrier in Marine use, I suspect. (Posters here suggest that the RAF never does CTO and CL is emergency-only.) But the F-35B is a different animal because it is more comfortable in CTOL, and STOVL is more expensive than CTOL because it activates a whole bunch of extra moving parts, some of them hot and highly loaded.
So what the Marines are saying now (it seems) is that they will use STOVL only on the boat, training to go to the boat, and in their once-per-major-war austere-base excursion, and that adds up to ten per cent of sorties."
80 per cent is about right for the Harrier in Marine use, I suspect. (Posters here suggest that the RAF never does CTO and CL is emergency-only.) But the F-35B is a different animal because it is more comfortable in CTOL, and STOVL is more expensive than CTOL because it activates a whole bunch of extra moving parts, some of them hot and highly loaded.
So what the Marines are saying now (it seems) is that they will use STOVL only on the boat, training to go to the boat, and in their once-per-major-war austere-base excursion, and that adds up to ten per cent of sorties."
Here is another journalistic viewpoint:
Marines Put F-35B Flight Costs 17 Percent Lower Than OSD 21 Aug 2013 Colin Clark
"...“We believe we are going to achieve much greater savings than we are currently being credited for,” Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle, deputy commandant for aviation, told me in an interview here.
Among the questionable assumptions Schmidle highlighted is this whopper: the Office of Secretary Defense estimate developed by the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office (CAPE) predicted that the F-35B would be flown at full throttle in STOVL mode — which uses enormous amounts of fuel and utilizes the highly sophisticated lift fan system at much greater rates than the Marines project — about 80 percent of its time in the air.
Anyone who has watched the Harrier or the F-35B knows that Marines pilots rely sparingly on STOVL mode. It’s only used for a limited set of tactical moves and, usually, for taking off or landing the aircraft. The great majority of the plane’s flight time — could it be as much as 80 percent? — would be spent flying without using the lift fan and STOVL...."
Among the questionable assumptions Schmidle highlighted is this whopper: the Office of Secretary Defense estimate developed by the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office (CAPE) predicted that the F-35B would be flown at full throttle in STOVL mode — which uses enormous amounts of fuel and utilizes the highly sophisticated lift fan system at much greater rates than the Marines project — about 80 percent of its time in the air.
Anyone who has watched the Harrier or the F-35B knows that Marines pilots rely sparingly on STOVL mode. It’s only used for a limited set of tactical moves and, usually, for taking off or landing the aircraft. The great majority of the plane’s flight time — could it be as much as 80 percent? — would be spent flying without using the lift fan and STOVL...."
And another journo viewpoint:
Pentagon cuts F-35 operating estimate below $1 trillion: source 21 Aug 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"...Schmidle said the Marines would fly the planes in short takeoff, vertical landing, or STOVL mode just 10 percent of the time, far less often than the 80 percent rate factored into the initial estimates...."
I guess what is crucial is what "...10 percent of the time..." means: 10% of sorties? 10% of total flight time?
My assumption is that the good generale speaks about 10% of total flight time. Already there has been a discussion on this thread I believe about 'not all F-35B landings will be vertical' with many practiced F-35B RVLs (Rolling Vertical Landings) to various available runway lengths, as well as VLs; which we seem to agree are much easier than with the Harrier. Throw in a few 'creeping landing' practices and we seem to start building up some STOVL Mode flight time for the F-35B - even when ashore. Not forgetting the STO (Short Take Off) requirements which come in many flavours apparently, depending on runway distance available, AUW, environmental conditions, etc.
The USMC plan to operate not only from luxurious golf course resort style crab airfields ashore but also from roads/damaged runways and other suitable austere locations where STOVL Mode is essential - not just from flat decks.
_________________________
Bad luck (sort of) for AMERICA eh. But anyways:
"...USS Tripoli (LHA-7) and the yet-unnamed LHA-8, “will be able to carry out “complete unrestricted operations” with the F-35 and MV-22, Mercer said...."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 16th Jan 2014 at 23:36. Reason: format