'LO' said here:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post8008313
"...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."
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
"...“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...."
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
"...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...."
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:
"...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...."