F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
The 80 per cent of flight time report is plain wrong. If it had been the basis of CAPE estimates over the years the Marines would have been inept to have missed it. But it wasn't.
The new figure is ten per cent of sorties, not flight time. Think about it. Even if every sortie is STOVL, is the jet going to be in STOVL for 12 minutes in a two-hour sortie? That also makes sense by comparison with "80 per cent" of sorties.
And that in turn clearly implies that most STOVL ops will be shipboard.
Disagree if you want, get personal if you can't control yourself, but use common sense.
The new figure is ten per cent of sorties, not flight time. Think about it. Even if every sortie is STOVL, is the jet going to be in STOVL for 12 minutes in a two-hour sortie? That also makes sense by comparison with "80 per cent" of sorties.
And that in turn clearly implies that most STOVL ops will be shipboard.
Disagree if you want, get personal if you can't control yourself, but use common sense.
Last edited by LowObservable; 17th Jan 2014 at 00:17.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
'LO' good to see you admit the USMC are not inept.
I do not see that implication at all. You want to not acknowledge the other uses of STOVL mode that I have outlined. Why is this so?
"... And that in turn clearly implies that most STOVL ops will be shipboard...."
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
Perhaps I can help here.
For all sorts of good budgetary reasons, the DoD has to make assumptions about how often the F-35 variants will be doing certain things. Take offs, landings, carrier landings, weapons carriage, weapon drops, STOVL ops, etc. - it's a long list and made more complex by the three variants. But these are 'assumptions', and no more. Their relationship to what is actually going to happen is approximately zero. And when those sorts of sums are being done, there are big differences between 'sortie' driven events and 'flight time' driven events. Oh, and sometimes people can get those sums wrong.
Where I think one is mistaken is to take a predicted percentage (sortie or flight time) spent in STOVL mode and then try to extrapolate a required F-35B force size from it.
To my mind (and I'm totally relaxed if anyone disagrees) the USMC has made the case to the DoD and the politicians for a STOVL capable force.(and no, they didn't get there by shouting 'Marines!' or 'Guadalcanal!' - sorry, you need to see how they actually operate within DoD and Congress - it's a little more mature than that). They have a well developed and ambitious future doctrine mapped out, available for anyone to read. In my view, almost any Air Force will disagree with it. That's because the Marines aren't interested in 'Air Power' for it's own sake. They are only interested in supporting the Marine on the ground as quickly and effectively as possible.
To do that, the F-35B needs to be able to go to the fight on L class ships and operate off short strips. That means STOVL. They need a force of F-35Bs that can do that STOVL thing sustainably. They've made those calculations, which have been scrutinised to death at all levels within the DoD (including the Joint Staffs) and Congress, and signed off. They are certainly more robust than the arguments used to justify, oh, let's think of an example - 232 Typhoons.
Anyway, just my musings - feel free to keep on at percentages, it's an open forum. But I don't think anyone's getting much out of the process.
LO. I get the ski-jump/deck space argument, thanks - my point in my previous post. You are right about pressures on LHD/LHA space and well deck omissions - and there are certainly 'Big carrier, Small Carrier' tensions within the US naval aviation community. In my direct experience, these are mostly driven by fears within the 'big carrier' community that a more capable 'small carrier' would be more attractive to politicians. Personally, I don't think that adding a ski jump to an L class to give an F-35 a few thousand pounds more fuel/weapons is part of the budget/political argument. But I could be wrong.
Best Regards as ever to all those who 'get' STOVL and what the USMC are trying to do. And best regards to all those who don't.
Engines
Perhaps I can help here.
For all sorts of good budgetary reasons, the DoD has to make assumptions about how often the F-35 variants will be doing certain things. Take offs, landings, carrier landings, weapons carriage, weapon drops, STOVL ops, etc. - it's a long list and made more complex by the three variants. But these are 'assumptions', and no more. Their relationship to what is actually going to happen is approximately zero. And when those sorts of sums are being done, there are big differences between 'sortie' driven events and 'flight time' driven events. Oh, and sometimes people can get those sums wrong.
Where I think one is mistaken is to take a predicted percentage (sortie or flight time) spent in STOVL mode and then try to extrapolate a required F-35B force size from it.
To my mind (and I'm totally relaxed if anyone disagrees) the USMC has made the case to the DoD and the politicians for a STOVL capable force.(and no, they didn't get there by shouting 'Marines!' or 'Guadalcanal!' - sorry, you need to see how they actually operate within DoD and Congress - it's a little more mature than that). They have a well developed and ambitious future doctrine mapped out, available for anyone to read. In my view, almost any Air Force will disagree with it. That's because the Marines aren't interested in 'Air Power' for it's own sake. They are only interested in supporting the Marine on the ground as quickly and effectively as possible.
To do that, the F-35B needs to be able to go to the fight on L class ships and operate off short strips. That means STOVL. They need a force of F-35Bs that can do that STOVL thing sustainably. They've made those calculations, which have been scrutinised to death at all levels within the DoD (including the Joint Staffs) and Congress, and signed off. They are certainly more robust than the arguments used to justify, oh, let's think of an example - 232 Typhoons.
Anyway, just my musings - feel free to keep on at percentages, it's an open forum. But I don't think anyone's getting much out of the process.
LO. I get the ski-jump/deck space argument, thanks - my point in my previous post. You are right about pressures on LHD/LHA space and well deck omissions - and there are certainly 'Big carrier, Small Carrier' tensions within the US naval aviation community. In my direct experience, these are mostly driven by fears within the 'big carrier' community that a more capable 'small carrier' would be more attractive to politicians. Personally, I don't think that adding a ski jump to an L class to give an F-35 a few thousand pounds more fuel/weapons is part of the budget/political argument. But I could be wrong.
Best Regards as ever to all those who 'get' STOVL and what the USMC are trying to do. And best regards to all those who don't.
Engines
Engines,
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
I think the Marines could indeed make an excellent case for having CAS that is not dependent on large bases with long, well maintained concrete runways or a carrier strike group.
But that's not a case for a $138-million (total procurement cost full rate in FY2012$) stealth supersonic fighter. If my threat environment calls for that, dollars to doughnuts they also have ASCMs and AIP submarines and I would be a total loony to send in a Marine force without the EA, AEW and ASW that come with a CSG.
The second issue is that the Marines have not operated from austere bases very much, even with the Harrier, because it is difficult and restrictive. "Once per war" is not far off. Since I have still not seen a an F-35B VL or RVL on to anything other than AM-2-shielded asphalt, a refractory-concrete pad or a steel deck (almost six years into the F-35B flight test program), pardon me if I remain skeptical.
If 80 per cent of sorties are STOVL, I suspect that this is recognized. The remaining 20 per cent would be about right to cover normal ship operations (11 big amphibs is the target, 6 aircraft the normal detachment, only some of those amphibs being deployed with aircraft at any given time.)
Neither is this a "too late to turn around" issue. The Marines need to look to their future. If they end up with a lot of very high-cost kit that is expensive to operate (V-22 as well), the whole concept of forcible entry against an active threat will get questioned seriously.
I would give the Marines the A-10s for expeditionary ops, and restart the OV-10 (with DIRCM, laser-guided rockets, cheap SAR, ESM and satcoms) for the LHA/LHDs.
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
I think the Marines could indeed make an excellent case for having CAS that is not dependent on large bases with long, well maintained concrete runways or a carrier strike group.
But that's not a case for a $138-million (total procurement cost full rate in FY2012$) stealth supersonic fighter. If my threat environment calls for that, dollars to doughnuts they also have ASCMs and AIP submarines and I would be a total loony to send in a Marine force without the EA, AEW and ASW that come with a CSG.
The second issue is that the Marines have not operated from austere bases very much, even with the Harrier, because it is difficult and restrictive. "Once per war" is not far off. Since I have still not seen a an F-35B VL or RVL on to anything other than AM-2-shielded asphalt, a refractory-concrete pad or a steel deck (almost six years into the F-35B flight test program), pardon me if I remain skeptical.
If 80 per cent of sorties are STOVL, I suspect that this is recognized. The remaining 20 per cent would be about right to cover normal ship operations (11 big amphibs is the target, 6 aircraft the normal detachment, only some of those amphibs being deployed with aircraft at any given time.)
Neither is this a "too late to turn around" issue. The Marines need to look to their future. If they end up with a lot of very high-cost kit that is expensive to operate (V-22 as well), the whole concept of forcible entry against an active threat will get questioned seriously.
I would give the Marines the A-10s for expeditionary ops, and restart the OV-10 (with DIRCM, laser-guided rockets, cheap SAR, ESM and satcoms) for the LHA/LHDs.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
Thanks for coming back. Perhaps I can throw some light on this. (P'raps not...)
The USMC requirements for F-35 were quite specific - 1200 foot (now 1500) asphalt strip with no, repeat, no support. F-35 launches from ship, lands, shuts down, waits for the CAS call. Starts up, does the mission, returns to the ship.
Now I understand that many people will query this requirement, even using words like 'loony'. I worked with the USMC for a few years, and I could use lots of words about them. 'Loony' isn't one that springs to mind.
F-35B is designed to do that, and at some stage in the programme it will do so, if it's not already done it. LO, you may not see it, but with all due respect, you (or I) aren't the OT&E approving authority. However, having worked on the programme and having been closely involved in the very detailed ground erosion testing carried out for F-35B, I remain convinced that the jet will be able to operate from the required locations. You weren't, and you don't.
Yes, austere base ops are restrictive. Yes, they are difficult. But that doesn't mean they can't happen. It often means challenging 'Air Force' centric views of what 'ops' mean. After around 30 odd years of doing this sort of stuff, I've come to the conclusion that it's far more about determination, imagination and hard work than the technology you are using. The USMC have all of those qualities in spades. (Yes, I happily admit to admiring the USMC).
Honestly, your suggestion that what the USMC really needs is aircraft designed in the 1960s, built in the 70s and since scrapped or retired is not exactly, in my view, suited to the actuality. However, it's always great to think about fresh ideas.
To me (and I know not to you) it's straightforward. The Marines want a credible strike jet that can operate off an L class or a forward strip, survive in current threat environments and talk/communicate with modern battlespaces so that it can do the job. That's F-35B. They've got it and I think they will make it work. You don't. That's fine. Not sure we gain much more by restating those views, so this is my final post for now.
Best regards as ever to all those thinking this stuff through,
Engines
Thanks for coming back. Perhaps I can throw some light on this. (P'raps not...)
The USMC requirements for F-35 were quite specific - 1200 foot (now 1500) asphalt strip with no, repeat, no support. F-35 launches from ship, lands, shuts down, waits for the CAS call. Starts up, does the mission, returns to the ship.
Now I understand that many people will query this requirement, even using words like 'loony'. I worked with the USMC for a few years, and I could use lots of words about them. 'Loony' isn't one that springs to mind.
F-35B is designed to do that, and at some stage in the programme it will do so, if it's not already done it. LO, you may not see it, but with all due respect, you (or I) aren't the OT&E approving authority. However, having worked on the programme and having been closely involved in the very detailed ground erosion testing carried out for F-35B, I remain convinced that the jet will be able to operate from the required locations. You weren't, and you don't.
Yes, austere base ops are restrictive. Yes, they are difficult. But that doesn't mean they can't happen. It often means challenging 'Air Force' centric views of what 'ops' mean. After around 30 odd years of doing this sort of stuff, I've come to the conclusion that it's far more about determination, imagination and hard work than the technology you are using. The USMC have all of those qualities in spades. (Yes, I happily admit to admiring the USMC).
Honestly, your suggestion that what the USMC really needs is aircraft designed in the 1960s, built in the 70s and since scrapped or retired is not exactly, in my view, suited to the actuality. However, it's always great to think about fresh ideas.
To me (and I know not to you) it's straightforward. The Marines want a credible strike jet that can operate off an L class or a forward strip, survive in current threat environments and talk/communicate with modern battlespaces so that it can do the job. That's F-35B. They've got it and I think they will make it work. You don't. That's fine. Not sure we gain much more by restating those views, so this is my final post for now.
Best regards as ever to all those thinking this stuff through,
Engines
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
About the ski-jump on the L ships, I didn't get the idea about the NAVY's
opposition to the installation of ski-jumps on the LHD/A's from the internet, I actually was told by a former MARINE AV8B pilot on why it never would be allowed to be installed (safe for some big unforeseen war which pretty much requires the ski-jump added capacity).
An LHA with a ski-jump would factually be a real carrier, the loss of a heli landing spot is a bogus argument, besides the fact that it would only be 1 spot there is an added benefit from operating with a ski-jump.
Without the jump, at MTOW the STOVL operations need the full deck to manoeuvre and take-off leaving helo operations temporarily severely restricted.
With a ski-jump they could operate from an intermediate point on the deck leaving the backside open for continued helo ops or as an emergency fighter-jet recovery zone while continuing take-offs.
The lifts could be used much more efficient also with the middle elevator functioning separately from the rear elevator effectively making much better use of the deck.
The ski-jump itself would be , for the biggest part, a semi-width forward extension construction , something which would be a fairly easy retrofit on both the latest AMERICA and the WASP-class, further eliminating helo-pad loss and increasing available take-off length (think +40-50ft).
The only reason it is not done until today is because of NAVY politics regarding their big carriers, that was what I as told anyway.
The MARINES operated from the ILLUSTRIOUS about 5 years ago with great succes (and a hell of a lot of sorties) and where lyrical about the ski-jump.
they already tried the ramp on land;
And the LHA(D) are set up perfectly for a Ski-jump already,
opposition to the installation of ski-jumps on the LHD/A's from the internet, I actually was told by a former MARINE AV8B pilot on why it never would be allowed to be installed (safe for some big unforeseen war which pretty much requires the ski-jump added capacity).
An LHA with a ski-jump would factually be a real carrier, the loss of a heli landing spot is a bogus argument, besides the fact that it would only be 1 spot there is an added benefit from operating with a ski-jump.
Without the jump, at MTOW the STOVL operations need the full deck to manoeuvre and take-off leaving helo operations temporarily severely restricted.
With a ski-jump they could operate from an intermediate point on the deck leaving the backside open for continued helo ops or as an emergency fighter-jet recovery zone while continuing take-offs.
The lifts could be used much more efficient also with the middle elevator functioning separately from the rear elevator effectively making much better use of the deck.
The ski-jump itself would be , for the biggest part, a semi-width forward extension construction , something which would be a fairly easy retrofit on both the latest AMERICA and the WASP-class, further eliminating helo-pad loss and increasing available take-off length (think +40-50ft).
The only reason it is not done until today is because of NAVY politics regarding their big carriers, that was what I as told anyway.
The MARINES operated from the ILLUSTRIOUS about 5 years ago with great succes (and a hell of a lot of sorties) and where lyrical about the ski-jump.
they already tried the ramp on land;
And the LHA(D) are set up perfectly for a Ski-jump already,
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
I'm posting one last time, not to get back at anyone, but to make it clear to all where I'm coming from here.
As I possibly didn't make clear, I was pointing out what the F-35B performance requirements are, and how that affects the design, and the programme. As to how the USMC use that capability - well it's their shout I suppose. Not mine, not yours, I'd suspect. What I do know is that they have an endorsed set of doctrine and concepts that they are working through. They probably have some idea what they are doing. Again, feel free to disagree.
What I won't get into is a 'What about this bit of kit, what about their CONOPS eh?' discussion. Mainly because I'm an engineer, not a warfighter. Secondly, LO, because I really don't think any information (not opinions) I might post is going to change the way you look at the F-35B and the USMC. That's your right and your opinion.
Have a nice thread, all,
Best Regards as ever
Engines
I'm posting one last time, not to get back at anyone, but to make it clear to all where I'm coming from here.
As I possibly didn't make clear, I was pointing out what the F-35B performance requirements are, and how that affects the design, and the programme. As to how the USMC use that capability - well it's their shout I suppose. Not mine, not yours, I'd suspect. What I do know is that they have an endorsed set of doctrine and concepts that they are working through. They probably have some idea what they are doing. Again, feel free to disagree.
What I won't get into is a 'What about this bit of kit, what about their CONOPS eh?' discussion. Mainly because I'm an engineer, not a warfighter. Secondly, LO, because I really don't think any information (not opinions) I might post is going to change the way you look at the F-35B and the USMC. That's your right and your opinion.
Have a nice thread, all,
Best Regards as ever
Engines
Last edited by Engines; 17th Jan 2014 at 16:11. Reason: edit
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
'Engines' from whence came this quote:
'NITRO104' probably some kind of matrix of sorties to sortie length with specifics about mission, where start / finish is located and on and on may well have short sortie durations with plenty of STOVL mode use. As pointed out by others it is guess work and not some specific rule. OK?
"The USMC requirements for F-35 were quite specific - 1200 foot (now 1500) asphalt strip with no, repeat, no support. F-35 launches from ship, lands, shuts down, waits for the CAS call. Starts up, does the mission, returns to the ship."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 18th Jan 2014 at 01:15. Reason: 'LO' to 'Engines' Change :-)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Spazsinbad
Ok?
Quick calc shows about 7-10min in hover on common bringback weights.
So, what you're assuming means the airframe will fly 1-1.5h sorties all of its life?
Obviously, this begs the question why inbuilding 3+ hours worth of fuel in it in the first place and the whole myriad of weight related problems.
The term vertical is quite self explanatory, so why would the 'good generale' use term vertical for something that isn't a vertical flight?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
'NITRO104' this is what the generale is quoted as having said:
At issue would be the words "of the time". Perhaps one day this will be cleared up. Otherwise we guess. You guess - I guess.
"...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...."
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO. You seem surprised at the USMC requiring a ground based cab rank capability with their aircraft. They certainly used it from the time they had Harriers and I believe before then. After all it only means landing during a sortie, shutting down to save fuel and starting up again if a shout comes or you reach the end of your shift. With a conventional aircraft this requires a suitable airfield runway closer to the target than your operating base, plus of course having an internal start capability. With the Harrier they expected to find a secure site within 50nm of the battle because they considered a response time from the shout to being on target needed to be 15 mins or less. The cab rank operating site flexibility of the Harrier was one of the key capabilities that made them want the aircraft.
As an aside the RAF required a loudspeaker in the nose wheel bay of the GR1 so that the lad (it was lads only then) could get out and doze off against the nose leg until the shout came.
Hey ho.
As an aside the RAF required a loudspeaker in the nose wheel bay of the GR1 so that the lad (it was lads only then) could get out and doze off against the nose leg until the shout came.
Hey ho.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Spazsinbad
You guess - I guess.
Anyway, it's the other half of the sentence that actually explains the first and it goes:
far less often than the 80 percent rate factored into the initial estimates....
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
'NITRO104' point out where this has occurred:
Probably the point of contention is exactly what is stated - without further explanation from the general we can only guess. You guess - I guess.
"...someone giving himself right to call others 'fans', 'JSF haters' and whatnot..."
John - On reflection I am not surprised that such a capability was in the original spec. The question is whether "no support" is viable in the conditions of warfare observed over the past decade: at least, a forward base is going to require extensive security measures.
I remain flummoxed by comments such as those from the clearly sincere and well informed Engines (on the program's technical side) contrasted with the documented work of Navy construction engineers with their pizza-oven-concrete landing pads. Both sides cannot be right.
I remain flummoxed by comments such as those from the clearly sincere and well informed Engines (on the program's technical side) contrasted with the documented work of Navy construction engineers with their pizza-oven-concrete landing pads. Both sides cannot be right.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the biggest threat to the forward austere base CAS as provided by the F35 is a range of rapidly maturing precision guided ground launched weapons.
I think during the conceptual development of the F35 things like GMLRS, Excalibur and guided 120mm mortar rounds were not around. Now we have those, plus loitering munitions and various UAV's the need for CAS gets less.
It will never be reduced to zero of course but the fact is, for putting explosives onto the heads of enemies, the USMC, and of course everyone else, has many more options.
I still think the austere basing capability is an important thing to retain, flexibility is never a bad thing, surely?
I think during the conceptual development of the F35 things like GMLRS, Excalibur and guided 120mm mortar rounds were not around. Now we have those, plus loitering munitions and various UAV's the need for CAS gets less.
It will never be reduced to zero of course but the fact is, for putting explosives onto the heads of enemies, the USMC, and of course everyone else, has many more options.
I still think the austere basing capability is an important thing to retain, flexibility is never a bad thing, surely?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LowObservable
I remain flummoxed by comments such as those from the clearly sincere and well informed Engines (on the program's technical side) contrasted with the documented work of Navy construction engineers with their pizza-oven-concrete landing pads. Both sides cannot be right.
