Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Former USN Chief Suggests DOD Should Cancel F-35A  
User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2752 posts, RR: 4
Posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7127 times:

According to Flightglobal the DOD should cancel the F-35A requring the Air Force to by the C model.

Quote:
Roughead says it makes sense to have the US Air Force adopt the C-model jet because it can operate from land bases as well as from the US Navy's 11 "big deck" aircraft carriers, whereas the A-model cannot. "The reason that I said to go with the C is because you will still want to be able to use the JSF from aircraft carriers," he says. It also has greater range than the USAF's A-model aircraft.

Another source denies this being considered:

Quote:
Retired US Marine Corps Lt Gen Emerson Gardner, a former deputy director of CAPE, says that he has not heard of any study to eliminate the F-35A, but he offers a potential explanation: "This is the normal time of year for CAPE to do longer-term studies and analyses outside of the time pressures of the fall program review." He adds that if CAPE is doing this particular analysis it could be a drill to provide data for discussions in the Quadrennial Defense Review or to be prepared for the programme review of the service's programme objective memorandum 2015 later this year.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...f-35a-in-favour-of-c-model-383969/

What do my friends and co-members of airliners think abort this scenario?


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7079 times:

Quoting oykie (Thread starter):
What do my friends and co-members of airliners think abort this scenario?

Are we going to train the USAF to land on the carriers as well? Might as well get rid of the USAF and just expand the USN air wings then.....

This is not a serious proposal. Why would you cancel the model that is the furthest in development, has had the least issues, other than about 40NM extra range is the most capable and has the highest number of orders?


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15745 posts, RR: 27
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7065 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 1):
Are we going to train the USAF to land on the carriers as well?

   I don't know how much money this would save at this point. Might have been a good idea a decade ago, especially seeing as how the Aussies, Swiss, Canadians, and others do just fine flying Hornets from land, which was originally pissed off NG.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6990 times:

That is the most inane idea I have ever heard. This Marine airpower favoritism is pathetic! If any version should be cancelled, it is the the F-35B. Next in line for cancelling should be the F-35C. The F-35A is going to be bought in the most numbers by far, and its air to air performance is significantly better than either the B or C. Hell, the Marines don't need their own damn air force anymore, and the F-35C is a pig compared to the F-35A.
  

Anyhow, I think the article makes it clear that cancellation of the F-35A will never happen unless the entire program is canned.

Roughead clearly sees the F-35 as nothing but a bomber. Period. Only then would the C make sense.


User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6933 times:

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 3):
That is the most inane idea I have ever heard. This Marine airpower favoritism is pathetic! If any version should be cancelled, it is the the F-35B.

Disagree. The B is doing very well with development. There are strategic reasons why the B should continue on. Having the B allows the USN to essentially double the available carriers that they have to include the amphibs, as a sort of a Sea Control Ship. We see this in its full fruition in the America-class LHA's, which are essentially mini-aircraft carriers as they have eliminated the well decks in them. Essentially, they can allow the bigger Nimitz and Ford class carriers to be tasked for other duties, increasing operational flexibility.

Before you bemoan the lack of a well deck on the America-class LHA's, do note that the number of well decks is actually going up; heavy equipment will be transferred ashore by other LHA's, LHD's, LSD's and LPD's, along with the new Mobile Landing Platform's, which can offload equipment from Military Sealift Command's RO-RO ships directly onto LCAC's. The new MLP's can handle 3 LCAC's.


User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6817 times:

I'm not saying the B can't do what its supposed to do, rather, I have issues with the need for a STOVL aircraft period, considering how much that capability compromises the other performance aspects of the aircraft in terms of complexity, range, weight, g-loading, maneuverability, etc.

Sure, its nice to have in some very specific situations, but its not an absolutely necessary aircraft like the F-35A is. And given budget realities, it could even be considered in some ways to be irresponsible.

The ability of the USAF to be anywhere in the world in a relatively short time (thanks to hundreds of forward bases and inflight refuelling) is rendering the need for Marine, and I dare say Naval airpower irrelevant. Just look at the % of sorties and bomb tonnage dropped by naval and Marine air power in all the conflicts since the first Gulf War. It's not only disproportionately small compared to the Air Force, but the expense of carrier based aircraft and the carriers themselves is beyond ridiculous. The cost of a carrier and air wing has doubled in the past 20 years alone.

As it is, the AF is not going to get the numbers of F-35's it needs, and that should be the first priority.
I was in the Navy, and this is just my take on things. I personally believe the future of seapower is (or should be) submarines, and I don't mean those POS Virginia's.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6646 times:

Really, the B model should go. For the small numbers ordered yet big problems, if it wasnt for the A and C models, there is no way the program could be have gone forward alone with only 340 units. The jump jet concept was something that was meant for another era... an era that has passed. The USAF has strategic bases all over the world, USN has a fleet of super carriers with much more capacity than the gator navy, and attack helicopters can operate off of all these platforms. A super sonic stealth 5th gen fighter that can pop up anywhere is a really expensive asset that can be replaced with cheaper, existing platforms, or modified tactics.

IMO there is no reason for the USMC to be flying pretty much anything (including the F-35C), and just shows a lack of co-operation between the branches of the DoD. The USMC is a completely independent full military force within the largest military in the world. While it does support unique capacities, those abilities could be absorbed into the other services. Not saying to abolish the USMC... just return it to its original purpose, 'an infantry force that specializes in naval operations'. There was a time when a large USMC was justified... it was called World War II.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 6531 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 6):
Really, the B model should go. For the small numbers ordered yet big problems, if it wasnt for the A and C models, there is no way the program could be have gone forward alone with only 340 units

Well the C model currently has a projected order total of 360, less than the B model and frankly the B model has a far greater chance of getting export orders.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 6):
The USMC is a completely independent full military force within the largest military in the world.

The issue with this is the Marines do CAS better than the USAF and US Army. Marines talking to Marines makes a significant difference, so much so I see no way they would reduce or remove their air power and rely solely on USN and USAF assets. The marines have had air power longer than the USAF and almost as long as the USN, I can't see them giving it up now.


User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6483 times:

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 5):
The ability of the USAF to be anywhere in the world in a relatively short time (thanks to hundreds of forward bases and inflight refuelling) is rendering the need for Marine, and I dare say Naval airpower irrelevant.

That's dependent on the availability of foreign bases. If you don't have foreign bases available, sometimes the only realistic basing available is out at sea from an aircraft carrier. Operation El Dorado Canyon is a good example of this; F-111's had to fly from the UK, around France and Spain because of a lack of overflight permission and required multiple refuelings due to a lack of air basing and overflight permission. This also cut into the available payload of the F-111's.

Aircraft from USS Saratoga, USS America and USS Coral Sea provided the bulk of the strike package during the raid over Libya. Imagine if the UK denied basing or overflight for El Dorado Canyon; the strike package would have only consisted of carrier-based naval aircraft.

How about Operation Praying Mantis? Entirely handled by USN naval assets including the USS Enterprise, and the LPD USS Trenton. No aircraft basing rights came from any of the Gulf nations.

The ability to drop an airbase anywhere around the world where there is an ocean without worrying about basing and overflight rights is a value that cannot be underestimated.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4770 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6437 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ozair (Reply 7):
Quoting Oroka (Reply 6):
The USMC is a completely independent full military force within the largest military in the world.

The issue with this is the Marines do CAS better than the USAF and US Army. Marines talking to Marines makes a significant difference, so much so I see no way they would reduce or remove their air power and rely solely on USN and USAF assets. The marines have had air power longer than the USAF and almost as long as the USN, I can't see them giving it up now.

Theres a reason the Marines still make their aviators go through The Basic School and train as infantry officers before going to Pensacola for flight school. Cuz no one except a marine aviator understands what a grunt in the mud needs.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6387 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 7):
The issue with this is the Marines do CAS better than the USAF and US Army. Marines talking to Marines makes a significant difference, so much so I see no way they would reduce or remove their air power and rely solely on USN and USAF assets. The marines have had air power longer than the USAF and almost as long as the USN, I can't see them giving it up now
Quoting trex8 (Reply 9):
Theres a reason the Marines still make their aviators go through The Basic School and train as infantry officers before going to Pensacola for flight school. Cuz no one except a marine aviator understands what a grunt in the mud needs

Yeah, that is the exact line that is used every time. What I hear is that there is a communication and training deficiency in regards to interservice cooperation. The USAF doesn't get it's own navy and army because it takes an airman to truly know what a pilot needs.

What is needed it training and communication rather than giving a marine force a whole self contained military.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15745 posts, RR: 27
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6371 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 10):
The USAF doesn't get it's own navy and army because it takes an airman to truly know what a pilot needs.

More like the USAF doesn't care. They'd spend billions upon billions on fighters and strategic bombers while having to be force fed CAS planes and transports. To be fair, the Navy isn't big on their transport ships either, but that sort of "organizational essence" and inter-service politics is a very real factor.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offline737tanker From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 269 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6320 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 1):
Are we going to train the USAF to land on the carriers as well? Might as well get rid of the USAF and just expand the USN air wings then.....

We didn't train the USAF to land on carriers when they got the F-4, which was originally a USN aircraft.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6143 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11):
More like the USAF doesn't care. They'd spend billions upon billions on fighters and strategic bombers while having to be force fed CAS planes and transports. To be fair, the Navy isn't big on their transport ships either, but that sort of "organizational essence" and inter-service politics is a very real factor.

And that is the old pissing contest that is guzzling billions of dollars that could be saved. The USAF, USN, and US Army should all integrate seamlessly. When was the last time there was any signifigant operation that didnt involve atleast 2 of the main branches of the US military? Looking at other services not as comrades but as competitors is counter productive and dangerous.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15745 posts, RR: 27
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6038 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 13):
Looking at other services not as comrades but as competitors is counter productive and dangerous.

Except that competitors is exactly what they are when it comes to battles on the hill. New tanks for the Army costs the Air Force ten fighters. A new helicopter program for the Marines means that the Navy can't get a frigate.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4770 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5882 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 737tanker (Reply 12):
We didn't train the USAF to land on carriers when they got the F-4, which was originally a USN aircraft.

Or the A7!


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5867 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 7):
Quoting Oroka (Reply 6):The USMC is a completely independent full military force within the largest military in the world.
The issue with this is the Marines do CAS better than the USAF and US Army. Marines talking to Marines makes a significant difference, so much so I see no way they would reduce or remove their air power and rely solely on USN and USAF assets. The marines have had air power longer than the USAF and almost as long as the USN, I can't see them giving it up now.

Actually, the USMC is far from independent, they are officially part of the USN, and their budget is part of the navy's budget.

That "it takes a Marine to understand the needs of a Marine " is a bunch of crap. The USAF provides the bulk of the CAS to the Marines, as well as the US Army. The F-35B will not be as good at the CAS mission as the A-10 is, and the Marines are now trying to get their own AC-130s, the KC-130J through the palletized Harvest Hawk system, that has to be loaded onto the KC-130J. It is really an identical system the USAF uses on their MC-130W Dragon Spear pallets.

Marines still call for CAS from the USAF.

The Marines like to withhold their aircraft from providing other missions that are needed, such as bombing and CAP missions. This has proven to place a strain on USAF and USN assets, when other missions need to be flown.

BTW, the USMC will not provide CAS missions to the US Army, unless forced to by the area commander.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 8):
Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 5):The ability of the USAF to be anywhere in the world in a relatively short time (thanks to hundreds of forward bases and inflight refuelling) is rendering the need for Marine, and I dare say Naval airpower irrelevant.
That's dependent on the availability of foreign bases. If you don't have foreign bases available, sometimes the only realistic basing available is out at sea from an aircraft carrier. Operation El Dorado Canyon is a good example of this; F-111's had to fly from the UK, around France and Spain because of a lack of overflight permission and required multiple refuelings due to a lack of air basing and overflight permission. This also cut into the available payload of the F-111's.
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 8):
Aircraft from USS Saratoga, USS America and USS Coral Sea provided the bulk of the strike package during the raid over Libya. Imagine if the UK denied basing or overflight for El Dorado Canyon; the strike package would have only consisted of carrier-based naval aircraft.

Actually, it was only France and Italy that denied overflight rights to the El Dorado mission aircraft (including the tankers). One F-111F landed in Spain with an emergency after the bombing mission. The USAFE (18) F-111Fs carried a total of 134,000 lbs of which about 96,000 lbs was of the GBU-10 weapons, and the rest were Mk. 82 GPBs. The USN (18) A-6Es and (6) F/A-18s carried 90,000 lbs of Mk. 82 GPBs and CBUs, along with Shrike and HARM missiles. The USAF also flew (4) EF-111As, KC-10As which refueled the strike packages, and KC-135A/E/Q/Rs which refueled the KC-10s. The USN provided the "delouse" aircraft CAP.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5828 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 15):
Quoting 737tanker (Reply 12):
We didn't train the USAF to land on carriers when they got the F-4, which was originally a USN aircraft.

Or the A7!

Adm Roughead indicated he preferred the F-35C for the USAF because it would be capable of landing on the carriers. I doubt when the USAF operated the F-4 or the A-7 that they maintained them to the standard that allowed them to be carrier capable. In that case, why limit the USAF to the F-35C when the F-35A is generally more capable and is cheaper to acquire and operate?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
That "it takes a Marine to understand the needs of a Marine " is a bunch of crap. The USAF provides the bulk of the CAS to the Marines, as well as the US Army.

I did not say the Marines provide the bulk of their own CAS. What I indicated, and has been well established from experience in Afghanistan, is that Marine CAS to Marines occurs quicker and smoother than it does when the USAF gets involved. You would also know that different services apply different implementations of VMF which complicates the CAS mission and slows down the process.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
The F-35B will not be as good at the CAS mission as the A-10 is

No one says it will be but then the Marines don't operate the A-10. They will be replacing the AV-8B and the F-18D with the F-35B, which will provide significantly greater capability and survivability than both previous platforms.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4770 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5806 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ozair (Reply 17):
Adm Roughead indicated he preferred the F-35C for the USAF because it would be capable of landing on the carriers. I doubt when the USAF operated the F-4 or the A-7 that they maintained them to the standard that allowed them to be carrier capable. In that case, why limit the USAF to the F-35C when the F-35A is generally more capable and is cheaper to acquire and operate?

I suspect Rougheads point is that given given limited resources, getting rid of one version makes sense. Since there is nothing else really to replace the AV8B, the B stays. The C while more expensive and "less capable" is still good enough for the AF and unless the US is getting out of the carrier business or operating VSTOL planes off LPHs etc the B and C needs to stay.

The AF didn't want the F4 or A7 either initially.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8548 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5745 times:

The entire F-35 program should be eliminated entirely. Its leaders should be indicted and jailed for the rest of their careers. It isn't an aircraft program, it is a financial fraud program.

User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5735 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 19):

The entire F-35 program should be eliminated entirely. Its leaders should be indicted and jailed for the rest of their careers. It isn't an aircraft program, it is a financial fraud program.

Gonna have to do better then that.


User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5702 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Actually, it was only France and Italy that denied overflight rights to the El Dorado mission aircraft (including the tankers). One F-111F landed in Spain with an emergency after the bombing mission.

Spain too. The F-111's had to fly through the Strait of Gibraltar because of this. Of course, aircraft in distress should be and will be given permission to land at a suitable friendly airbase afterwords. For Spain to deny a aircraft declaring an emergency landing rights would be very much frowned up by anyone.

The mission was definitely at the limits of what was and is possible for endurance; the multiple refuelings were a major risk due to timing requirements to maintain a element of surprise, and flying 13 hours in a single mission would increase the risks of crew fatigue. I believe 28 tankers were involved in El Dorado Canyon, to support 18 F-111's.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5501 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 18):
Since there is nothing else really to replace the AV8B, the B stays.

There was nothing to replace the SR-71, because it wasnt really needed anymore. The Harrier was designed with use from roads and parking lots in the event of large bases getting nuked. Later governments got the idea to put them on small aircraft carriers so they didnt have to buy and maintain carriers large enough to support normal naval fighter jet designs.

How often does the USAF perform disperse base drills or operate from a Walmart parking lot just for practice? Never, because the Harrier is being used as a souped up attack helicopter from a ship by the marines.

The USN has 11 big carriers... there is no real need for 13 'amphibious assault ships' that can operate 20 F-35B off each. The US effectively has 20 carriers in active service, eventually 24.

I will capitulate to KC135TopBoom on the USMC being a branch of the USN. The USN does not need its own army and secondary navy to support a secondary airforce that only supports the USNs army.

Clear as mud.


User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5462 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 22):
How often does the USAF perform disperse base drills or operate from a Walmart parking lot just for practice?

The USAF doesn't; their aircraft needs runways and that limits where they can operate. The USMC does practice aircraft dispersal drills, and does so regularly.

FYI, during the initial invasion of Afghanistan, the Marines hacked a airstrip out of the middle of nowhere eventually named FOB Dwyer so they can bring up Harriers for CAS duties at close range to attack a town. By building a 4,000 foot strip out there, they then flew in KC-130s loaded with supplies to hot rearm and refuel the Harriers. Without FOB Dwyer, the Marines would have to take off from our main base half an hour away, stay over the target and drop the bombs quickly, then quickly make the 30 minute flight back to base to rearm and fuel. With FOB Dywer, the Harrier's had a 5 minute flight to be over the target, and another 5 minutes, they could drop back to the FOB, be refueled and rearmed without ever shutting down the engines, then launch and be back overhead 5 minutes later. In short, 10 Harriers operating from a FOB was essentially worth 40 conventional aircraft operating from a regular base because of how close the aircraft were to the target.

Also, during Desert Storm / Shield, Harriers were the most forward-based fixed wing assets in-theater and were amongst the first forces to arrive in Saudi Arabia. USMC Hornets arrived at nearly the same time but remained based in Bahrain. This was when no one was sure whether the Iraqis were going to come further south and the 82 Airborne was considered a speed bump as the force build-up continued. 86 jets operated out of the abandoned King Abdul Aziz naval base airfield, while the pilots and aircrew lived out of a soccer stadium. USMC pilots in their Harriers could take-off, fly north, bomb the Iraqis and then land and then be back in the air again over Kuwait in about 2 hours. Could other conventional aircraft operated out of that base eventually? Probably, but not at the time they were needed because the airfield condition was so lousy initially that it precluded other jets.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4527 posts, RR: 18
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5197 times:

I suggest cancelling the A,B and C versions..


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 25, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5234 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 24):
I suggest cancelling the A,B and C versions..

You should pass on your great ideas to the DOD and Lockheed Martin, because complaining on an internet forum won't do squat.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5167 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 23):
Probably, but not at the time they were needed because the airfield condition was so lousy initially that it precluded other jets.

Point being, the job could be done with other assets.

Could the AH-64 or maybe AH-1 have done the job? They dont even need a runway for initial operations. Im pretty sure the harriers didnt contribute to the actual construction of that 4000' airstrip in Afghanistan. How did all that construction equipment get to FOB Dwyer?

Not on the backs of harriers.


User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5181 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 26):
Could the AH-64 or maybe AH-1 have done the job

No, because in Afghanistan, the hot and high conditions really limit the performance of the AH-64 and AH-1.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 26):
Im pretty sure the harriers didnt contribute to the actual construction of that 4000' airstrip in Afghanistan. How did all that construction equipment get to FOB Dwyer?

Came in over land. The Marines needed to take the town of Marja. In order to take Marja, you needed to be able to build up combat power as quickly as possible and posture your air support assets in such a way that they could surge support and exponentially increase the sortie rate in support of the ground forces.

The Marine Expeditionary Unit is designed to be a self-contained fighting force, complete with aviation, combat, and logistics. Everything is integrated with each other; wherever the MEU goes, the supporting assets go. The MEU contains one Ground Combat Element, which has everything from infantry, combat engineering, reconnaissance, armour, and artillery, one Aviation Combat Element, which is a reinforced Marine squadron composed of a medium or heavy helicopter squadron augmented with three other types of helicopters, one detachment of amphibious flight-deck-capable jets, and a Marine air control group detachment with air traffic control, direct air support, and anti-aircraft assets, and finally a Logistics Combat Element and a Command Element. This is all self-contained, and can be deployed on a Expeditionary Strike Group.

The Marine air-ground task force concept is designed to thoroughly exploit the combat power inherent in air and ground assets by closely integrating them into a single force. The MEU brings all the supplies and logistical support it needs to sustain itself for quick mission accomplishment or to pave the way for any follow-up forces. This self-sustainment allows more flexibility in disposition and operations of forces, and allows the MEU to initiate operations sooner and let support catch up later, without having to wait for external support to begin a mission.

The MEU trains extensively together and is deployed together as a unit. So when you hear about the Marines needing organic aviation, this is the reason why, and this is the reason why the Marines does CAS very well; the aviation assets supporting the Marine ground units are extensively familiar with the units they are supporting on the ground; the pilot and the Marine forward air controller and the ground forces have spent months training together as a cohesive unit, learning about what each other does and how they do it. That KC-130 isn't just from some random unit that was assigned to the MEU, it's a KC-130 that is permanently assigned to the MEU and also has trained extensively with all of the elements of that particular MEU.

These series of videos with General Davis explains the role of the Marine aviation and what the Marines see in the future of their force:
http://vimeo.com/35367238#
http://vimeo.com/35370760#
http://vimeo.com/35368396#



Also, this page gives a very short overview of STOVL operations in the past, and the reason why the Harrier made an impact:
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/0...-f35-future-part-5-by-sea-by-land/


[Edited 2013-04-07 20:41:28]

User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5168 times:

There is a video below from actual operations of Harriers off FOB Dwyer, includes a hot refueling video. You can see that the base is literally in the middle of nowhere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hLUZARGNzJ4

The airfield was constructed using AM-2 matting, and this can be used to create everything from runways, taxiways, and parking areas.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4527 posts, RR: 18
Reply 29, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5146 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 25):

You should pass on your great ideas to the DOD and Lockheed Martin, because complaining on an internet forum won't do squat.

I don't think they need my input, they will cancel the program on their own before long.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 28):


There is a video below from actual operations of Harriers off FOB Dwyer, includes a hot refueling video. You can see that the base is literally in the middle of nowhere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hLUZARGNzJ4

The airfield was constructed using AM-2 matting, and this can be used to create everything from runways, taxiways, and parking areas.

Ah yes, the magnificent Harrier,



Simple, rugged, reliable and deadly, everything the F35 is not.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15745 posts, RR: 27
Reply 30, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5142 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 29):
Simple, rugged, reliable and deadly, everything the F35 is not.

Rugged and reliable? I haven't followed closely, but I thought the Harriers were very maintenance heavy.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4527 posts, RR: 18
Reply 31, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5143 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 30):

Rugged and reliable? I haven't followed closely, but I thought the Harriers were very maintenance heavy.

Try researching their record in the Falklands, they basically flew every one they had whenever weather conditions allowed.They just didn't break.


It is an extremely rugged Aircraft, while it's VSTOL capability is impressive the technology behind it is as simple as it gets, as just one example the front and rear nozzles are controlled and interconnected with, basically a long bicycle chain, simple, basic but it works all the time.


As I said, the opposite of the F35.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 1052 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5131 times:

The question is if the expensive F-35B will ever operate from rough FOBs. The engine downwash is way stronger than that of the Harrier, the RAM coatings won´t like the dust and small stones hitting it.

User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5125 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 29):

I don't think they need my input, they will cancel the program on their own before long.

Considering that the DOD and the Pentagon have moved to reallocate the cuts to F-35 from sequestration to other programs, not likely.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 31):
It is an extremely rugged Aircraft, while it's VSTOL capability is impressive the technology behind it is as simple as it gets, as just one example the front and rear nozzles are controlled and interconnected with, basically a long bicycle chain, simple, basic but it works all the time.

Also an incredibly difficult aircraft to fly. The Harrier is a busy aircraft to fly. The F-35B is a easier aircraft to operate, as John Beesley in this video states:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD-J1KksHUQ

Quoting seahawk (Reply 32):
The engine downwash is way stronger than that of the Harrier, the RAM coatings won´t like the dust and small stones hitting it.

The keyword for F-35 is sustainable stealth. This article explains what that means for the F-35, as the F-35 doesn't have a RAM coating:
http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-low-...-for-21st-century-combat-aviation/

Quote:
SLD: How would you describe the stealth LO capability of the F-35 compared to legacy systems?

Bill Grant: Performance-wise, it is a very aggressive capability. From a design standpoint, it is a radical change from legacy systems. In legacy stealth, the stealth in effect is a parasitic application of a multiple stack-up of material systems done in final finish after the actual airframe is built and completed. In the case of the F-35, we’ve incorporated much of the LO system directly into the air frame itself. The materials have been manufactured right into the structure, so they have the durability and lifetime qualities. It makes them much more impervious to damage. It is a much simpler system with fewer materials to contend with.

SLD: In terms of the way you’re describing it, stealth goes from being a surface appliqué to becoming an integral part of the actual product being manufactured, is this correct?

Bill Grant: Exactly.

SLD: So this must have a significant impact on maritime operations. For example, the future of the F-35Bs and Cs should be a significant improvement over legacy aircraft, shoulden’t it be?

Bill Grant: Absolutely. The Navy and Marine Corps have set the benchmark for the LO repair facility program and approach. They work in the worst maintenance environments. It was the challenge we had to meet. So our material development effort and material qualification program was predicated and populated by requirements that were specifically suited for the Navy and Marine Corps.
We have the most extensive and aggressive material qualification in our history, probably in industry history. We have as many as ten times more coupons per materials being tested. We have engaged in a very aggressive approach to testing which has been developed with the military labs and the program office. We have worked with them to shape the most aggressive and most challenging test regimen from all of their different programs and their experience, and thereby compiled those experiences into our test matrix.
And the testing process has led to changes in the repair approach as well as the manufacturing approach for the program. Obviously, when we found deficiencies, we suggested changes to the manufacturing processes, which in turn were adopted. Indeed, the interaction between maintainers and designers has been followed throughout the F-35 program in shaping the manufacturing approach.

The best quote of all:

Quote:
SLD: In entering the facility, I noticed you have a “door mat” of stealth that’s been there for some time. Can you comment on this “door mat?”

Bill Grant: Oh, the slab of stealth? That’s our welcome mat. Yes, we actually have one of the test panels that we use for assessing the stealth of the various materials. It represents a stack-up that’s consistent with the upper surface or the outer surface of the jet. It has the exact same structure and the primer and the topcoat system that you’ll find on the operational jets. And that gets walked upon every time somebody comes in or out of our lab area out there, the repair development center.
Occasionally, we take it up to test to see if there’s any electrical or mechanical degradation to the system and with around 25,000 steps across that system we have not seen any degradation whatsoever. So we have a great deal of confidence, however anecdotal that may be, that we have a very robust system.

If it can stand up to use as a door mat for 25,000 steps without degradation, that's a very durable system.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4527 posts, RR: 18
Reply 34, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5119 times:

Quoting seahawk (Reply 32):
The question is if the expensive F-35B will ever operate from rough FOBs. The engine downwash is way stronger than that of the Harrier, the RAM coatings won
[quote=ThePointblank,reply=33]
Also an incredibly difficult aircraft to fly. The Harrier is a busy aircraft to fly. The F-35B is a easier aircraft to operate, as John Beesley in this video states:

With the right training it has proven to be an excellent Aircraft, challenging, yes, but it can fly 24/7 while the lemon is still stuck in the hangar maintaining it's incredibly complex systems



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5120 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 34):
With the right training it has proven to be an excellent Aircraft, challenging, yes, but it can fly 24/7 while the lemon is still stuck in the hangar maintaining it's incredibly complex systems

1. Yet to be proven that the F-35 is a maintenance hog. Operational testing has just started.
2. Yes, the Harrier is also known for being a very dangerous aircraft to fly. If the pilot isn't paying attention and is monitoring the controls and making adjustments, the aircraft will go out of control. The workload of a F-35 is considerably less; he has to focus on where he wants to fly, and let the aircraft fly itself. He can then focus on what the pilot is supposed to do: fly and make combat decisions, instead of fussing over his controls.

Edit:
And the maintenance performance metrics for the F-35 are below:
https://acc.dau.mil/adl/en-US/46566/file/13859/JSFSDD-%2383167-v11-LRIP_1_PBA_Final_V3-4.pdf

Do note as a comparison, the Saab Gripen is claimed by Saab to require 10 maintenance man hours per flight hour (MMH/FH). F-35 is required to have 12 MMH/FH as a threshold and 8 MMH/FH as objective. Do the comparison.

[Edited 2013-04-08 01:05:06]

User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4997 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 34):
while the lemon is still stuck in the hangar maintaining it's incredibly complex systems

Every one of your posts are pure flame bait, nothing but biased hate. The F-35 WILL NOT be canceled... no rabid fanaticism against the F-35 will change that fact. The F-35 goes away, the US air assets becomes a second rate military in 10 years. 189 F-22s can only go so far, gen 4.5 jets can only give so much based on 40 year old designs. End of the day, regardless of what the F-35 finally becomes or how many is purchased, the F-35 will be the backbone of US fighter aviation, and of many other countries.

Screaming that the F-35 is a lemon is like raging that a half finished painting that will eventually become a masterpiece is no better than a finger painting. Those complex systems diagnose the jet and tell maintainers what is wrong rather than spending hours trying to find the problem. Often a part can be pulled from storage before the jet returns because of self diagnosis and reporting back system status. MMH/FH is not just fixing but hours of diagnosing too.


Some numbers I found in another thread for comparison. The F-35 will be around 12 MMH/FH if not better.

Saab Draken.- 50 to 1
Eurofighter....- 9 to 1
F-14............. - 24 to 1
F-18E/F........- 6 to 1
F-18E/F........- 15 to 1
(different source)
Saab Gripen..- 10 to 1

C-17.............- 20 to 1
F-15A/B........- 32.3 here thru f117 stats from (HaveBlue and the F-117A by David Aronstein)
F-15C/D........- 22.1
F-16A...........- 19.2
F-117...........- 150 (pre 1989)
F-117...........- 45 (after improvements, post 1989)
CH-46E........- 19.6 in 1995 GlobalSecurity.org
CH-46E........- 27.2 in 2000
CH-53D........- 24.8 in 1995
CH-53D........- 27.9 in 2000
F-20.............- 5.6 (http://www.f20a.com/f20maint.htm)
A-6E............- 51.9 DMMH/FH (http://yarchive.net/mil/fa18_vs_a6.html)
F/A-18C.......- 19.1 DMMH/FH
B-2..............- 124

Fighter Maint. ManHours Per FlightHour Comparison (by Autothrust Feb 23 2009 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 37, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4939 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 36):
Some numbers I found in another thread for comparison. The F-35 will be around 12 MMH/FH if not better.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-309

F-35 operating and support costs (O&S) are currently projected to be 60 percent higher than those of the existing aircraft it will replace. March 2013, Page 26

This is the reality or rather the projected reality if everything turns out exactly as planned. Don't hate, just posting facts as determined by the GAO.


User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4873 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
F-35 operating and support costs (O&S) are currently projected to be 60 percent higher than those of the existing aircraft it will replace. March 2013, Page 26

This is the reality or rather the projected reality if everything turns out exactly as planned. Don't hate, just posting facts as determined by the GAO.

The GAO also notes that they are actively engaged in evaluating opportunities to reduce F-35 life-cycle sustainment costs, such as basing and infrastructure reductions, competitive sourcing, and reliability improvements.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 36):
Those complex systems diagnose the jet and tell maintainers what is wrong rather than spending hours trying to find the problem. Often a part can be pulled from storage before the jet returns because of self diagnosis and reporting back system status.

Indeed, the big change will be instead of maintenance by milestone, it will be maintenance by requirement. You won't be pulling jets from service because the jets hit a certain hour mark, but instead are pulled because the computer system flagged something as needing maintenance.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4527 posts, RR: 18
Reply 39, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4860 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 36):
The F-35 goes away, the US air assets becomes a second rate military in 10 years.

No, with the incredibly compromised performance the F35 brings to the table it will be the cause of the US becoming a second rate military.


Far better to cancel it , restart the F22 line with the tooling that is all being preserved and buy several hundred more of those uncompromised fighters with the savings.


Since stealth is rarely needed producing updated F16's can fill the gaps.


The Navy can do without it and the Marines can as well.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4830 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 39):
The Navy can do without it and the Marines can as well.

That's your opinion, and the Navy and Marines disagrees with you:
http://defense.aol.com/2013/04/08/ge...-essential-but-procurement-consti/

Quote:
"There's no alternative for the United States Marine Corps to the F-35B," Commandant Gen. James Amos said at the opening session of the Navy League's annual Sea-Air-Space conference. "I want to make that crystal clear to everybody in the audience." All the great aircraft of the past have gone through teething troubles in development, said Amos, a pilot himself.

"Speaking for the Navy," added the Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, "I need the fifth-generation fighter, and that [F-35] provides it, so we're all in -- but it has to perform. It has problems; it is making progress."

"I do not at this point believe that it is time to look for an exit ramp, if you will, for the Navy for the F-35C," continued Greenert, who in the past has damned the Joint Strike Fighter with similar faint praise.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4791 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 39):
No, with the incredibly compromised performance the F35 brings to the table it will be the cause of the US becoming a second rate military.

Are you kidding me? Really? Anyone who would describe the F-35 as 'incredibly compromised'... really? It is not a F-22, it was never meant to be a F-22, it will never perform like a F-22. It is not an air superiority fighter, it will not perform like one. The jets it is replacing are not air superiority fighters, and the F-35 matches or surpases the capabilities of those jets.


In no way will I ever say I am an expert in these matters, but you bring nothing but drivel to this thread.


User currently offline737tanker From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 269 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4780 times:

The people saying that the F-35 is a lemon and should be cancelled sound just like the people who said that the M-1 Abrams was a lemon and should also be cancelled. Instead of being a lemon the M-1 is now recognized as one of the best tanks, if not the best, in the world.

User currently offlineNeutronStar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4752 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
That "it takes a Marine to understand the needs of a Marine " is a bunch of crap. The USAF provides the bulk of the CAS to the Marines, as well as the US Army.

Okay, I can tell you that this is a categorically incorrect statement, through and through. In AFG, the VAST majority of CAS was provided by Marine and Navy aircraft to Marines in Helmand. End of story. Full stop. The majority of AF CAS went to Army units, BY FAR.

In Iraq, a lot of CAS was provided to Marines was by USAF, but the majority was USMC and Navy assets. There is no argument about that.

In both theatres I can tell you that there were rules governing use of assets and I can't get into them here due to classification.

As far as which bird to buy? Who cares? LMCO will get paid either way, and all the services will get their toys. That train has left the station. And while on paper, it sounds like a good idea; just buy the C model to replace the A and force feed a few C models down the Corps' throat to save money, the USAF's lobby within Congress travels well and there is no way they will accept a Navy jet (even though, speaking to a couple of AF dudes, they really wouldn't mind a few Super Hornets or Growlers to be thrown their way, either.)


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 44, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4711 times:

Quoting NeutronStar73 (Reply 43):
NeutronStar73

No sir,

The vast majority of CAS for the USMC and US Army is provided by:

USAF A-10s

USAF AC-130s

US Army AH-64s

USAF F-16s

USAF MC-130s

USAF B-1s

USAF B-52s

The USMC F/A-18s and AV-8s are way down the list, and the KC-130Js are just about to begin.

Don't get me wrong, USMC TACAIR does provide CAS for the Grunt Marines. In fact they withhold air assets from the Tactical Commander just to provide Marines with CAS, should it be needed. But those assets are usually on ground alert somewhere (or even ship borne) waiting for the call, so USAF assets, which are airborne on other missions get the call because they can be there quicker.


User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4689 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44):
The USMC F/A-18s and AV-8s are way down the list, and the KC-130Js are just about to begin.

Don't get me wrong, USMC TACAIR does provide CAS for the Grunt Marines. In fact they withhold air assets from the Tactical Commander just to provide Marines with CAS, should it be needed. But those assets are usually on ground alert somewhere (or even ship borne) waiting for the call, so USAF assets, which are airborne on other missions get the call because they can be there quicker.

Unless you are dealing with a Marine MEU, which is an entirely self-contained force with organic air assets. For example, the 11th MEU has 12 CH-46E's, 4 CH-53E's, 3 UH-1N's, 4 AH-1W's, 6 AV-8B's, and 2 KC-130's assigned to it.


User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 46, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4659 times:

So, with the F-22 and 4th Gen fighters around, could the USN and USAF bide their time until this makes its entry?.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/Assets/GetAsset.aspx?ItemID=50067



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4641 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 46):
So, with the F-22 and 4th Gen fighters around, could the USN and USAF bide their time until this makes its entry?.....

No:
http://defense.aol.com/2011/08/25/ma...imit-when-will-they-begin-to-fail/
http://forthecommondefense.org/2011/...arsenal-needs-expensive-face-lift/
http://www.govexec.com/federal-news/...dds-up-on-military-aircraft/26543/
http://www.navytimes.com/article/201...22/The-plan-to-keep-F-A-18s-flying


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4527 posts, RR: 18
Reply 48, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4527 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 46):


So, with the F-22 and 4th Gen fighters around, could the USN and USAF bide their time until this makes its entry?....

I think that makes the most sense.


In fact, since the F35 is so compromised for the VSTOL capability perhaps this is the version worth keeping. Its draggy airframe is not such a handicap for missions in which it is replacing the magnificent Harrier and in this one area, it may be an okay replacement for it although it's lack of maneuverability will be a handicap.


Also, it's very high maintenance man hour requirements and massive efflux problems are going to cause problems for the Marines in austere forward base situations that the Harrier excelled in.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 49, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4463 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 48):
In fact, since the F35 is so compromised for the VSTOL capability perhaps this is the version worth keeping. Its draggy airframe is not such a handicap for missions in which it is replacing the magnificent Harrier and in this one area, it may be an okay replacement for it although it's lack of maneuverability will be a handicap.


Also, it's very high maintenance man hour requirements and massive efflux problems are going to cause problems for the Marines in austere forward base situations that the Harrier excelled in.

Great thing about the internet is you don't have to substantiate anything!


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4527 posts, RR: 18
Reply 50, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4431 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 49):

Great thing about the internet is you don't have to substantiate anything!

All it takes is a little research Pslide and you'll find all the substantiation you need !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4431 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 48):
Also, it's very high maintenance man hour requirements

Substantiate and prove this please. We know that the F-35 is required to have 12 MMH/FH as a threshold and 8 MMH/FH as objective. The AV-8B Harrier II was noted back in 2005 to require 25 MMH/FH. To me, that sounds like a F-35B actually requires LESS intensive maintenance than the Harrier does.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 48):
Its draggy airframe is not such a handicap for missions in which it is replacing the magnificent Harrier

F-35B has more range, is much faster, and has a higher bring back ability than the Harrier ever did. All around, it's the better aircraft.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3564 posts, RR: 27
Reply 52, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4270 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

congratulations, we have had another F-35 thread locked because of entrenched belligerent postings and rehashing of the same old off topic materials.

Sometimes needing to have the last word brings little to the knowledge base besides screaming "I'm Right and will never change" Former US Navy chief of naval operations Adm Gary Roughead has made his statement, we've all commented on whether we agree or disagree. that's over. If you want to start a thread to discuss MMH/FH or any other SINGLE ISSUE and keep to that topic, do it. However to try to make every thread an all encompassing melee of nit picking opinion and rah rah, we've been there, done that and resolved nothing.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 53, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4226 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 51):
Substantiate and prove this please. We know that the F-35 is required to have 12 MMH/FH as a threshold and 8 MMH/FH as objective. The AV-8B Harrier II was noted back in 2005 to require 25 MMH/FH. To me, that sounds like a F-35B actually requires LESS intensive maintenance than the Harrier does.

That is the goal for the F-35A, not the "B" or "C" models.

That MMH/FH ratio is a pipe dream for any modern military aircraft. The F-35 will never get there, no matter which model you look at, even with all LRUs. The time it takes to repair a LRU, and then bench test it is added to the MMH.

The Marines would be better off to reopen the old A-10 line.

Read this from 2011;

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/arti...ech-Rescues-The-F-22-4-22-2011.asp

Specifically this section of paragraph # 4

" The F-35 uses a different approach to defeating radar signals, and the manufacturer insists that F-35 maintenance costs will be closer to that for the F-15, than for the F-22. But Lockheed Martin has been saying, for years, that its F-22 would be cheaper to maintain than existing aircraft. The air force never challenged this, at least not in public. Instead, the air force tried to keep the high operating costs a secret."

[Edited 2013-04-11 14:57:32]

LM is using a new acronym, made up just for the F-35. DMMH/FH means "direct maintenance man hours per flying hour". That means LM is not counting the hours to load weapons, fuel, or service the aircraft, only counting those hours to do the maintenance pre-flight, post-flight and the replacement of LRUs. They are not counting engine maintenance or repairs of LRUs while "in the shop" or bench testing, nor maintenance of the stealth coatings. Also not included in DMMH/FH are the depot level maintenance hours.


[Edited 2013-04-11 15:06:32]

User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 54, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4138 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53):
The Marines would be better off to reopen the old A-10 line.

Why not reopen the F4 line as well, that airframe is actually battle proven with kills under its belt. We can build 5-6 F4's for every F-22, good luck finding pilots though.


User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4095 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53):
That is the goal for the F-35A, not the "B" or "C" models.

However, the goals for the F-35B and C will be close to, or identical to the F-35A.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53):
That MMH/FH ratio is a pipe dream for any modern military aircraft. The F-35 will never get there, no matter which model you look at, even with all LRUs. The time it takes to repair a LRU, and then bench test it is added to the MMH.

We are moving from maintenance by milestone, it will be maintenance by requirement. F-35 has a diagnostic and maintenance system onboard that will tell the maintenance crew when a particular jet needs servicing, and where. Therefore, the amount of time actually working on the F-35 to diagnose problems will be reduced, meaning better serviceability. A technician can hook up a computer to the F-35, pull the information from the F-35's computer to determine what needs servicing, and work on that exact component without having to spend hours searching every system to determine what's wrong. It's akin to comparing a car built in the early 1980's to a car built now; most cars today are built with a on-board diagnostic computer where a technician can plug in a computer and pull error codes off the car. That error code will tell the technician what's wrong, and from there, the technician can fix the exact problem.

Remember, the maintenance requirements are driven by USN requirements. The Navy won't stand for aircraft that requires extensive maintenance under clean conditions to keep flying.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53):
LM is using a new acronym, made up just for the F-35. DMMH/FH means "direct maintenance man hours per flying hour". That means LM is not counting the hours to load weapons, fuel, or service the aircraft, only counting those hours to do the maintenance pre-flight, post-flight and the replacement of LRUs. They are not counting engine maintenance or repairs of LRUs while "in the shop" or bench testing, nor maintenance of the stealth coatings. Also not included in DMMH/FH are the depot level maintenance hours.

Also not included in the current calculations with current aircraft is the maintenance required to keep all of the pods we are hanging off our aircraft, such as targeting pods and EW pods, which the F-35 doesn't require because it has them built into the aircraft.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 56, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3911 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 54):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53):The Marines would be better off to reopen the old A-10 line.
Why not reopen the F4 line as well, that airframe is actually battle proven with kills under its belt. We can build 5-6 F4's for every F-22, good luck finding pilots though.

The F-4 was not a CAS airplane. What does the kill ratio have to do with the CAS mission.....nothing. Are you saying the A-10 is not 'battle proven'? Are you saying the A-10 does not have enemy aircraft 'kills' under its belt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Operational_history

"The A-10 was used in combat for the first time during the Gulf War in 1991, destroying more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces, making it by far the most effective aircraft of the war.[3] A-10s also shot down two Iraqi helicopters with the GAU-8 cannon. The first of these was shot down by Captain Robert Swain over Kuwait on 6 February 1991, marking the A-10's first air-to-air victory.[66] Four A-10s were shot down during the war, all by surface-to-air missiles. Another three battle-damaged A-10s and OA-10As returned to base but were written off, some sustaining additional damage in crashed landings.[67][68] The A-10 had a mission capable rate of 95.7%, flew 8,100 sorties, and launched 90% of the AGM-65 Maverick missiles fired in the conflict.[69] Shortly after the Gulf War, the Air Force gave up on the idea of replacing the A-10 with a close air support version of the F-16.[70]


Aerial top view of gray jet aircraft flying above green and brown patchy earth surface. Under each wings are hard points for weapons. The two engines are located aft of the wings and in front of two fin units.


An A-10A during a NATO Operation Allied Force mission
U.S. Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft fired approximately 10,000 30 mm rounds in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1994–95. Following the seizure of some heavy weapons by Bosnian Serbs from a warehouse in Ilidža, a series of sorties were launched to locate and destroy the captured equipment. On 5 August 1994, two A-10s located and strafed an anti-tank vehicle. Afterward, the Serbs agreed to return remaining heavy weapons.[71] In August 1995, NATO launched an offensive called Operation Deliberate Force. A-10s flew close air support missions, attacking Bosnian Serb artillery and positions. In late September, A-10s began flying patrols again."

"The A-10C first deployed to Iraq in the third quarter of 2007 with the 104th Fighter Squadron of the Maryland Air National Guard. The jets include the Precision Engagement Upgrade.[78] The A-10C's digital avionics and communications systems have greatly reduced the time to acquire a close air support target and attack it."

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 55):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 53):That is the goal for the F-35A, not the "B" or "C" models.
However, the goals for the F-35B and C will be close to, or identical to the F-35A.
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 55):
Remember, the maintenance requirements are driven by USN requirements. The Navy won't stand for aircraft that requires extensive maintenance under clean conditions to keep flying.

              


User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3804 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 56):


Don't laugh: a USN rear admiral is the deputy chair of the JSF project office, and is responsible, amongst other things, logistics and technology. This is very unique as past 'joint' aircraft programs were often dominated by one branch or the other. With F-35, the roles and duties are split down the middle and divided between the two services. The project lead has always switched between the USN and the USAF.

Also, the planned logistics footprint for F-35 is smaller than a equivalent number of F-16's; based upon the operational requirements documents, 24 F-35's can be sustained for 30 days with 18 C-17 sized loads. A equivalent number of F-16's require 28 C-17 sized loads to sustain over the same period of time.

Unlike previous fighter development programs, supportability is a major contractual requirement on F-35, with half of the program's Key Performance Parameters dedicated to sustainment.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Former USN Chief Suggests DOD Should Cancel F-35A
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Japan's Military Chief Says F-35 Is "best Fighter" posted Wed Mar 27 2013 11:23:09 by LAXintl
USN Grounds 4 Carrier Air Wings [sequestration] posted Sun Mar 3 2013 08:45:03 by cjg225
Boeing Gets New $1.9B Order For USN P-8A posted Sat Sep 22 2012 08:36:08 by KC135TopBoom
Norway Threatens To Cancel NH 90 Order posted Wed Jul 25 2012 11:00:02 by Mortyman
NK Deploys SAMs For USN/ROK Exercise posted Sun Nov 28 2010 10:03:14 by KC135TopBoom
USN Recieves New C40A posted Wed Nov 24 2010 09:14:01 by KingairTA
1st Production E-2D Delivered To USN posted Tue Aug 3 2010 14:36:17 by LMP737
Once "Unthinkable" Are Cuts To US DOD On The Way? posted Fri Jul 9 2010 15:11:01 by Lumberton
108 USN/USMC F/A-18's Grounded, Wing Cracks posted Tue Mar 16 2010 01:33:02 by ThePointblank
Airbus Threaten To Cancel A400M posted Thu Jan 7 2010 05:32:56 by Daysleeper

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format