F-35B declared operational with USMC

Seggy said:
How much money was spent to make it 'operational'?
Click to expand...

Most expensive to date. Part of that problem was the decision to design while building, rather than design first. But, our present fleet is old and falling apart, as well as old technologically.

Minuteman said:
A better question is: How much money was blown to bring the Block 2 software into operation so the marines could brag a notional goal instead of waiting for Block 3?

The aircraft still doesn't have any weapons and DAS is still a dream. For at least the next 15 months it is a very expensive trainer.
Click to expand...

The B model is combat capable, just not with it's full suite of weapons yet.
 
hook_dupin said:
I don't believe the Marines need STOVL/VTOL tactical fixed wing aviation at all, much less the F-35.

However, rice bowls and inertia are both very large.
Click to expand...

With out STOVL fighters, the gator navy can't operate outside the CVN umbrella. Which is not always practical.

Granted 4 AV-8Bs are not exactly going to fight off the Chinese Air Force, but they can let the baby carriers defend themselves for limited operations. The British proved that in the Falklands.
 
USMCmech said:
The British proved that in the Falklands.
Click to expand...

Yes... Because the Brits did not have real carriers.

The United States will essentially always have a full-size carrier in production from now through the next 50 years. We have never operated AV-8s (or really even the entire MAGTF itself) outside of some greater Joint presentation, nor will we ever.

I believe the F-35B is a waste for the U.S., but the only reason we have it is that it keeps partner nations (i.e...the Brits) in the game.

The Marines are great. Their biggest downfall is that they think like Marines. It will never be a LHA vs the world, so the whole F-35B premise is flawed. The Marines sure are going to spend a ton of money on it, though....

I feel those funds would better be spent on language training, intel, training for small localized counter insurgency actions, etc -Those are the areas where the Marines have really provided great service over their 200+ year history.
 
The Marines need to do something with their air fleet though. Their Hornets are falling apart, their Harriers have no replacements save for the Brit ones they purchased for spares. I suppose they could've acquired the C-model. But they want the VTOL.
 
MikeD said:
The Marines need to do something with their air fleet though. Their Hornets are falling apart, their Harriers have no replacements save for the Brit ones they purchased for spares. I suppose they could've acquired the C-model. But they want the VTOL.
Click to expand...
I think that Rhinos and Growlers would have been the way to go, greater numbers and their own EW assets.
 
knot4u said:
Click to expand...


Based on the comments, and the video, I'd say you're either talking with Todd or the gorilla, or wookie, or what ever abomination his stupid little avatar is. Since I've used the ignore feature, the now three people who are on it, are silent, and this place is way more pleasant.
 
MikeD said:
The Marines need to do something with their air fleet though. Their Hornets are falling apart, their Harriers have no replacements save for the Brit ones they purchased for spares. I suppose they could've acquired the C-model. But they want the VTOL.
Click to expand...

It's shocking to me that a Marine Corps where an airplane that costs as much as an infantry division is a better alternative than letting Joint partners take on fixed wing tactical aviation.
 
Rumor is the F-35 got its ass wooped numerous times by the F-16 and the F-35 pilots hate the bulky helmets and cramped cockpit. They claim its impossible to look to the rear without the helmet slamming into the canopy. What is the primary role of the aircraft anyway. The A10 is still the king IMO and for further close air support, the Apache seems to be dominating.
 
It will be nice to see how this initial operating experience will provide feedback for future development. The F-35 is a a technological wonder, and I hope they find a way to make it cost less.
 
SeanD said:
Rumor is the F-35 got its ass wooped numerous times by the F-16 and the F-35 pilots hate the bulky helmets and cramped cockpit. They claim its impossible to look to the rear without the helmet slamming into the canopy. What is the primary role of the aircraft anyway. The A10 is still the king IMO and for further close air support, the Apache seems to be dominating.
Click to expand...

That was a test where there were constraints and parameters. The F-35 will be a strike interdiction platform that can also perform CAS, air-air, reconaissance, etc. For the CAS role, it just does it in a different style than the A-10 did. For as great as the A-10 was, it will have trouble surviving in any kind of extensive contested airspace, as we've been very spoiled and dare I say gotten too comfortable, with combat in the past 15 years in areas with no air-air threat and minimal surface-air threat.
 
There still aren't any dedicated OT&E aircraft loaded with the full version of Block 2B. This is because the USMC operational aircraft had priority on depot to get the mods required. So we are literally declaring an aircraft "operational" when that version of the aircraft has not been flown in an OT&E environment. (lol!)
  • Operational/non-test aircrew are restricted from using the current night vision camera associated with DAS/the helmet. This also means operational aircrew are restricted from flying in night IMC conditions. So the USMC declared IOC....but really it's only effective during daylight because you can't use night vision.
  • Weapons load is restricted to 2xA2A missiles and 2xA2G munitions of the same type, no mixed loads. Of course this is a bit of a moot point since the only A2A missile cleared for use with 2B is the AIM-120 and its only air to ground munition is the GBU-12.
  • Potential unspecified G limits for operational/non-test aircraft, related to a fuel siphon tank overpressure problem, as well as additional restrictions while carrying munitions. Rumot is that the munitions restrictions for the -B were somewhere on the order of a 4.5 instantaneous g limit.
  • Sensor performance and fusion sounds like a complete poopshow, to the point where it sounds like the only way a 2B aircraft is going to conduct CAS is if the JTAC performs a dedicated voice talk-on.
  • Higher fuel burn than an F-16
Click to expand...
 
MikeD said:
Most expensive to date.
Click to expand...

Is 1.5 Trillion really the number?

Part of that problem was the decision to design while building, rather than design first. But, our present fleet is old and falling apart, as well as old technologically.
Click to expand...

There seem to be quite a few more 'problems' with the program that jacked up the cost. I get the 'old' technology concerns to a point (think B-52s and C-130s are doing just fine) but could that 1.5 trillion have been better invested say in counter cyber attack programs?
 
USMCmech said:
On a related note, the last CH-46 will be retired today.

http://blog.nasm.si.edu/aviation/phrog-farewell/

It's kinda depressing to know that the aircraft I spent 90% of my time maintaining isn't even in service anymore.

View attachment 32270
Click to expand...
HMM-774 flew two aircraft up to Quantico on Thursday from Norfolk. They had a party last night at the Marine Corps Museum. I heard that there was a large contingent of Navy Phrog pilots and crew members in attendance, as well as at the retirement ceremony today. The Navy quietly retired our fleet of CH-46s with little to no fan fare. Glad the Marines retired theirs in style!
 
mshunter said:
Based on the comments, and the video, I'd say you're either talking with Todd or the gorilla, or wookie, or what ever abomination his stupid little avatar is. Since I've used the ignore feature, the now three people who are on it, are silent, and this place is way more pleasant.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

The only thing you are ignoring are the facts. When you have a user questioning a civilian who is concerned about military spending, that is the way the system was set up per the Constitution.
 
Seggy said:
Is 1.5 Trillion really the number?



There seem to be quite a few more 'problems' with the program that jacked up the cost. I get the 'old' technology concerns to a point (think B-52s and C-130s are doing just fine) but could that 1.5 trillion have been better invested say in counter cyber attack programs?
Click to expand...
The older C-130s have wing box issues and are being replaced with the C-130Js which are new airframes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top