What is up with the F-35? Part II

[Chunder]

You don't always get what you want. When the B-model was the red-headed, over-weight, over-budget anchor weighing down the whole JSF program a few years back many people were evaluating whether the USMC needed the capability the F-35B provides.

Never quite understood the logic that Marines don't need the same bit of kit when they operate in the same contested environment as everyone else.

I think the Royal Navy would've been dancing in the streets had the F-35B been cancelled (at the time), they would have switched the the F-35C and had real carriers (they DID switch to the F-35C for a time, before returning to the F-35B buy and a STOVL configuration for the Queen Elizabeth-class).

With only one carrier and only marginally better capacity when operating... I doubt it.

[jlvfr]

Never quite understood the logic that Marines don't need the same bit of kit when they operate in the same contested environment as everyone else.

The USMC got used to having S/VTOL fighters able to use their heli carriers (or, potentially, from semi-prepared bases). With the Harrier on it's way out, they would loose this capability.

With only one carrier and only marginally better capacity when operating... I doubt it.

The french are operating quite nicelly with just one carrier with almost the same capacity. Although I hear they are still considering a 2nd carrier?

[JA Boomer]

Never quite understood the logic that Marines don't need the same bit of kit when they operate in the same contested environment as everyone else.

It's a great point. I was just pointing out that the question was asked, does a primarily CAS oriented mission profile need the stealth and bells and whistles the F-35 brings to the table, given that at the time the F-35B was having a lot of problems and was the most ambitious and most complicated F-35 variant.

With only one carrier and only marginally better capacity when operating... I doubt it.

Okay, maybe the RN wouldn't have been dancing in the streets. But they did at one time switch to a F-35C purchase. So if the F-35B variant had been cancelled, I don't think they would have been too upset.

I wasn't advocating the F-35B be scrapped then, nor now. Just saying the F-35 program as a whole has come A LONG way in a few short years.

[Albany Rifles]

Never quite understood the logic that Marines don't need the same bit of kit when they operate in the same contested environment as everyone else.


With only one carrier and only marginally better capacity when operating... I doubt it.

Simple, the USMC have a different role than the US Army. By their doctrine they need integrated fixed wing capability. They are keeping some Super Hornets but they need the F-35B as well as the MV-22. And the Navy fully supports. Why? Because the Gator Navy wants to get the hell away from the shoreline. They want to stage 75 - 100 NM off a coast and send in troops with MV-22s supported by F-35Bs & AH-1Zs. It keeps the San Antonios, etc more survivable.

Remember when the US services work their requirements through the DOD it is for our use. The FMS folks don't get a vote too much. It is what the service needs not what our Allies or customers of Lockheed Martin need.

[gf0012-aust]

This. Tbh, I think both the USN and USAF fell prey to a mix of good-old-fashioned rivalry and some greed relating to "we want our version". And I'd be willing to be that having one less production line would have also lowered the costs

its about practical operating considerations, CONOPs etc .....

eg there is already recognition that the services won't be bound to a common platform for the 6th gen FW manned fighter developments

[citanon]

Simple, the USMC have a different role than the US Army. By their doctrine they need integrated fixed wing capability. They are keeping some Super Hornets but they need the F-35B as well as the MV-22. And the Navy fully supports. Why? Because the Gator Navy wants to get the hell away from the shoreline. They want to stage 75 - 100 NM off a coast and send in troops with MV-22s supported by F-35Bs & AH-1Zs. It keeps the San Antonios, etc more survivable.

Remember when the US services work their requirements through the DOD it is for our use. The FMS folks don't get a vote too much. It is what the service needs not what our Allies or customers of Lockheed Martin need.

I thought the Marines don't have any Super Hornets. They saved all their money for the F35 and will be getting more F35s than the Navy. Right now though they are still flying F-18C/Ds.

[Chunder]

It's a great point. I was just pointing out that the question was asked, does a primarily CAS oriented mission profile need the stealth and bells and whistles the F-35 brings to the table, given that at the time the F-35B was having a lot of problems and was the most ambitious and most complicated F-35 variant.

Here's a thing from Lt. General Jon Davis - deputy Commandant Marine Corps Aviation

Davis rebutted critics who claim the F-35B is “too much technology for the Marine Corps,” explaining the Marines’ mission is to be able to fight anywhere at any time against anybody.

To drive his point home, Davis recalled a conversation he had with retired Marine Lt. Gen. Frank Petersen Jr., the Marine Corps’ first African-American aviator and general officer. The two met before Petersen died in August.

“I said: Well, some people think we’re getting too much technology,” Davis said. “He goes: ‘I was shot down in Korea and I was shot down in Vietnam; never once did I think I had too much technology. Go tell them they’re idiots.’

Okay, maybe the RN wouldn't have been dancing in the streets. But they did at one time switch to a F-35C purchase. So if the F-35B variant had been cancelled, I don't think they would have been too upset.

Im not 100% sure but I think that was a political, not a naval one, and it had little to do with actual capacity - it had to do with operating a second aircraft carrier and hyperbole about the B (think of the current Canadian PM saying it doesn't work as opposed to reality). Put it this way, carriers need upgrading. Wars don't follow your schedule. The Mediterranean used to be a RN lake. They scrapped their carriers, and then Libya happened. What happens when your sole carrier gets a bloody great big hole through it or catches fire... it's a warship. What happens when you need to go home.

[Albany Rifles]

I thought the Marines don't have any Super Hornets. They saved all their money for the F35 and will be getting more F35s than the Navy. Right now though they are still flying F-18C/Ds.

Spoke with someone from Marine G-4 last week. He stated they will keep 3 squadrons of Super Hornets to operate off the big decks and all of the rest with be F-35Bs.

And the separate decision by USN & USAF were not due to service rivalries. Its different missions. The Navy needs a rugged airframe and undercarriage which is corrosion resistant. Air Force needs force projection, longer range, loiter, etc. The A-7 worked for both, true, as did the F-4. But there were definitely different variants for the F-4 between the services. The FB-111 did not work. The A-4 did not work. And as for the Navy adopting the F-18 from the USAF. No. The Air Force selected the YF-16. The Navy refused a single engine aircraft and chose the totally different YF-17. Both services took part in the evaluation of both aircraft. Each went a totally separate way with the F-16 & F-18. They do not share common parentage...just a common selection process.

[JA Boomer]

I thought the Marines don't have any Super Hornets. They saved all their money for the F35 and will be getting more F35s than the Navy. Right now though they are still flying F-18C/Ds.

Spoke with someone from Marine G-4 last week. He stated they will keep 3 squadrons of Super Hornets to operate off the big decks and all of the rest with be F-35Bs.

The USMC absolutely does not operate the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, nor do they plan to. They currently operate the F/A-18A+/C/B which deploy within USN carrier air wings, and the F/A-18D "night attack" squadrons which are land based. They've even recently regenerated some A+/C model Hornets from the boneyard to help get them through the F-35 transition.

They have even resisted the EA-18G Growler and are currently the only operator of the EA-6B Prowler. When the Prowler is retired in a few years they are intending to replace it with the organic EA capabilities of the F-35.

The current plan is for the USMC to purchase 353 F-35B and 67 F-35C. Five squadrons of Marine F-35Cs will be assigned to USN carrier air wings (replacing the F/A-18A+/C), while the F-35Bs will be used on amphibious ships and ashore (replacing the AV-8B Harrier II and the F/A-18D).

[jlvfr]

The current plan is for the USMC to purchase 353 F-35B and 67 F-35C. Five squadrons of Marine F-35Cs will be assigned to USN carrier air wings (replacing the F/A-18A+/C), while the F-35Bs will be used on amphibious ships and ashore (replacing the AV-8B Harrier II and the F/A-18D).

So few C models for 5 squadrons?..

[JA Boomer]

By the way, have USMC squadrons always deployed as part of USN carrier air wings?

I get that the USMC is within the Department of the Navy, so it's still "all in the family", but I was surprised when the USN announced that it was reducing it's F-35C buy down to 260 airframes while giving the USMC 67 F-35Cs to make up the difference. Continuing with the current mix of about half of the carrier air wings having a USMC squadron embedded.

I'm not against the USMC having land based squadrons or carrier capable squadrons, but I'm assuming the USMC F-35C pilots and maintainers will be trained by the same USN fleet replacement squadron as the USN pilots and maintainers. But the integrated USMC carrier air wing squadrons are from a different branch and based at a different base than the rest of the USN strike fighters. It seems inefficient to me and I'm not sure what the advantage is. If it were to increase the amount of carrier capable squadrons by giving the USMC additional F-35C I would understand, but these squadrons will always be tied to a particular air wing, so you're not increasing numbers, you've just replaced USN squadrons with USMC ones.

[JA Boomer]

So few C models for 5 squadrons?..

I assume this is because the USMC F-35C pilots and maintainers will be trained among the USN personnel with the USN fleet replacement squadrons. Therefore the numbers are very low because the USMC did not have to account for training, test, and evaluation air-frames. 5x12 = 60 (I'm not sure if they operate 12 or 10 air-frames per squadron), so they've got 7 extras for depot maintenance and attrition spares.

EDIT: Sorry, it looks like my information was a little out of date, apparently the new plan is to have 4 USMC F-35C squadrons with 10 air-frames each, so the numbers make a bit more sense with 27 spare F-35Cs.

The USMC will still utilize the USN fleet replacement squadrons however.

Source: https://marinecorpsconceptsandprogra...16%20FINAL.pdf

The F-35B and F-35C will replace F/A-18, AV-8B and EA-6B. The Marine Corps will
procure a total of 353 F-35Bs and 67 F-35Cs in the following squadron bed down:

• 9 Squadrons x 16 F-35B
• 5 Squadrons x 10 F-35B
• 4 Squadrons x 10 F-35C
• 2 Squadrons x 10 F-35B reserve
• 2 Squadrons x 25 F-35B FRS

[Jimbo]

By the way, have USMC squadrons always deployed as part of USN carrier air wings?

I get that the USMC is within the Department of the Navy, so it's still "all in the family", but I was surprised when the USN announced that it was reducing it's F-35C buy down to 260 airframes while giving the USMC 67 F-35Cs to make up the difference. Continuing with the current mix of about half of the carrier air wings having a USMC squadron embedded.

I'm not against the USMC having land based squadrons or carrier capable squadrons, but I'm assuming the USMC F-35C pilots and maintainers will be trained by the same USN fleet replacement squadron as the USN pilots and maintainers. But the integrated USMC carrier air wing squadrons are from a different branch and based at a different base than the rest of the USN strike fighters. It seems inefficient to me and I'm not sure what the advantage is. If it were to increase the amount of carrier capable squadrons by giving the USMC additional F-35C I would understand, but these squadrons will always be tied to a particular air wing, so you're not increasing numbers, you've just replaced USN squadrons with USMC ones.

Maybe the USMC squadrons receive different training at providing CAS and other air support missions for Marines in land combat? In other words, perhaps the Navy pilots primary focus is on protecting the fleet and sinking enemy vessels while the USMC pilots primary focus is providing support for deployed marines. Just a guess by a civie.

[Albany Rifles]

JA Boomer,

I don't know your sources but this was from a guy who works the policy within the building for USMC. You may be right in the long run but the plan was as I stated per the midterm.

And yes, USMC VF squadrons regularly deploy on USN carriers as a plug in to USN Air Wing. They are, after all, Naval Aviators.

[citanon]

JA Boomer,

I don't know your sources but this was from a guy who works the policy within the building for USMC. You may be right in the long run but the plan was as I stated per the midterm.

And yes, USMC VF squadrons regularly deploy on USN carriers as a plug in to USN Air Wing. They are, after all, Naval Aviators.

Ar, I've seen from multiple sources that the Marines only have A-D hornets. Unless they are picking up some from the Navy, maybe the guy just misspoke about hornets vs super hornets...