F-35B/C Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)

[Flash]

Why do Marines needs to buy C models? The Marine Corps doesn't get much out of a Squadron that is part of a CAG in our MAGTF. Some old guys around here have enlightened us that the Marine Corps presence on carriers is pretty much because the Navy wants more squadrons but doesn't want to pay for them. The Corps buying C models will create huge costs in training, maintenance, parts etc.... You would essentially be creating a whole new airplane. No other service is going to operate two versions of the airplane. Why should we?

Holy hyperbole Batman!

Whoa there yut-yut, I not sure you quite realize just how closely tied the Navy is to Marine aviation, especially when it comes to funding. As it has been discussed here before aviation funding for the Navy and Marine Corps basically comes from the same pot, so essentially the Navy as well as the Marines is paying for those VFMA squadrons on the carriers. To claim that the Marines buying C models will create huge costs in training, maintenance and parts is also a bit of a fallacy since the Navy and Marines are joined at the hip when it comes to all of that good stuff. More importantly the different versions of the F-35 have also been designed and built to have a great deal of commonality when it comes to parts, training and maintenance so there wouldn't be 'huge costs' buying some C's vs B's, and it is nowhere near "creating a whole new airplane".

In the grand scheme of things the VSTOL F-35B almost certainly lengthened the development as well as increased the cost of the overall F-35 program, making the basic design of the aircraft be able to perform the VSTOL mission was challenging for both teams that competed for the JSF. Basically everyone else is helping pay so that the Marines can have their VSTOL F-35B. You can thank the USAF later.

In the end the possible mix of F-35B vs C's in that the Marines might fly will be done at a much higher pay grade than anyone here on this board and who knows what they will decide.

 

[Frumby]

Not to start wide spread panic because I seriously doubt this will happen BUT there have been discussions on killing the F-35. Considering the amount of international sales that this aircraft has generated, I doubt it. My source, however, works directly for SecDef who is not a fan. We shall see. SecDef will be changing in a few months so this may be a "whatever" post. Just FYI.

 

[81montedriver]

I dont mean to start a Navy vs. USMC debate, but I prefer the planes USMC flies, I love the idea of PLC, I love the idea of getting to do stuff like FAC. I prefer the USMC rank system and general way of doing things. Since I have no love for boats, I would much rather be trained to do Infantry things in addition to flight, instead of having to learn stuff related to sailing. I dont want to join the Navy, not get a flight school slot, and be assigned to soemthign related to sailing. Above all else, its as simple as I want to be a Marine. I have nothing against the Navy though.

By the way, if you plan on becoming a Marine Corps Aviator, you should still expect to go to the boat since all platforms except Hercs go to the boat (Although we have proved we can land on one.)

 

[MIDNJAC]

I dont mean to start a Navy vs. USMC debate, but I prefer the planes USMC flies, I love the idea of PLC, I love the idea of getting to do stuff like FAC. I prefer the USMC rank system and general way of doing things. Since I have no love for boats, I would much rather be trained to do Infantry things in addition to flight, instead of having to learn stuff related to sailing. I dont want to join the Navy, not get a flight school slot, and be assigned to soemthign related to sailing. Above all else, its as simple as I want to be a Marine. I have nothing against the Navy though.

I'm in the Marine Hornet FRS right now, and our syllabus (for Navy guys like me) is exactly the same as our Marine classmattes. Same Air-to-ground training, same air-to-air, and we all go to the boat, though some Marine guys end up going to F/A-18D squadrons for their fleet tours which will not ever actually see the boat. What I'm trying to say is that until you get to an operational command, the road to flying Hornets in the Marines is going to be the same experience as flying them in the Navy. Yeah there are some operational differences between the two, but that is WAY down the road for you at this point so I wouldn't stress too much about it. I'd be willing to bet, however, that the Marine Corps will still be flying it's Hornets for many more years. Search "Center Barrel Replacement" or something similar and you can get an idea of the money being pumped into boosting the life expectancy of these jets.

 

[Harrier Dude]

Not really much else to say except that there is a lot of bad gouge going on here.

Read the Marine Aviation Campaign plan for any of the last 10 or so cycles. Particulalrly that most recent (and hence more up to date) editions. Go ahead and look for the terms "F-35C or F-18E/F" anywhere in connection to the USMC acquisition plans and post it here. Good luck.

Look, despite my username, I really don't have any axe to grind or dog in this fight from a personal basis (although I'm fascinated by the advent of the UC-12W! Ooooooohhhhhh!!!).

The Corps is going to buy the F-35B, and that's it. Is it possible that they someday might seriously consider buying the F-35C? Technically, perhaps. About as likely as the perpetual rumor that the Army is going to get A-10s "soon". Or that the navy is going to bring back the battleship.

There are always a ton of people, some of them "high ranking", that generate discussions about what they would do if they were King for a day when it comes down to aircraft acquisition. Most of them tend to come from legacy platforms and see things from that perspective. The phrog guys were always talking about one of two things: either "the MV-22 will be here next year, thank God!" or "I heard that we're not going to get that piece of shit and we're just going to revamp the phrog into a superphrog". All of this was said based on some Colonel or General's personal, thoughts, observations, or desires.

Guess what? The Corps never really changed it's tune much on the MV-22. We're getting them pretty much like the Corps wanted, although maybe not as many.

How does that have anything to do with the F-35B? Well, they're both complicated and expensive acquisition projects. They take forever to develop, and are legislatively intolerant of huge rudder steers at the last minute. "The last minute" is measured in years.

We are WAY too far down the path to make drastic changes in our acquisition strategy. Is exchanging a few dozen B's for C's "drastic"? Yes. The domino effect in terms of infrastructure, manpower, and funding alone would boggle your mind.

Could the POTUS/SECDEF quickly change his course and cancel the program or make these changes? Sure. Will he? Without having a years long ramp-up of threats to do so under his belt? No. Probably not. Anybody below those levels who think that they can actually stop this train at this point are delusional. Especially Colonels and GS-15s from HQMC, and the guy from the third shitter on the left.

Having said all of that, and certainly labeling myself as some kind of F-35B/STOVL kool-aid drinker in the process, I would say that the Corps should have gone with the F-18E/F/G. Is it as capable? No. Not even close. But it works, it's here in reality right now, and it's a shit-ton cheaper. It would have been even cheaper still if the USMC had gotten in on the Navy's deal back in the day. TACAIR would be all on one sheet of music by now and we would have lost only a fraction of our capability in current day terms (V/STOL).

That's what I would do if I was King for a day. Unfortunately, the day would have to have been in 1995 or so.

 

[helolumpy]

No other service is going to operate two versions of the airplane. Why should we?

How can you say that?

H-60 B / F / H / R / S
F-18 C/ E / F/ G
F-14 A/ B / D

 

[Swanee]

How can you say that?

H-60 B / F / H / R / S
F-18 C/ E / F/ G
F-14 A/ B / D

The F-14B didn't have a lift fan and do the whole VTOL thing.

 

[Sonog]

Would not having folding wings be a big issue on a conventional carrier? Or would that be minuscule in comparison to problems caused by overall v/stol launch and recovery operations?

 

[helolumpy]

The F-14B didn't have a lift fan and do the whole VTOL thing.

But it was two versions of the same aircraft that we operated simoultaneously. So it answered the question; "
No other service is going to operate two versions of the airplane. Why should we?"

 

[bert]

Harrier Dude is spot on. USMC leadership is better than all the others at keeping their people "on message" within the acquisition community. The Osprey is living proof of that.

 

[MIDNJAC]

I got in an Osprey the other night, and I now understand how they halted the ever-increasing developmental costs and got it on the fast track to operational use......they forgot to install the interior! Holy s*** that thing is scary on the inside.....not a dig on any of my Osprey friends, just what I felt standing in the midst of yards and yards of exposed fuel and hydraulic lines right next to my head.

 

[Harrier Dude]

Have you never ridden in a military helo before? I've never been a MV-22, but that sounds about fleet standard for ever other helo I've ever been in.

The one exception was a brand new (<300 hrs total time) navy -60 back in '03 off the Bataan. That thing smelled like a new car.

 

[81montedriver]

I got in an Osprey the other night, and I now understand how they halted the ever-increasing developmental costs and got it on the fast track to operational use......they forgot to install the interior! Holy s*** that thing is scary on the inside.....not a dig on any of my Osprey friends, just what I felt standing in the midst of yards and yards of exposed fuel and hydraulic lines right next to my head.

sounds about the same as any 46 or 53 i've been in.

 

[Swanee]

But it was two versions of the same aircraft that we operated simoultaneously. So it answered the question; "
No other service is going to operate two versions of the airplane. Why should we?"

I guess I should have said, "No other service is going to operate two versions of the F-35; why should we?" Plus, I'm guessing there is much more difference between the F-35 A/B/C and the H-60 B/F/H/R/S. I mean, it's not like one can't land on a boat, only one can land vertically and only one can land on a carrier....

 

[Uncle Fester]

I recall reading somewhere that they did a proof-of-concept deployment (or an underway, at least) of Harriers as part of a CVW back in the early '80's. Apparently it worked just fine, but obviously the idea never went anywhere.