F-35B / Marines 1st Media Launch

[Jimbeaux]

1st "official" media launch for the Marines just finished. Showed the thing in a Harrier-type hover, etc. Plans for the C version are now outlined on the web.

Video just shown on tele not up yet but plenty of other vids are.

[Roberty]

Isn't the F-35B still on probation?

With the US Marines currently the only customer for the VSTOL F-35B and with development costs spiralling I really can't see this aircraft making it to full scale production.

I think like the UK Navy the US Marines are going to end up with the CATOBAR F-35C and with it's greater range and larger payload I really don't know why they are still pursuing the F-35B.

It's an Engineering marvel for sure but is it really required?

[sharpfocus]

I'm a bit confused too, I thought I saw the launch of the F35-C a couple of days ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkNZfu3EdvA

[Jimbeaux]

The Marines just made a show of it on the news. They say this is required for its ability to land on ships that are not aircraft carriers, etc.

[Jimbeaux]

The 35c is a carrier variant the Navy is buying. The "B" is for the Marines as it is a vertical lift version. It appears the U.S. and U.K. are working a swap.
Yes, they are still on probation it appears. Read paragraphs 8 & 9 of the link; it appears you chaps are getting pricked a bit on the deal:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/07/marin...

Edited by Jimbeaux on Friday 29th July 20:37

[Roberty]

Given the US's need to up their already considerable overdraft I really can't see the F-35B project stumbling on much longer.

Time to nip it in the bud before it bring the entire F-35 project in to question.

[Jimbeaux]

Roberty said:

Given the US's need to up their already considerable overdraft I really can't see the F-35B project stumbling on much longer.

Time to nip it in the bud before it bring the entire F-35 project in to question.

That money has already been obligated.

[badgers_back]

Jimbeaux said:

Roberty said:

Given the US's need to up their already considerable overdraft I really can't see the F-35B project stumbling on much longer.

Time to nip it in the bud before it bring the entire F-35 project in to question.

That money has already been obligated.

If they don't sort out the B then all the marines mini aircraft carriers are useless.

Also the marines don't really care if its overweight crap in a dogfight and has a small range

[Mikeyboy]

The problem with the B was always that they tried to create from a semi-conventional airframe a plane that would hover, rather than design an aircraft from scratch that was designed to hover from the start. Thats why its not working out/costing far too much to make sense.

Even the c variant is not really fit for purpose. Its current range and payload capacity make it difficult to carry out the sort of operations the Super Hornet does without putting the carrier or air refuellers at risk from land based fighters, particularly in the South China sea.

And the A variant. Hmm supposed to have been a cheaper mass produced aircraft to replace the f16 and its ended up costing almost as much the f22, which itself is proving very expensive to run and not all that reliable due to its much vaunted stealth capabilities.

in short the whole F35 programme was well conceived and badly executed. One size did not fit all, it fitted no-one.

[Roberty]

badgers_back said:

If they don't sort out the B then all the marines mini aircraft carriers are useless.

Also the marines don't really care if its overweight crap in a dogfight and has a small range

They still have there Harrier II's and we have a fair few nearly identical Harrier II's with plenty of hours left we could sell them.

[Roberty]

Mikeyboy said:

Even the c variant is not really fit for purpose. Its current range and payload capacity make it difficult to carry out the sort of operations the Super Hornet does without putting the carrier or air refuellers at risk from land based fighters, particularly in the South China sea.

I thought the C variant was turning out to be the best of the bunch what with it's larger payload and greater range.

That said I think we missed a trick not buying F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

They could have been built in the UK under license at a huge saving over the projected cost of the F-35's, been integrated into the RAF/RN and declared operational in time for the Launch of our new Carrier.

Instead we aren't going to have any planes to put on our new carriers for the first couple of years and then how long to get the crews trained, the pilots and planes checked out on deck take offs and landings and declared operational.

We should have taken the Super Hornet and let the rest of the world pay for the R&D on the F-35 and maybe buy into it later once the R&D has been written off.

[Mikeyboy]

Roberty said:

I thought the C variant was turning out to be the best of the bunch what with it's larger payload and greater range.

That said I think we missed a trick not buying F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

They could have been built in the UK under license at a huge saving over the projected cost of the F-35's, been integrated into the RAF/RN and declared operational in time for the Launch of our new Carrier.

Instead we aren't going to have any planes to put on our new carriers for the first couple of years and then how long to get the crews trained, the pilots and planes checked out on deck take offs and landings and declared operational.

We should have taken the Super Hornet and let the rest of the world pay for the R&D on the F-35 and maybe buy into it later once the R&D has been written off.

the articles i've been reading have agreed with you. In every way. The problem is with the C is that though it may have greater range than type A and the woeful type B is that its range just isn't big enough.

[Jimbeaux]

Roberty said:

Mikeyboy said:

Even the c variant is not really fit for purpose. Its current range and payload capacity make it difficult to carry out the sort of operations the Super Hornet does without putting the carrier or air refuellers at risk from land based fighters, particularly in the South China sea.

I thought the C variant was turning out to be the best of the bunch what with it's larger payload and greater range.

That said I think we missed a trick not buying F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

They could have been built in the UK under license at a huge saving over the projected cost of the F-35's, been integrated into the RAF/RN and declared operational in time for the Launch of our new Carrier.

Instead we aren't going to have any planes to put on our new carriers for the first couple of years and then how long to get the crews trained, the pilots and planes checked out on deck take offs and landings and declared operational.

We should have taken the Super Hornet and let the rest of the world pay for the R&D on the F-35 and maybe buy into it later once the R&D has been written off.

I agree on all points. However, the "C" is for carrier landings whereas the Marines need the hover option of the "B". They will need to stick with the "B" or get shiney new paint for the Harriers.

[badgers_back]

Issue with the c is

The US navy don't like it or want it.

1 engine, they like 2

Other people in the us forces have it, they like exclusivity..

They would actually quite like the whole program cancelled.

Then they can get back to their own procurement whIch they were banned from after pervious fkups.

[Roberty]

badgers_back said:

pervious fkups.

Wow that sounds interesting do tell us more!

[Roberty]

Jimbeaux said:

I agree on all points. However, the "C" is for carrier landings whereas the Marines need the hover option of the "B". They will need to stick with the "B" or get shiney new paint for the Harriers.

The Marines can use the 'C' variant off the Navy's Carriers as they currently do with there F/A-18C & D Hornets or better still buy Super Hornets and then either just use Helicopters and Tilt Rotors off there new Amphibious assualt ships or as I mentioned ealier buy our old Harrier's.

The GR.9 Harrier and the AV-8B are very similar and the airframes have plenty of hours left on them. They could integrate them into the US Marines as an AV-8B+ or AV-8D.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Watch carefully - that catapault launch involved some pretty radical use of the elevators or whatever the moveable tail wing is called these days. Either a nervous pilot or unhappy computer?

[Mikeyboy]

Roberty said:

The Marines can use the 'C' variant off the Navy's Carriers as they currently do with there F/A-18C & D Hornets or better still buy Super Hornets and then either just use Helicopters and Tilt Rotors off there new Amphibious assualt ships or as I mentioned ealier buy our old Harrier's.

The GR.9 Harrier and the AV-8B are very similar and the airframes have plenty of hours left on them. They could integrate them into the US Marines as an AV-8B+ or AV-8D.

I'm sure if they could glue 'em all back together it would be a plan but most if not all of the RAF/FAA harriers are now in bits.

[Roberty]

Mikeyboy said:

I'm sure if they could glue 'em all back together it would be a plan but most if not all of the RAF/FAA harriers are now in bits.

I thought they were all put into storage as we try to talk the Indians into buying them?

I'm sure they will all get scrapped in time or end up on here for sale as ornaments or as play things for Filthy Rich Americans: http://www.everettaero.com/

[Mikeyboy]

Roberty said:

I thought they were all put into storage as we try to talk the Indians into buying them?

I'm sure they will all get scrapped in time or end up on here for sale as ornaments or as play things for Filthy Rich Americans: http://www.everettaero.com/

Ooh yes, more preserved than I thought. I looked it up. As you were then. Still, I don't think we would ever have had the numbers of the GR9s to interest the USMC.