|
Kemper Boyd posted:When is the last time a gator freighter operated in a hostile environment by itself anyway? Do they ever dock in Florida?
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 08:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 04:31 |
|
|
There was a map in one of the battlefield games set on a marine carrier, that was pretty cool. More games should do that.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 11:22
|
|
|
So apparently the F-35 has been used in combat for Israel. Though maybe it's a translation error? That would be fitting.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 13:48
|
|
|
Pretty sure they do have a solid handful already and they are different from the rest with more Israeli avionics. Them actually using them for strike missions into Syria or whatever wouldn’t be terribly surprising.
Mazz fucked around with this message at 14:03 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 13:58
|
|
|
glynnenstein posted:So apparently the F-35 has been used in combat for Israel. Where else could the US have used a F-35 in combat if not the Middle East? (I don’t think anyone else has it operational yet?)
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 14:34
|
|
|
Captain Log posted:Best Practice is one of my most hated. "Best practices" is a code word for either "We actually don't know what the gently caress we're doing" or "You don't need to know the details of it and you don't really care either so here's this bullshit answer that will make you satisfied and go away and stop bothering us," depending on whether it's being reported up or down.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 14:57
|
|
|
What percentage of this thread's posts are whining about the Marines? like, 30% or so?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
IMO the complaints about the F-35B are mostly pretty fair, but it's turned into a self-reinforcing meme within the thread. There are a smaller number, maybe 3 or 4 posters who wrote a compelling case for the F-35B being a waste, and everyone else--including me, I am totally guilty here--ran with it and it turned into a confirmation bias sort of deal. So Murgos comes along and gives a halfhearted defense of it and gets dragged. We had this happen with the F-35 in general until the conventional wisdom shifted toward "good plane, but expensive and badly managed program." My view of the F-35B is that it was a waste for us to buy it, but now that it is a thing that actually exists, there are useful things people (especially some of our allies) can do with STOVL. I don't think it makes sense to start building ships with ski jumps for the US Navy though. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 15:14 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 15:10
|
|
|
bewbies posted:What percentage of this thread's posts are whining about the Marines? like, 30% or so? Moving forward, the best practice is to blame the Marines for everything.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
El Disco posted:Moving forward, the best practice is to blame the Marines for everything.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 15:15
|
|
|
El Disco posted:Moving forward, the best practice is to blame the Marines for everything. "Sir, you stand accused of drunk and disorderly conduct, burglary, larceny, and resisting arrest." "Uh... the goddamned Marines!" "Case dismissed."
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:
Can V-22s use ski jumps?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:Can V-22s use ski jumps? Hold my beer...
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:Can V-22s use ski jumps? Only one way to find out...
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 16:07
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:Can V-22s use ski jumps? For a given quantity of "use" at least once
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 16:09
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:IMO the complaints about the F-35B are mostly pretty fair, but it's turned into a self-reinforcing meme within the thread. There are a smaller number, maybe 3 or 4 posters who wrote a compelling case for the F-35B being a waste, and everyone else--including me, I am totally guilty here--ran with it and it turned into a confirmation bias sort of deal. So Murgos comes along and gives a halfhearted defense of it and gets dragged. We had this happen with the F-35 in general until the conventional wisdom shifted toward "good plane, but expensive and badly managed program." The two exceptions are some of the software problems and a few of the more egregious production QC issues. The former looks like it could turn out a truly epic clusterfuck that would have occurred regardless of who had won the JSF competition. The latter is a problem with LockMart's production lines doing a lovely job, which is related by not exactly specific to the airframe. Kemper Boyd posted:When is the last time a gator freighter operated in a hostile environment by itself anyway? Blistex posted:Do they ever dock in Florida? Comrade Gorbash fucked around with this message at 17:36 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:IMO the complaints about the F-35B are mostly pretty fair, but it's turned into a self-reinforcing meme within the thread. There are a smaller number, maybe 3 or 4 posters who wrote a compelling case for the F-35B being a waste, and everyone else--including me, I am totally guilty here--ran with it and it turned into a confirmation bias sort of deal. So Murgos comes along and gives a halfhearted defense of it and gets dragged. We had this happen with the F-35 in general until the conventional wisdom shifted toward "good plane, but expensive and badly managed program." The actual short answer for "Why F-35B?" Is that congress directed that all service branches seek commonality in fighter design and when DoD said, "It's going to cost!" Congress said, "OK, do it." There were/are a lot of reasons for this direction, time will tell if it was a good or bad idea in the long run. Congress went into the JSF program with the expectation that it would be one of the the most expensive programs in history (according to this RAND paper https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1362.html) so none of this should be a surprise. Considering that even so the projected costs of the F35 on a per-airframe basis are pretty low (all variants appear to be cheaper than upgraded versions of 4.5 generation contemporaries) and that its performance seems to be really quite good, maybe, just maybe, it wasn't actually a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
Why does a ski jump work?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
Groda posted:Why does a ski jump work? gives planes more time to fall before they would hit the water.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:gives planes more time to fall before they would hit the water.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
Groda posted:Why does a ski jump work?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
Murgos posted:The actual short answer for "Why F-35B?" Is that congress directed that all service branches seek commonality in fighter design and when DoD said, "It's going to cost!" Congress said, "OK, do it." There were/are a lot of reasons for this direction, time will tell if it was a good or bad idea in the long run. Congress went into the JSF program with the expectation that it would be one of the the most expensive programs in history (according to this RAND paper https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1362.html) so none of this should be a surprise. We all know the story for why the F-35B got made. The issue is whether or not the Harrier should have had any replacement at all. Of course that is now moot, because we already built the replacement. You haven't laid out a convincing case for why we should have spent so much time and money just to get a fighter that can take off from LHDs and LHAs. There is a benefit to a number of our allies who can't afford big decks, but few of them are opting to equip their amphibious assault vessels to support the F-35B. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 17:33 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
I'm not a part of the DOD planning and operations group. The USMC did not just say, "There shall be VTOL" and everyone accepted it meekly. There was an operational need identified and it has been convincing enough to warrant pursuing through 60 years of operations and acquisitions. e: Theoretically, an all VTOL force would allow for operational flexibility far beyond what currently exists in any military. Small forces can be placed almost ad-hoc across a combat area with minimal basing needs. A few fixed wing aircraft, a few rotary aircraft and a contingent of ground combat forces (armor, artillery and infantry) could emplace almost anywhere, conduct highly effective, highly coordinated combined arms operations and then rebase with little logistical overhead when indicated by changing needs. Operating a supremely capable 5th generation aircraft from small deck assets is an example of operational flexibility while maintaining high combat effectiveness. Is the technology mature enough to make that vision a reality now? Maybe? Don't know if you don't try. Murgos fucked around with this message at 18:15 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
It was also supremely attractive to the marines given the capabilities of an F-35 vs harriers. If the alternative was aging harriers and F-35Cs, I’d probably want F-35Bs instead if equipping the MAGTF was my concern. It had numerous consequences unintended and otherwise to argue about, but I can see why Marines wanted to avoid a Harrier/F-35C split or alternately just rotors and F-35Cs.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
Would the Marines interest in having organic air support at all times play into that at all as well? Would they be concerned that the removal of their gator freighter fixed wing support would eventually lead to those 35C squadrons folded into the Navy proper? Legitimate questions, if that’s not obvious. It’s This seems especially relevant if assumed in a no poo poo shooting war the CV based wings are 100% needed for air tasking; at least you’d have some additional assets to slap some JDAMs to in theater. Mazz fucked around with this message at 19:26 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
I wonder how much of the decision to build the F-35B could be made by having a Lockheed salesman walk into the Pentagon, put on the end of True Lies, and say "This, but with stealth".
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
I’d be surprised if the B was really all that exciting to Lockmart in the first place, as the A alone was probably the biggest aircraft contract ever by itself. The B just complicated poo poo the whole way down.
Mazz fucked around with this message at 19:30 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Would the Marines interest in having organic air support at all times play into that at all as well? Would they be concerned that the removal of their gator freighter fixed wing support would eventually lead to those 35C squadrons folded into the Navy proper? Legitimate questions, if that’s not obvious. It’s If you just need something to drop JDAMs surely the osprey could be built to do that and be as good as an A-10 at it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
Mazz posted:I’d be surprised if the B was really all that exciting to Lockmart in the first place, as the A alone was probably the biggest aircraft contract ever by itself. The B just complicated poo poo the whole way down. The B variant was because they effectively combined 2 different projects - it simply wasn't an option to not develop it. That said, I get the feeling that there are a ton of lessons learned from this procurement, which hopefully won't be too forgotten by the time we get around to the next one.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
Mazz posted:I’d be surprised if the B was really all that exciting to Lockheed in the first place, as the A alone was probably the biggest aircraft contract ever by itself. The B just complicated poo poo the whole way down. I think there is a real problem with only one vendor proving what is essentially going to be the sole Fighter/Attack aircraft in service. Congress/DoD should require some number of F-35s to be built at secondary facilities like they used to do with aircraft and they still do with submarines. LM gets all the F-35As and all the overall design authority, NG gets all the F-35Cs and Boeing gets all the F-35Bs. Or some such. Keeps everyone afloat, let's everyone specialize on their specific type (Wassup Adam Smith!) and distributes the knowledge so that better designs can be bid next time around.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:The B variant was because they effectively combined 2 different projects - it simply wasn't an option to not develop it. That said, I get the feeling that there are a ton of lessons learned from this procurement, which hopefully won't be too forgotten by the time we get around to the next one. But enough about the F-111,
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I think there is a real problem with only one vendor proving what is essentially going to be the sole Fighter/Attack aircraft in service. That’s actually a pretty solid idea. Although in a lot of cases the other big guys just end up as subcontractors right now, I know NG builds a big part of the fuselage or something for the 35 already. Not the same though, and I agree. Boeing certainly seems to need some help designing things that aren’t tubes with wings since the McD era, they don’t seem to win poo poo anymore. Mazz fucked around with this message at 19:49 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Would the Marines interest in having organic air support at all times play into that at all as well? Would they be concerned that the removal of their gator freighter fixed wing support would eventually lead to those 35C squadrons folded into the Navy proper? That would be a Big Fuckin' Deal to the Marines and joint community in general. The MAGTF requires its organic air wings, because the Marines are a light organization that makes a lot of sacrifices in armor, artillery, and other means of firepower in order to stay more mobile than a force that brings tons of artillery and armor, like the Army. Sure, Marines have some tanks and artillery, but it's nothing compared to how heavy Army major combat formations are in tanks and artillery. It is explicitly written not just into Marine doctrine, but into joint doctrine that the MAGTF should retain control of its organic aviation, except for choice missions like deep strike, air defense, and long-range recce, if the air component commander really needs Marine fixed-wing aviation to pull such missions. The Naval fleet has air power, but the first priority of fleet air power is the fleet, not Marines ashore. A CVN cannot, generally, be counted on to provide air power for more than 12 hours a day in support of land ops due to maintenance and personnel issues. And that's still assuming fleet defense and sea strike missions aren't taking up their assets. Even if you're in a major operation where a CVN or two are hanging out off the coast, being able to launch air sorties without competing for time and space in the Carrier's launch/recovery/maintenance operations gives added flexibility to the MAGTF commander. So even in a major combat op where you can reasonably say that of course a carrier group will be in the area, having a small flat-top to launch Marine fixed-wing aviation still helps generate sorties more rapidly and responsively, which is good for the MAGTF's capabilities/survivability, and thus good for the joint force commander. Sure, you can argue about just how much capability that adds versus the cost. That's fair. But the capability added isn't all a Marine ruse. Edit: The Marines are buying some F-35Cs. About 20% of their F-35 numbers, IIRC. Not sure how much of that is desire to have both B's and C's for their operational differences versus economies of scale of buying enough F-35Cs, or wanting to keep carrier quals up or what. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 19:58 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Xenoborg posted:I have a coworker who was unknowingly blasted by the B52's strat radar for ~20 mins. He got blisters/burns over the whole side of his body that was facing it and was sterilized. Jesus
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Xenoborg posted:I have a coworker who was unknowingly blasted by the B52's strat radar for ~20 mins. He got blisters/burns over the whole side of his body that was facing it and was sterilized. He got 100% disability out of it when he retired at least. I call bullshit. He probably got like 20%, 30% tops.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
This is a big document, but you can generally see the Marine aviation operating concept and plan for the future in this document just looking at the early parts. It may not come to fruition, but the idea of having small M-FARPs forward where an F-35B can show up from either sea or a major land base, do rapid sortie generation forward, then go bed down either on the ship or at a bigger base at the end of the day is attractive. Marines are very good at doing this sort of thing with rotors; we'll see over time if that translates to a larger, more expensive system like the F-35B. http://www.aviation.marines.mil/Portals/11/2017%20MARINE%20AVIATIOIN%20PLAN.pdf So far the big surprise to me in this is plans to put AIM-120Cs on Harriers before they get retired. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 20:19 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Gives you some up to go with your forward and thus increases the distance between plane and water and buys a few more seconds to achieve not-crashing airspeed. Consider the physics of that, though. You don't get any energy from the ramp, it's just changing your vector; you need to expend energy to climb up the ramp and that's energy that you're not using to increase your speed. If the carrier's straight and level, there can't be any benefit from a ramp in terms of achieving not-crashing airspeed; you come off the deck slightly higher above the water but you also come off the deck with slightly less airspeed and the two things cancel each other out, you're just trading kinetic energy for potential energy, so naively that wouldn't help you take off. In other words, it buys you a few more seconds to achieve not-crashing airspeed but it also slows you down and requires you to spend a few more seconds achieving not-crashing airspeed. But it gives you more margin for error. First there's the situation where something breaks and you're not going to achieve not-crashing airspeed, in which case you've got a bit more time to deal with the situation. Second, there's the bit that carriers are on the ocean and so rarely are straight and level, and sometimes when you take off from a flat-top the deck is pointing down at the ocean If you were a S/VTOL airplane coming off the deck with less-than-sufficient airspeed and you were pointing down very much, you're crashing because you have no energy to climb. But if you have the upward vector the ramp gives you you're not traveling down towards the sea as you claw for V2.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Consider the physics of that, though. You don't get any energy from the ramp, it's just changing your vector; you need to expend energy to climb up the ramp and that's energy that you're not using to increase your speed. If the carrier's straight and level, there can't be any benefit from a ramp in terms of achieving not-crashing airspeed; you come off the deck slightly higher above the water but you also come off the deck with slightly less airspeed and the two things cancel each other out, you're just trading kinetic energy for potential energy, so naively that wouldn't help you take off. In other words, it buys you a few more seconds to achieve not-crashing airspeed but it also slows you down and requires you to spend a few more seconds achieving not-crashing airspeed.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:You're not accounting properly for the effects of continually thrust and and more importantly lift in this vector equation. Nor the fact that you get more time to use thrust while driving a longer distance without requiring a longer ship to get that longer distance. The tonnage and length increase of a ship to turn the distance traveled of a ski jump ramp into an equivalently longer flight dick is not insignificant.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 04:31 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:This is a big document, but you can generally see the Marine aviation operating concept and plan for the future in this document just looking at the early parts. It may not come to fruition, but the idea of having small M-FARPs forward where an F-35B can show up from either sea or a major land base, do rapid sortie generation forward, then go bed down either on the ship or at a bigger base at the end of the day is attractive. Marines are very good at doing this sort of thing with rotors; we'll see over time if that translates to a larger, more expensive system like the F-35B. Don't the F-35Bs require specialized pavement to operate off of in a STOVL configuration?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 20:27
|
|