US Marines ready for F-35 IOC

[Slater]

Looks like they're willing to overlook some software issues to get the aircraft in service:

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/07/27/marine-ioc-f35-soon-paperwork-dunford/30751515/

[Truro Model Builder]

Excuse the cynicism, but it ain't going to be dropping bombs on anyone yet, whatever its operational status.

[Alan P]

Excuse the cynicism, but it ain't going to be dropping bombs on anyone yet, whatever its operational status.

Cynicism? It's a fact. The first operational deployment is scheduled for 2017.

IOC is the important first step to full operational capability. The USMC has done well to gain it on the last revised schedule, particularly as it's the service with the most to gain from F-35 operations.

This is a big deal, and a major milestone.

Incidentally, how long was the Typhoon in front line operational service before it could drop bombs?

[Mike]

Can this thread that mentions the F-35 NOT turn into yet another festival of bleating about how ugly, under-powered, over-complicated, useless, expensive and not-as-good-as-the-old-one-was please? Thank you

[Ascoteer]

Incidentally, how long was the Typhoon in front line operational service before it could drop bombs?

That's hardly a reasonable comparison is it?

[GrahamS]

Can this thread that mentions the F-35 NOT turn into yet another festival of bleating about how ugly, under-powered, over-complicated, useless, expensive and not-as-good-as-the-old-one-was please? Thank you

Damn........

Graham

[feldr]

Oh God, don't let this devolve into a 190+ page tirade like elsewhere.............

[dambuster]

Cynicism? It's a fact. The first operational deployment is scheduled for 2017.

IOC is the important first step to full operational capability. The USMC has done well to gain it on the last revised schedule.

What else would you expect? Or was it such a surprise that there was no need for another revised schedule? I see RAF IOC will be based on five jets and not the originally planned eight.

Oh and is the scheduled operational deployment in 2017 the first schedule, the revised schedule or just best guess?

Peter

[Giorgio N]

That's hardly a reasonable comparison is it?

It's not reasonable at all considering that the main job of the Typhoon was air defence initially. The fact that it took a while to integrate the AG weapons was part of the development stages.

A more reasonable comparison is how long it took for the Tornado ADV force to be able to fire a missile: the type official IOC was in 1986 and yet there were aircrafts with ballast in place of the radar 3 years later...

Edited July 28, 2015 by Giorgio N

[Slater]

In the USMC's case, I think they're anxious to trade in their tired old AV-8B's for something shiny and new.

[Truro Model Builder]

IOC, as I see it, means that the F-35 is now in full service and can start doing the job it was designed for.

Except that, let's be honest, it can't yet, can it? If the Marine Corps had to deploy en masse tomorrow, would they really want to take along a squadron of F-35s rather than a squadron of AV-8Bs? IOC has been rushed so that there is good news to report about the F-35 for a change; it doesn't take away from the fact that it has a long way to go before it's useful for anything other than trotting around the skies and looking pretty. Maybe by 2017 it will be able to do something useful, but for now, it cannot, and the Marines know it.

[Slater]

Until the future software upgrades are integrated, the F-35B's will be limited on the types of ordnance that can be carried. Evidently the gun won't be able to be used until 2017 or later either.

[bentwaters81tfw]

Reports indicate the gun is integral to the A model and a bolt on pod to the others. Apparently it will be useful for 'strafing and ground attack'.

I thought the idea was it would detect the enemy and unleash Hell from BVR and so remain invisible and invulnerable?

[Slater]

Well, since replacing the A-10 is one of it's intended missions, I would imagine a bit of strafing here and there is to be expected

Along those same lines, is the UK buying the gun pods as well?

[PLC1966]

IOC, as I see it, means that the F-35 is now in full service and can start doing the job it was designed for.

Except that, let's be honest, it can't yet, can it? If the Marine Corps had to deploy en masse tomorrow, would they really want to take along a squadron of F-35s rather than a squadron of AV-8Bs? IOC has been rushed so that there is good news to report about the F-35 for a change; it doesn't take away from the fact that it has a long way to go before it's useful for anything other than trotting around the skies and looking pretty. Maybe by 2017 it will be able to do something useful, but for now, it cannot, and the Marines know it.

You do understand what IOC stands for don't you ?

[PLC1966]

Well, since replacing the A-10 is one of it's intended missions, I would imagine a bit of strafing here and there is to be expected

Along those same lines, is the UK buying the gun pods as well?

Given the opportunity, the USAF would have skipped the A-10 for the F-16 by now let alone the F-35. Not saying that is a good idea but there you are.

[bentwaters81tfw]

Given the opportunity, the USAF GENERALS would have skipped the A-10 for the F-16 by now let alone the F-35. Not saying that is a good idea but there you are.

Much to the disgust of the troops on the ground. Shame the Army can't take them on!

[-Neu-]

IOC, as I see it, means that the F-35 is now in full service and can start doing the job it was designed for.

Except that, let's be honest, it can't yet, can it? If the Marine Corps had to deploy en masse tomorrow, would they really want to take along a squadron of F-35s rather than a squadron of AV-8Bs? IOC has been rushed so that there is good news to report about the F-35 for a change; it doesn't take away from the fact that it has a long way to go before it's useful for anything other than trotting around the skies and looking pretty. Maybe by 2017 it will be able to do something useful, but for now, it cannot, and the Marines know it.

No, they would take the F-35 over anything else in their inventory. It can carry two 1000 lbs bombs, and two AMRAAM. That's basically the most common war load carried by fighters over the past two decades.

The biggest feature its missing is sensor fusion, which no aircraft in the world save for the F-22 has. Pilots still can rely on DAS, EOTS, and the APG-81 radar in a federated sense, which are the most advanced systems in the world. The Gunpod isn't ready, but overall its a massive step over anything else. They are talking about 70+% mission readiness rates, which is reasonable.

So no, its ready. In some way, getting the aircraft to this stage has sacrificed progress in other areas, which will now get attention.

[dambuster]

Reports indicate the gun is integral to the A model and a bolt on pod to the others. Apparently it will be useful for 'strafing and ground attack'.

I thought the idea was it would detect the enemy and unleash Hell from BVR and so remain invisible and invulnerable?

Must admit to a quiet snigger at Yeovilton when in the set piece to rescue some 'hostages' they called up air support 'from the new carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth a few miles offshore in the shape of an F-35 represented today by a Hawk' which duly appeared and strafed the opposition. It did cross my mind as to why you would use a multi-billion pound BVR platform in a high risk environment, but then I suppose that it is better than our current option.

I think the F-35 is the right concept for the USAF, less so for the US Navy, and Hobson's choice for the US Marines who may have done better with a dedicated strike, true V/STOL ground-attack platform to replicate the Harrier concept without the complication of the multitude of other roles. Remember, the Harrier (GR) was not designed originally as a fighter, but to support defensive forces operating close to any future front line in Europe. It was only lack of future conventional carrier replacements for Ark Royal, Eagle and Victorious that led to the need to develop the Sea Harrier (FRS) as a fighter-type platform (it was the only choice - a bit like the situation for the US Marines and the F-35), yet during the Falklands conflict there was still a reliance on the RAF Harriers in the ground-attack role. And if I remember correctly it was the Harrier force that sustained more operational losses. For anyone who thinks that the 'better technology' of the F-35 is a panacea, one would hardly have described the Argentinian ground defences as the most modern at the time yet they did have success against the more advanced and arguably better trained/prepared Harrier force.

Key for me is the ability of the F-35 to take out the low-level, over water threat, otherwise it only needs one or two Exocet style attacks to succeed and your one floating airfield becomes no-more. Has anyone seen any reports about how well F-35 radar performs against fast-moving targets against high levels of sea-clutter? Or how long F-35 can loiter on CAP at suitable stand-off distances from the carrier? I'm not totally discounting the role of RN organic naval AEW but even that is a compromised solution.

Peter

[upnorth]

No, they would take the F-35 over anything else in their inventory. It can carry two 1000 lbs bombs, and two AMRAAM. That's basically the most common war load carried by fighters over the past two decades.

The biggest feature its missing is sensor fusion, which no aircraft in the world save for the F-22 has. Pilots still can rely on DAS, EOTS, and the APG-81 radar in a federated sense, which are the most advanced systems in the world. The Gunpod isn't ready, but overall its a massive step over anything else. They are talking about 70+% mission readiness rates, which is reasonable.

So no, its ready. In some way, getting the aircraft to this stage has sacrificed progress in other areas, which will now get attention.

I think, at this point in time, that's really the key to pushing the program further. Being reasonable and accepting that the first lot into service won't be 100% but certainly close enough to be servicable. More importantly, a tangible sign that something worthwhile and credible is coming out of the program.

The DAS, EOTS and APG-81 that you mentioned are certainly more than enough to put the first generation of squadron ready F-35s well ahead of any competition they may encounter even if they have to wait for the sensor fusion a while.

In the bigger picture, I don't think the first in-service examples of any aircraft reached squadrons at 100% completion.

People draw all kind of comparisons between the F-35 and other aircraft; the truth is that there really aren't too many aircraft that compare to it once you get past looking at its role and start looking at the technology it represents.

There's a lot of new, untried technologies in that machine and it would actually be quite unreasonable to expect the first lots in service would have all their bells and whistles working.

In the historical sense, there's a lot of parallels between the F-35 and the F-111 as far as development and entry to service goes:

Both aircraft were bringing in new technology that had never been tried, or at least not tried on mass produced scales.

Both aircraft represented not only huge changes in technology, but also huge changes in tactical doctrine. In operations, the F-111 did not follow the old rules of tactical strike; it revolutionized the role and wrote new rules for it. I can't see that the F-35 won't do the same for the roles it takes up.

Both aircraft suffered cost overruns and development delays and built up enemies that criticized them harshly well before they entered service and would have been happy to see the aircraft cancelled at the prototype stage.

When the first F-111s entered service, they were not at 100% readiness, but they were serviceable enough to be well ahead of what else was out there.

Some make large of the few F-111s that were lost in crashes when they were sent to Vietnam and the grounding of the fleet that ensued. However, what they did successfully compared to the F-105 and even the F-4 in the time that they were in theatre more than proved that the F-111, it's technologies and the tactics it employed were the right road to follow even if it was a very bumpy road at first.

The F-111 matured into one of the most effective, respected and feared tactical strikers of its era and; given the chance, i can't see how the F-35 would not do otherwise in its roles and era.

A more modern corollary can be found in the V-22 Osprey. While a different aircraft for a different mission, it had a long development period due to the new technologies (how long did it take to get the tilt-rotor system working reliably?) and entered service at less than 100% readiness.

It had its delays, had its accidents, took some crew lives and made plenty of enemies along the way. however, it got into service and is working. Many things it did not have when it entered service have since been fitted and it is developing.

If there's been a sin committed in the F-35 program, it's been in the marketing and PR end of things. Too much hyperbole and overconfidence too early on and cards not being held close enough to the vest. Lockheed -Martin really should keep those folks on a shorter lead.

Edited July 29, 2015 by upnorth

[ClaudioN]

2017 marks the 75th anniversary of the first big combined carrier operation mounted by the Royal Navy in WW2.

Could be nice to start thinking about an 809 Sqdn F-35B with yellow fins, to remember Operation Pedestal. Or, to lease one from the US Marines, just for an overflight of the harbour in Malta.

Any modelling stimulus, out there?

Claudio

[Geoff_B]

2017 marks the 75th anniversary of the first big combined carrier operation mounted by the Royal Navy in WW2.

Could be nice to start thinking about an 809 Sqdn F-35B with yellow fins, to remember Operation Pedestal. Or, to lease one from the US Marines, just for an overflight of the harbour in Malta.

Any modelling stimulus, out there?

Claudio

809 Sqdn won't be formed up till the end of the decade at the earliest, we simply won't have the airframes as we're only scheduled for 18 aircraft by 2020, the remaining 30 are lined up for the 2020-2023 period once we actually order them

[Alan P]

Oh, never mind.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Brokenedge

[Slater]

The US Navy seems less than excited about the F-35C. It's been suggested that they are comfortable with the capabilities of the F/A-18E/F family and are in no hurry to induct the F-35C.

[ClaudioN]

809 Sqdn won't be formed up till the end of the decade at the earliest, we simply won't have the airframes as we're only scheduled for 18 aircraft by 2020, the remaining 30 are lined up for the 2020-2023 period once we actually order them

*They* won't have the airframes...

Any Britmodeller can have it already.

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234955083-f-35b-lightning-ii-172-fujimi/