User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
Posted: 3/3/2019 12:52:11 AM EST
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 1:02:01 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
https://i2.wp.com/theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Weapons-Stations-Capacity_v1.jpg https://image.slidesharecdn.com/f-35andcurrentweapons-120501175429-phpapp01/95/f-35-and-current-weapons-1-728.jpg?cb=1335895110 https://images.theconversation.com/files/50253/original/s75dcc2v-1401871937.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip http://armscom.net/sites/default/files/f-35b.jpg https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/58347556ba6eb606688b4c3e-750-563.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 1:27:05 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
comparing it to the Harrier isnt really the gold standard |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 1:33:23 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
But the A-10 still does a better job of being a CAS plane. Longer range and damn near as much payload. Cheaper to buy. Plus a bonus minigun Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: You could order Harriers to fly those hours, but they would be much more difficult to support because they don't carry that much internal fuel, and don't have the same payload capability by a wide margin. The F-35B is just significantly and inherently better at supporting these sortie rates and rounds on target, with much faster response time as well if you have time critical CAS or DCA. http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5437ebd46bb3f79049d60606-1200-800/11819987193_11db294960_o.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 1:35:50 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
This, and 75% readiness seems meh. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
comparing it to the Harrier isnt really the gold standard Less than a year ago, the head of Naval Air Forces, Vice Adm. Troy Shoemaker, told Congress that only half of the services F/A-18 Super Hornet jets were flyable, and that just a third could be counted on to “fight tonight.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 1:37:13 AM EST
Quote History |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 1:52:19 AM EST
That is why they are buying some more of them and fixing up and upgrading a bunch until the F35 numbers are higher.
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/08/16/the-us-navys-fight-to-fix-its-worn-out-super-hornet-fleet-is-making-way/ In May, the Defense Logistics Agency awarded a five-year, $427 million contract for Super Hornet parts and spares to begin working through a backlog of down jets. Boeing also recently inducted of the first Super Hornet into a service life extension program that will eventually see Boeing working on 40 to 50 F/A-18s per year in its facilities in St. Louis, Missouri, and San Antonio, Texas. That program will fix Hornets in the worst condition. The Navy is also adding new Super Hornets to the mix. The President’s 2019 budget request included 110 new Super Hornets planned across the five-year future-year defense plan. So over the next 5 years ~350 Superhornets will become operational again through a combination of major overhauls and new craft buys. So while it is a major problem - at this exact point in time - it is one that already is in process of being corrected. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 1:59:45 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
Aaaaaaaaaaannnndddd when have USMC Harriers ever been used operationally from a short strip like they imagined in the 1960s? Never. F-35s will never,ever be used in that manner ashore either. A-10s practice operating from highways so call it even but realistically,if it came to deploying from such, things would have gone so sideways that they wouldn't be flying at all either. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Aaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnddddddd it needs a full runway. A-10s practice operating from highways so call it even but realistically,if it came to deploying from such, things would have gone so sideways that they wouldn't be flying at all either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 2:01:55 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
Is it really a shock that a brand new aircraft can run longer without major breakage compared to 30yr old harrier airframes that are cobbled together from cannibalized parts? That doesn't really give any indication whether it's a success, just that it's not an immediate failure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 2:03:10 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
This, and 75% readiness seems meh. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
comparing it to the Harrier isnt really the gold standard That's like saying having twice the availability for CAS is meh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 2:06:30 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
Well thats pathetic if true. Yikes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well thats pathetic if true. Yikes. These birds have been run long and hard, most of them with hard carrier ops in the 1980s under the Reagan era, which were being replaced by C/D models already before Desert Storm. Some of the squadrons took F/A-18Cs into DS opening night, including the one that shot down 2 x MiG-21s, and also lost LCDR Scott Speicher to a MiG-25PD. USMC currently has: 55 F/A-18A 7 F/A-18B 119 F/A-18C 92 F/A-18D 86 of those are stored. 42 of those are training birds. US Navy has: 267 F/A-18A/B/C/D (being replaced by F-35C) 512 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets 1,052 birds total in the USN/USMC Hornet world. That would be 351 available-now Hornets for go-to-war assuming nothing has changed from the 2018 GAO report. There were some major discrepancies with the bean counters' parameters for assessing readiness though, and there is a whole report about that as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 2:10:01 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
At double the combat hours of what it replaced? That's like saying having twice the availability for CAS is meh. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
comparing it to the Harrier isnt really the gold standard That's like saying having twice the availability for CAS is meh. It's like saying having well over twice the availability of the existing Hornet fleet to do both the AV-8B's and Super Hornet's roles, while adding AWACS, EW, VLO precisions strike, and air dominance with way more mission duration is "meh". It helps to have context of what the rest of the fleet is capable of in terms of availability rates, as well as what one legacy bird can do on a sortie vs an F-35B. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 2:18:26 AM EST
"From there, they flew more than 50 days' worth of close-air support and defensive counter-air missions in Iraq and Syria.
"Every day, [the pilots] were supporting over six hours of time in theater," Shoop said." How many missions per day on average would that translate to? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 2:41:44 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
AV-8B in Desert Storm had a 90% availability rate. With age, I'm sure that has come down. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
comparing it to the Harrier isnt really the gold standard With age, I'm sure that has come down. I just assume specifics are classified, so not going into any more detail. I had read that the baby bugs were approaching 30% readiness as of a few years ago. Double that would have everybody down to SSgt immediately sacked when I was in. 75% up rate is low from when I was in, but it will go up once the institutional knowledge builds up. You have to remember that in 2002-2003 timeframe, I could pull a thick file on every avionics card that came through our shop. There were very few unique failures at that point. Eventually, the up rate will go down as planes age. You start getting intermittent failures, loose pins in cannon plugs, ect. Those are a sunofabitch to chase down. As we saw with the baby bugs, eventually spare parts start to become an issue. When manufacturing lines have to be reopened for mouse milk runs of critical parts, that is when readiness falls off a cliff. It gets very expensive very quick when you have to manufacture parts, and need components that haven’t been made in decades. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 2:52:03 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
At double the combat hours of what it replaced? That's like saying having twice the availability for CAS is meh. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
comparing it to the Harrier isnt really the gold standard That's like saying having twice the availability for CAS is meh. 75% is significantly less than the historical readiness of the Harrier in USMC service. Modern day readiness is in the toilet, since almost all parts are cannibalized. That means you are replacing a 10 year old part with another 10 year old part just slightly less worn. The readiness rate of the F-35 should go up though as maintainers get a handle on the new birds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 3:19:49 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
@Madcap72 75% is significantly less than the historical readiness of the Harrier in USMC service. Modern day readiness is in the toilet, since almost all parts are cannibalized. That means you are replacing a 10 year old part with another 10 year old part just slightly less worn. The readiness rate of the F-35 should go up though as maintainers get a handle on the new birds. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
comparing it to the Harrier isnt really the gold standard That's like saying having twice the availability for CAS is meh. 75% is significantly less than the historical readiness of the Harrier in USMC service. Modern day readiness is in the toilet, since almost all parts are cannibalized. That means you are replacing a 10 year old part with another 10 year old part just slightly less worn. The readiness rate of the F-35 should go up though as maintainers get a handle on the new birds. I imagine the readiness rate of the F-35 will go up as well when they're not pulling double the workload. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 5:23:22 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
Is it really a shock that a brand new aircraft can run longer without major breakage compared to 30yr old harrier airframes that are cobbled together from cannibalized parts? That doesn't really give any indication whether it's a success, just that it's not an immediate failure. Plus not a very dangerous opponent when they have zero AA capability. How much of a threat is Iran, Russia and Syria posing to our troops (serious question)? I mean, it's like the NBA sending a team against an bunch of third graders. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 6:14:08 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
Is it really a shock that a brand new aircraft can run longer without major breakage compared to 30yr old harrier airframes that are cobbled together from cannibalized parts? That doesn't really give any indication whether it's a success, just that it's not an immediate failure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 6:43:07 AM EST
Yay we spent millions of dollars blowing up goat fuckers halfway across the globe.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 6:53:14 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is it really a shock that a brand new aircraft can run longer without major breakage compared to 30yr old harrier airframes that are cobbled together from cannibalized parts? That doesn't really give any indication whether it's a success, just that it's not an immediate failure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 6:56:27 AM EST
Quote History Quoted: Watching the butthurt anti-F35 accounts is like watching lefties claiming them are going to be taking down Trump any day now. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 6:57:53 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
Watching the butthurt anti-F35 accounts is like watching lefties claiming them are going to be taking down Trump any day now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is it really a shock that a brand new aircraft can run longer without major breakage compared to 30yr old harrier airframes that are cobbled together from cannibalized parts? That doesn't really give any indication whether it's a success, just that it's not an immediate failure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 7:02:40 AM EST
That doesn’t look very stealthy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 7:04:11 AM EST
Good stuff
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 7:29:31 AM EST
What kind of ordnance are they loading?
https://images05.military.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/2019-02/GBU-49-F35B-1800.jpg?itok=Z8OVKEYb |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 7:52:09 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
Yay we spent millions of dollars blowing up goat fuckers halfway across the globe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 7:57:04 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
That doesn’t look very stealthy. https://images05.military.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/2019-02/GBU-49-F35B-1800.jpg?itok=Z8OVKEYb Imagine that. When your opponent has nothing that can shoot you down, carry more bombs. The "not stealthy" people are only slightly smarter than the "what about the gun?" idiots. Fuck. Some of you people. Unless you were being sarcastic. Then I apologize and you can feel free to taunt me. I hope you're being sarcastic. I remember you from Glocktalk and you seemed smart then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 7:59:05 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
Is it really a shock that a brand new aircraft can run longer without major breakage compared to 30yr old harrier airframes that are cobbled together from cannibalized parts? That doesn't really give any indication whether it's a success, just that it's not an immediate failure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 8:02:11 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
Is it really a shock that a brand new aircraft can run longer without major breakage compared to 30yr old harrier airframes that are cobbled together from cannibalized parts? That doesn't really give any indication whether it's a success, just that it's not an immediate failure. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 8:21:50 AM EST
If this were an election year I'd swear some of you guys are Russian operatives.
As it is, you're just willfully ignorant fellow countrymen. Sad. Maybe you do have a dog in this fight. What is it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 8:27:57 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
Yay we spent millions of dollars blowing up goat fuckers halfway across the globe. Wonderful. Just fucking wonderful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 8:32:51 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
My thoughts exactly. Plus not a very dangerous opponent when they have zero AA capability. How much of a threat is Iran, Russia and Syria posing to our troops (serious question)? I mean, it's like the NBA sending a team against an bunch of third graders. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is it really a shock that a brand new aircraft can run longer without major breakage compared to 30yr old harrier airframes that are cobbled together from cannibalized parts? That doesn't really give any indication whether it's a success, just that it's not an immediate failure. Plus not a very dangerous opponent when they have zero AA capability. How much of a threat is Iran, Russia and Syria posing to our troops (serious question)? I mean, it's like the NBA sending a team against an bunch of third graders. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 8:33:22 AM EST
This is the kind of thread that justifies the price of a membership here. Kudos OP.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 8:43:07 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
That is why they are buying some more of them and fixing up and upgrading a bunch until the F35 numbers are higher. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/08/16/the-us-navys-fight-to-fix-its-worn-out-super-hornet-fleet-is-making-way/ In May, the Defense Logistics Agency awarded a five-year, $427 million contract for Super Hornet parts and spares to begin working through a backlog of down jets. Boeing also recently inducted of the first Super Hornet into a service life extension program that will eventually see Boeing working on 40 to 50 F/A-18s per year in its facilities in St. Louis, Missouri, and San Antonio, Texas. That program will fix Hornets in the worst condition. The Navy is also adding new Super Hornets to the mix. The President’s 2019 budget request included 110 new Super Hornets planned across the five-year future-year defense plan. So over the next 5 years ~350 Superhornets will become operational again through a combination of major overhauls and new craft buys. So while it is a major problem - at this exact point in time - it is one that already is in process of being corrected. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 8:45:50 AM EST
Quote History Quoted: 267 F/A-18A/B/C/D (being replaced by F-35C) 512 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 8:46:35 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
Aaaaaaaaaaannnndddd when have USMC Harriers ever been used operationally from a short strip like they imagined in the 1960s? Never. F-35s will never,ever be used in that manner ashore either. A-10s practice operating from highways so call it even but realistically,if it came to deploying from such, things would have gone so sideways that they wouldn't be flying at all either. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Aaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnddddddd it needs a full runway. A-10s practice operating from highways so call it even but realistically,if it came to deploying from such, things would have gone so sideways that they wouldn't be flying at all either. " During the first phases of the war in Iraq in 2003, Marine Harriers were the first aircraft to conduct sustained operations from an airfield inside Iraq and the only tactical air aircraft to conduct combat operations from a road. In the first two weeks of the conflict, Marines established an FOB on the remains of the Iraqi airstrip at An Numinayah, just 60 nautical miles south of Baghdad. Damage to the runway rendered it unusable to other tactical fixed-wing aircraft. The FOB at An Numinayah facilitated forward positioning of aircraft to stand ground alert as well as a forward arming and refueling point for Harriers supporting combat operations in and around Baghdad. Eliminating the need for Harriers to reserve fuel for a lengthy return flight to ships or bases in Kuwait, the FOB at An Numinayah allowed the AV-8Bs to extend time on station without placing a logistical burden on aerial refueling assets. With an airfield in such close proximity to the forward edge of the battle area, Harriers stood a credible ground alert and reduced response times from one to two hours to less than 15 minutes.
The war in Afghanistan is the most recent example of the effectiveness of STOVL operations. In the last year, Marine AV-8Bs have routinely operated from FOB Dwyer, a 4,300-foot expeditionary airfield built by the Marine wing support squadrons. Just a few miles from the town of Marjah, FOB Dwyer was constructed to facilitate rapid logistical support and fire support for Marines operating in the southern Helmand River valley. Launching from their main base at Kandahar, Harriers recovered to Dwyer after completing a time on station and were able to quickly rearm and refuel while talking to ground commanders. A basing option in such close proximity to the supported unit enabled longer times on station and rapid ordnance reload capability, in addition to reducing the burden on airborne refueling assets. Basing AV-8Bs at FOB Dwyer during the fight for Marjah resulted in 65 percent of their sortie duration being spent on station. In comparison, aircraft based at Kandahar spent 55 percent of their sortie duration on station while aircraft operating from a carrier spent only 25 percent of sortie duration on station. Over the service life of an aircraft, the real benefit of STOVL aircraft is more time in support of ground forces with less time in transit to and from the fight. From a sea-basing perspective, the dispersion of carrier-based STOVL aircraft creates a dilemma for the enemy while providing additional combat capability to the supported commander. During Desert Storm, 20 Harriers aboard the amphibious assault ship Nassau operated from a 750-foot flight deck, which resulted in a 15-minute transit time and 40 minutes of on-station time with no in-flight refueling. As the war progressed north, AV-8Bs would launch from ships in the Persian Gulf, fly a mission and then proceed to an FOB in Kuwait to rearm and refuel. After flying a second mission, these aircraft would return to the ship. These combined sea and shore operations doubled the sortie-generation rate for ship-based aircraft, halved shipboard workload and ordnance expenditure, and minimized shipboard resupply concerns. Also, because the aircraft returned to the ship, the force protection requirement ashore was significantly reduced. During recent operations in Iraq, coalition airfields were at maximum capacity and the Navy was unable to source any more big-deck carriers into the Persian Gulf. Operating Harriers from amphibious assault ships put an additional 60 tactical aircraft at the disposal of the combatant commander. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 8:48:01 AM EST
Almost two decades and we still haven’t learned the lesson on why ou strike fighter fleet is so depleted.
Flying 7 hour missions to drop a million dollar bomb on a Toyota is not what these jets are for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 8:49:00 AM EST
Quote History Quoted: So, you would rather see the spread of a caliphate. Wonderful. Just fucking wonderful. But I do want to see a different platform than a fifth gen fighter doing it, |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 8:51:17 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 8:55:27 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
I must admit the STOVL capabilities alone are quite impressive. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/383325/image_jpeg-864287.JPG British birds. But it sure does look sci fi doesn't it? Then there is the navy retiring the Truman early to save money for the double Ford class buy. If the days of big carriers are numbered as Mattis seemed to think. maybe the B model flying off of smaller decks is the future of naval air power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 9:02:03 AM EST
Fake News BULLSHIT
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 9:08:55 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
I read that the brits have devised a rolling landing technique for the B that lets them land at a higher weight so they don't have to jettison (as much?) fuel or ordnance. The brits are all in on the B and designed their new carriers around it. We are all still figuring out just how much these birds can do. Then there is the navy retiring the Truman early to save money for the double Ford class buy. If the days of big carriers are numbered as Mattis seemed to think. maybe the B model flying off of smaller decks is the future of naval air power. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I must admit the STOVL capabilities alone are quite impressive. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/383325/image_jpeg-864287.JPG British birds. But it sure does look sci fi doesn't it? Then there is the navy retiring the Truman early to save money for the double Ford class buy. If the days of big carriers are numbered as Mattis seemed to think. maybe the B model flying off of smaller decks is the future of naval air power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 9:09:44 AM EST
I see bombs dropped and sensor information sharing but no gun run info?
Is the gun not in use ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 9:20:59 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
I doubt if Congress lets that happen. She was commissioned in 1998, which is relatively new for a carrier. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I must admit the STOVL capabilities alone are quite impressive. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/383325/image_jpeg-864287.JPG British birds. But it sure does look sci fi doesn't it? Then there is the navy retiring the Truman early to save money for the double Ford class buy. If the days of big carriers are numbered as Mattis seemed to think. maybe the B model flying off of smaller decks is the future of naval air power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 9:31:53 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
No. But I do want to see a different platform than a fifth gen fighter doing it, Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: So, you would rather see the spread of a caliphate. Wonderful. Just fucking wonderful. But I do want to see a different platform than a fifth gen fighter doing it, |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 9:56:45 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
comparing it to the Harrier isnt really the gold standard Quote HistoryQuoted:
comparing it to the Harrier isnt really the gold standard  AV-8B Harrier landing on the highway Quoted: But the A-10 still does a better job of being a CAS plane. Longer range and damn near as much payload. Cheaper to buy. Plus a bonus minigun |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 9:56:58 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
That doesn’t look very stealthy. https://images05.military.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/2019-02/GBU-49-F35B-1800.jpg?itok=Z8OVKEYb It not like it is a secret or hasn't been discussed in numerous threads. And you would had known this if you had read this thread before posting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 9:57:40 AM EST
Quote History Quoted: I doubt if Congress lets that happen. She was commissioned in 1998, which is relatively new for a carrier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 10:05:11 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
What kind of ordnance are they loading? https://images05.military.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/2019-02/GBU-49-F35B-1800.jpg?itok=Z8OVKEYb "Marines assigned to the “Avengers” of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 211 load a guided bomb unit (GBU) 49 onto an F-35B Lightning II on the flight deck of the USS Essex. (U.S. Navy/Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Chandler Harrell)" |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2019 10:16:08 AM EST
Quote History Quoted:
Comparing the 2 in the CAS role isn't really fair to the A-10, since the A-10 should have never been born when you look at what we already had with the A-7D, which had superior low level weapons delivery capabilities to the A-10, and was far more survivable. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2023 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
