F-35 Down in Ft. Worth // Pilot Ejected

[VMFA187]

2 hours ago, O Face said:

Serious question here, not trying to be a dick, but what advantage, other than cost I suppose, does the lightning carrier offer over other carriers?

None except for potentially providing more targets for the threat to have to cope with? 

[disgruntledemployee]

From the video, it sounds like the engine remained at landing power setting for the touchdown, maybe even increasing some when the front fan failed.  Maybe the pilot may have been trying to throttle off the power, hence remaining in the jet, but when nothing worked, he punched.  Or it took him that long to go through the boldface 😆.  Then at ejection the engine then powered down.  I'm no F35 person, but maybe some sort of engine cutoff if ejection occurs?  If so, ejection kinda saved them both. 

Now back to your regular daily air strategy debate.

[filthy_liar]

5 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

1. Yes, if the lift fan fails in STOVL it is assessed that the pilot would not have the reaction time to eject safely before he is out of the envelope so it will auto-eject. 

2. 420fpm rate of descent is standard. That looks about right. 

420 fpm - that seems awfully high.  Is that right?  I'm not smart on any of this, its an honest question.  

[VMFA187]

32 minutes ago, filthy_liar said:

420 fpm - that seems awfully high.  Is that right?  I'm not smart on any of this, its an honest question.  

It's right. 

[brabus]

15 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

It's right. 

Isn’t landing on a carrier something like 650 fpm? 

[VMFA187]

9 minutes ago, brabus said:

Isn’t landing on a carrier something like 650 fpm? 

It's been about a decade since I've been to the boat but 700-800 fpm is what I recall. 

[Danger41]

1 hour ago, brabus said:

Isn’t landing on a carrier something like 650 fpm? 

*690

[SurelySerious]

33 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

*690

Sounds like a standard 737 landing. 

[VMFA187]

43 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

*690

I stand corrected. 

[brabus]

14 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

Sounds like a standard 737 landing. 

The 320 landing I witnessed last night gave the 73 standard a run for its money! 

[Bigred]

22 hours ago, brabus said:

To be fair, you don’t seem to grasp how the MEU concept and objective is not in the same ballpark as the fights an F-35 is designed for. The mission and the asset are completely at odds in several ways.  

I have a pretty good understanding of the MEU concept considering I used to directly support the MEU. 
 

The Marines need something capable of being able to provide air support to the ARG/ESG, both overwater and overland, natively from the amphib. The Harrier is getting long in the tooth and the only option the Marines have is the F-35B. Is it overkill for the mission? Probably, but what else is there? 
 

When it’s stated that the Marines use vtol to land on the beach, they obviously have no idea how the Marines use the Harrier and the 35. 
 

If the doctrine has changed I’ll gladly admit I’m wrong, but I doubt it’s changed that much in a few years. 

Edited December 17, 2022 by Bigred

[HuggyU2]

I know an F-35B guy who says the speculation here is probably way off. 
 

We shall see 

[brabus]

17 minutes ago, Bigred said:

If the doctrine has changed I’ll gladly admit I’m wrong, but I doubt it’s changed that much in a few years.

I’m not arguing doctrine has changed, simply that the machine is a ludicrous choice to support the doctrine. Honestly some sort of light attack would have been a much better choice for what is needed on STOL side, super hornets to replace classic hornets, and then we also would have benefited from a much better A and C model for the AF and Navy.

Edited December 17, 2022 by brabus

[ClearedHot]

20 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Neat. China must be shitting themselves.

Yes, the incredibly neutered European militaries are a great example of image over effectiveness, thank you.

Argentina crapped themselves.

Not everyone can afford a CVN.

[ClearedHot]

10 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

I know an F-35B guy who says the speculation here is probably way off. 
 

We shall see 

It almost always is...

[Lord Ratner]

30 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Argentina crapped themselves.

Not everyone can afford a CVN.

Of course they did. But that's the point, isn't it? Are we really prioritizing that type of conflict? We don't have the luxury of another, better country picking up our slack while we toy around with a dying empire. 

 

It's super neat watching a plane land vertically (but not take off vertically...). But it's fucking stupid for the US to prioritize that capability, to the great detriment of the more-relevant capabilities of the A and C models. We could barely fund enough of these planes during the most financially permissive environment in modern history. It's very possible we have austerity measures soon. But our Argentina-like foes will be suitably humbled I'm sure.

 

Marine leadership, like nearly all government leadership, are unserious people in increasingly serious times. 

[StoleIt]

Latest update:

It was a USAF pilot on loan to DCMA conducting an acceptance flight for the USMC from Lockheed Martin.

https://www.coffeeordie.com/air-force-major-crash?fbclid=IwAR3dWKfxZ12U4DWAPwarA0WcAr0SjF-XgEeWf6JRYqFaDxsP27wfWe_YSiI

[BFM this]

20 hours ago, Bigred said:

The Marines need something capable of being able to provide air support to the ARG/ESG, both overwater and overland, natively from the amphib. The Harrier is getting long in the tooth and the only option the Marines have is the F-35B. Is it overkill for the mission? Probably, but what else is there?  

The Marines need something that no other service would touch with a ten foot pole and oven mitts.  Thereby justifying their own air arm iaw the Key West agreement.  The “austere” capability, Harrier popping up through the trees on a recruiting poster…it all looks good on paper, but ends up being a break-glass-in-case-of emergency type scenario.

[Clark Griswold]

On 12/16/2022 at 9:48 PM, Bigred said:

Probably, but what else is there? 

The Sea Gripen

Just vaporware now but digital engineering and preliminary work has already been done.

Not a crazy concept to take a plane designed to hit the road at the 690 fpm and stop inside of a 1500' and modify for carrier ops.

Reduce signature where you can (air intakes, weapons carriage, etc...) and leverage the good EW capes already in the Gripen weapons system. 

Brazil, India and other allies have looked at a Sea Gripen but the USMC should have taken the lead and methinks they would have gotten others to get off the fence also.  Like the F-20, the Allies will get confident when/if we buy it.

https://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/2017/02/gripen-m-for-indian-navy/

My point on the Gripen would be relevant about 15 years ago but the horse has left the barn but i rant away anyway...

Anyway dueling opinions on the Lightning Carriers for pot stirring:

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-lightning-carriers-more-capable-than-chinese-carriers-admiral-says-2022-11

https://warontherocks.com/2021/10/lightning-carriers-emerge-as-asias-new-capital-ships-strategic-investments-with-varied-operational-value/

My two cents, yes to smaller carriers, maybe to B model 35s, no to believing anything is gonna change from the acquisition path we are on.

 

 

[Bigred]

On 12/18/2022 at 8:46 PM, Clark Griswold said:

The Sea Gripen

Just vaporware now but digital engineering and preliminary work has already been done.

Not a crazy concept to take a plane designed to hit the road at the 690 fpm and stop inside of a 1500' and modify for carrier ops.

Reduce signature where you can (air intakes, weapons carriage, etc...) and leverage the good EW capes already in the Gripen weapons system. 

Brazil, India and other allies have looked at a Sea Gripen but the USMC should have taken the lead and methinks they would have gotten others to get off the fence also.  Like the F-20, the Allies will get confident when/if we buy it.

https://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/2017/02/gripen-m-for-indian-navy/

My point on the Gripen would be relevant about 15 years ago but the horse has left the barn but i rant away anyway...

Anyway dueling opinions on the Lightning Carriers for pot stirring:

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-lightning-carriers-more-capable-than-chinese-carriers-admiral-says-2022-11

https://warontherocks.com/2021/10/lightning-carriers-emerge-as-asias-new-capital-ships-strategic-investments-with-varied-operational-value/

My two cents, yes to smaller carriers, maybe to B model 35s, no to believing anything is gonna change from the acquisition path we are on.

 

 

That’s pretty cool and that looks like it’d be fun to fly. Like how the carrier had to modify flight deck ops to accommodate the V-22, the amphib could do likewise for this. 
 

As you said though, that train has long since sailed from the barn. The Marines got stuck (or asked for) the -35B and the rest is history. 

[Prozac]

On 12/17/2022 at 11:48 AM, Bigred said:

The Marines need something capable of being able to provide air support to the ARG/ESG, both overwater and overland, natively from the amphib.

Honest question: why? I thought we were living in the modern age of joint operations. Each service brings different & complimentary capabilities to the fight. The idea that the Marines are gonna go storm the beach with no help from anyone is a pipe dream. If we’re doing an amphibious op requiring support from 5th gen fighters, I think the Navy will be chalking up a carrier for that one. If it has to be leathernecks providing the CAS, put ‘em in C models and launch them off the cat. 

[nunya]

8 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Honest question: why?

Public Law 416.

Quote

 That the first sentence of section 206 (c) of the National Security Act of 1947 is hereby amended to read as follows: “The United States Marine Corps, within the Department of the Navy, shall be so organized as to include not less than three combat divisions and three airwings, and such other land combat, aviation, and other services as may be organic therein,

Until that gets changed, the Marines are required to have entirely organic capabilities.

[Prozac]

10 minutes ago, nunya said:

Public Law 416.

Until that gets changed, the Marines are required to have entirely organic capabilities.

M’Kay….where does it say they have to be VTOL?

[nunya]

16 minutes ago, Prozac said:

M’Kay….where does it say they have to be VTOL?

I don't get your point. It's the same place that says the AF needs stealth, the Army needs dune buggies, and the Navy needs fleshlights. The puzzle palace people wrote a requirements report, lobbied, and got it approved.

If you're arguing the Marines don't need VTOL to accomplish their mission, ok, argue that VTOL is unnecessary and the Marines should have CVs. If you're arguing the Navy can provide the required airpower, that's incorrect.

[Majestik Møøse]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

Honest question: why? I thought we were living in the modern age of joint operations. Each service brings different & complimentary capabilities to the fight. The idea that the Marines are gonna go storm the beach with no help from anyone is a pipe dream. If we’re doing an amphibious op requiring support from 5th gen fighters, I think the Navy will be chalking up a carrier for that one. If it has to be leathernecks providing the CAS, put ‘em in C models and launch them off the cat. 

When’s the last time any of us has worked with Marine infantry at an LFE? I’m trying to remember the last time I worked with Marines at all in training; it was probably their C2 guys in a tent. When do you think the last time a Harrier or C-model Hornet squadron worked with other Marines?  Rhetorical.

When it comes to a MEF/MEB/MEU, the Marines are always the best option to support other Marines. I sure as shit wouldn’t trust my survival on another service showing up; we’re all too busy with our own activities. When the Navy has to choose between CAS and Carrier survival, or the Air Force has to choose between CAS and DCA and strike package size / regen rates and also Carrier survival, support for a thousand Marine infantry holding or advancing to an objective is going to get backburnered. Even the resupply from other services will have to be fought for at every instance, which is why a quarter of Marine expeditionary units is dedicated for logistics support, Hercs and all. They’re geared to survive by themselves for 30-60 days, because they’ll have to. It’s actually a pretty enviable setup, because it’s self-contained “joint” by nature and commanded by a guy that knows what he’s doing.

Maybe Red can shed more light.