F35 - Money well spent.

Yokel

LE
Short answer is yes. At sea, one and one-third squadrons of AV-8Bs supported the 4th and 5th Marine Expeditionary Brigades from USS Nassau (LHA-4) and USS Tarawa (LHA-1).
Source is Osprey Aircraft book AV-8B HARRIER II UNITS OF OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD AND DESERT STORM. PDF is too large to attach.
How many aircraft was that? Did they count as 'naval' aircraft during post conflict analysis?

On occasions since current operations in Iraq (by which I mean since the rise of Daesh) there was no carrier for TF50, so a Wasp class LHD took the flagship role. Would they have offloaded helicopters and embarked more jets?

Marine Air v ISIS.JPG


When I was at school I remember an English lesson where we had to find stories from the local newspaper and write about them. I noticed a local company had won an order to supply lighting equipment for the US Marine Corps for ships. Being a dopey 13 year old I did not appreciate this was probably a visual land aid.
 
Is there any move on the previously cancelled external fuel tanks for F-35?
I find it incredibly odd that external tanks haven’t been developed for the F-35 as they were for the F-22. I believe the Israeli’s may be working to address this and would expect something to be developed eventually.

Regards,
MM
 
No external tanks is going to mean a lot of air-to-air refuelling practice....
 
No external tanks is going to mean a lot of air-to-air refuelling practice....
Nearly all fast air relies on tankers on ops. However, external tanks (conformal or otherwise) would greatly increase the F-35’s utility.

Regards,
MM
 
Even outside of ops, an F-35 fleet without tanks is going to burn big holes in tanker hours. They'll cost a fortune...

@Magic_Mushroom - aren't the F-22 tanks just F-15 tanks? They look identical.

(I know you can't just take an external store and stick it on something else and assume it will work properly, but having to tank more than, for example, a Typhoon, is going to put a crimp in moving it around the world given our not-exactly-repleet-with-tankers situation. Imagine trying to get it down to Mount Pleasant for example....).
 

mcphee1948

Old-Salt
This is probably a naive question, but if the F-35 has to get fitted with external fuel tanks, what will that do to the plane's "stealth" characteristics. I mean won't the fuel tanks bulge out and show up on enemy radar?
 
Even outside of ops, an F-35 fleet without tanks is going to burn big holes in tanker hours. They'll cost a fortune...
Well, even without bags it looks like it’s better than the F-16, FA-18C/D and even FA-18E/F!

...aren't the F-22 tanks just F-15 tanks? They look identical
I don’t think so but happy to be corrected; F-22s also normally just blow both the tanks with the pylons. F-15s just drop the tanks.

...given our not-exactly-repleet-with-tankers situation. Imagine trying to get it down to Mount Pleasant for example....)
Ironically, I’d say that rogue tankers is something we’re not short of.

Regards,
MM
 
This is probably a naive question, but if the F-35 has to get fitted with external fuel tanks, what will that do to the plane's "stealth" characteristics. I mean won't the fuel tanks bulge out and show up on enemy radar?
‘Stealth’ is not a binary quality!

Regards,
MM
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
Last edited:
Two types, one conformal and stealthy and a second type, that can be ejected (plus mounts) before they need to be stealthy.
Just enough to give the good news to Tehran and get home!

Regards,
MM
 
Lack of external tanks could be a problem for the few countries that need to routinely operate at long range however.
More long duration than long range per se I'd have thought.

Most users are going to end up using F-35 as a fighter/intercepter/AD (including us), sitting around at 30,000ft trying not to use any fuel is going to to be a significant part of what it does over the next 40 years.

Big fat tanks, even if not fantastically stealthy ones, would increase coverage or reduce dependance on a tanker.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
Most users are going to end up using F-35 as a fighter/intercepter/AD (including us), sitting around at 30,000ft trying not to use any fuel is going to to be a significant part of what it does over the next 40 years.
.
I'd not think we'll use F35 in that manner, more likely for strike/ISR where the stealthy properties come into their own.
 

mcphee1948

Old-Salt
More long duration than long range per se I'd have thought.

Most users are going to end up using F-35 as a fighter/intercepter/AD (including us), sitting around at 30,000ft trying not to use any fuel is going to to be a significant part of what it does over the next 40 years.

Big fat tanks, even if not fantastically stealthy ones, would increase coverage or reduce dependance on a tanker.
I'm a bit puzzled by your reference to the F-35 possibly depending in long-range missions on tanker support.
Won't the tankers be easily detected on enemy radar, and give the game away as to where the F-35's are?
 
I'm a bit puzzled by your reference to the F-35 possibly depending in long-range missions on tanker support.
Won't the tankers be easily detected on enemy radar, and give the game away as to where the F-35's are?
I suppose it depends on how much unfriendly territory your F-35 has to fly over to get to its target, but even without external tanks the B can fly 500 miles with two 1000lb bombs and two Meteors - so a tanker could sit 400 miles off the target, and that's still a long way in radar terms.
 
Last edited:

mcphee1948

Old-Salt
I suppose it depends on how much unfriendly territory your F-35 has to fly over to get to its target, but even without external tanks the B can fly 500 miles with two 1000lb bombs and two Meteors - so a tanker could sit 400 miles off the target, and that's still a long way in radar terms.
Two 1,000 bombs doesn't sound much of a payload though. I think the old, regrettably scrapped RAF "Jaguar" could carry far more than that on a longer mission. It wasn't very stealthy, true. Was that why it was got rid of?
 
Two 1,000 bombs doesn't sound much of a payload though. I think the old, regrettably scrapped RAF "Jaguar" could carry far more than that on a longer mission. It wasn't very stealthy, true. Was that why it was got rid of?
It couldn't.
 
Two 1,000 bombs doesn't sound much of a payload though. I think the old, regrettably scrapped RAF "Jaguar" could carry far more than that on a longer mission. It wasn't very stealthy, true. Was that why it was got rid of?
A Jag couldn't carry 2x 1000lb bombs 500 miles.
 

Latest Threads

Top