Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Meet the F-35B: US Marine Corps' (Premier) Version of Lockheed-Martin's 'Lightning II'
Reaganite Republican ^ | September 6, 2011 | Reaganite Republican

Posted on 09/06/2011 6:31:04 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican

The USMC's own Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) 
variant brings unique STOVL capabilities...

Descended from the X-35 prototype, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is primarily funded by the US and UK in an effort to replace aging fleets across all services- lead contractor on the massive project being Lockheed Martin. 

To this point, only 13 test aircraft of all types have been constructed- most are in test/trainer service, and the stealthy single-seat, single-engine (Mach 1.6) fighters average $122M a copy. The Defense Department is planning to buy over 2400 planes, making it the most expensive defense program in US history... although they are expected to serve effectively as far into the future as 2040.

Yet while the RAF is predictably going with the same set-up as the USAF (F-35A), many were surprised to hear that UK Navy brass decided to buy the more conventional (and cheaper) carrier-landing F-35C -our own Navy's version- sacrificing the VTOL ability their own Harriers are famed for. The British are suffering woeful budgetary constraints, yet the Royal Navy has two very expensive new carriers under construction... seems they had to cut somewhere if they didn't want to scap one of those hulls.

So the USAF version -with conventional take-off/landing- is dubbed F-35A, while the Navy's F-35C is set up for carriers. The Danish Air Force actually have one test plane already, while the Canadians, Israelis, and others will have their own types as well.

But it's the United States Marine Corps who anxiously await the first deliveries of their advanced -and a bit more pricey- short/vertical take-off and landing (STOVL) F-35B, and this is the one that most closely resembles that famed British Harrier 'jump-jet' about to ride-off into history... this thing is really something else.

The USAF has also ordered 250 F-35Bs to complement their larger, more conventional F-35A fleet.

Specification on the three primary F-35 versions -here-

F-35B demo video/pics/links at Reaganite Republican

Semper Fi from on-high!



TOPICS: Government; History; Military/Veterans; Science
KEYWORDS: f35; fighter; jointstrikefighter; jsf; lockheed; marines; navair
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

1 posted on 09/06/2011 6:31:09 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Vroomfondel; SC Swamp Fox; Fred Hayek; NY Attitude; P3_Acoustic; investigateworld; lowbuck; ...
SONOBUOY PING!

Photobucket

Click on pic for past Navair pings. Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist. The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation. This is a medium to low volume pinglist.

2 posted on 09/06/2011 6:39:50 AM PDT by magslinger (To properly protect your family you need a bible, a twelve gauge and a pig.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

The decision to go with the F35C instead of B for carrier based operations was announced in June 2009. The decision was made primarily because the greater size of the new carriers meant VSTOL was unnecessary and the C is seen as more capable than the B. In addition it was wondered if the more complex B would ever actually get built. Switching the carriers to full catobar aoperation also allows them to use a proper AEW aircraft, ie the Hawkeye or even a navalised version of the Typhoon if need be.

Also, apologies for being pedatic, but it’s the Royal Navy, not the UK navy. :)


3 posted on 09/06/2011 6:56:50 AM PDT by Caulkhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican
Doesn't look much like a Lightning


4 posted on 09/06/2011 7:08:05 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

The defense department may be planning to buy 2400 of these things, but there’s no way they’ll get that many. Well, unless they put electric engines in them.


5 posted on 09/06/2011 7:08:21 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6

The election is less than 14 months away.


6 posted on 09/06/2011 7:15:04 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network ("Cut the Crap and Balance!" -- Governor Sarah Palin , Friday August 12 2011, Iowa State Fair)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

“When you saw one of those twin boomed beauties in the air, you knew every plane in the sky was American.” -Magslinger’s Dad.


7 posted on 09/06/2011 7:16:59 AM PDT by magslinger (To properly protect your family you need a bible, a twelve gauge and a pig.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

Some people like to knock the Lockheed Martin F-22 for costing $140 million a piece, excluding all expenses for development and spares (which takes the price all the way up to $350 million/copy?).

But not to worry! The next fighter coming along — Lockheed’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter — is supposed to be based on affordability, with a (formerly projected) flyaway cost at roughly one-third of the F-22’s price tag using 2001 dollars.

So, let’s see how the F-35 measures up.

The US Navy and US Marine Corps plan to buy a total of 680 F-35Bs and F-35Cs over the next 15-20 years. The FY2009 budget contains budget projections for the remainder of the program. Note that this includes only procurement (flyaway) cost. Amortized development and spares costs are excluded.

Year Aircraft Average unit cost/aircraft

FY2008: 6 $184.2 million
FY2009: 8 $200.2 million
FY2010: 18 $172.3 million
FY2011: 19 $146.4 million
FY2012: 40 $124.4 million
FY2013: 42 $115.1 million
Remainder: 547 $109.3 million
Total: 680 $115 million

(A little more than one-third of an F-22’s cost. But that’s just Navy/Marine figures. Our Air Force is buying the most, in the A version. We’re on schedule for almost 2500 of ‘em for all service branches; we likely won’t be able to afford 250 total, w/ about 68 going to the Navy/Marines. Guns or butter, eh?)


8 posted on 09/06/2011 7:19:52 AM PDT by flowerplough (Pelosi on Republicans: "They want to destroy food safety, clean air, clean water, ...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: flowerplough

link http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/02/how-much-does-one-f35-cost.html


9 posted on 09/06/2011 7:22:06 AM PDT by flowerplough (Pelosi on Republicans: "They want to destroy food safety, clean air, clean water, ...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Nope, it doesn’t... does it

I did a post on these a couple weeks back, last year’s California Capitol Air Show had five of the survivors there... I think there are only 7 flightworthy left now


10 posted on 09/06/2011 7:31:39 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: magslinger

Much obliged, Magslinger


11 posted on 09/06/2011 7:32:53 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

Just doing my job as holder of the Sonobuoy Ping List. If it’s Navair related, I ping to it. Feel free to ping me if/when you post a thread on the subject. That goes for anyone.


12 posted on 09/06/2011 7:39:37 AM PDT by magslinger (To properly protect your family you need a bible, a twelve gauge and a pig.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: flowerplough

That IS a lot of money... the first thing I thought is all the folks in congress who will have the long knives out for F-35 production


13 posted on 09/06/2011 7:40:09 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

It’s not a lot of money, relatively speaking.

If the first TARP were not wasted on union cronies, it would have paid in full, for appx 5,000 F-22 Raptors.

Do the math.


14 posted on 09/06/2011 7:41:53 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network ("Cut the Crap and Balance!" -- Governor Sarah Palin , Friday August 12 2011, Iowa State Fair)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican
Lightning
15 posted on 09/06/2011 7:54:11 AM PDT by FroggyTheGremlim (Democrats: the Party of NO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Magnificent airplane (Yamamoto’s Bane) with the one flaw being the horizontal stabilizing strut between the twin rudders tended to cut in half a pilot who needed to bail out. No rocket ejection seats back then.


16 posted on 09/06/2011 8:03:35 AM PDT by katana (Just my opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: eCSMaster; Paladin2; Reaganite Republican

P-38 “Lightning” That’s the plane that brought down Admiral Yamamoto . One reason it could was that it had a longer range than the 51. Who flew that plane ?

An interesting fact about WWII was that the Japanese had longer range fighters than any of the combatants in that war. If Gernamny had fighters and bombers with their range the outcome would have been a much longer war.

Nor have I heard or read of any aircraft interchange by the Nazis using Zeros etc during that war.


17 posted on 09/06/2011 8:31:20 AM PDT by mosesdapoet ("To punish a province Let it be ruled by a professor"Fredrick The Great paraphrased)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mosesdapoet
An interesting fact about WWII was that the Japanese had longer range fighters than any of the combatants in that war. If Gernamny had fighters and bombers with their range the outcome would have been a much longer war.

Japanese Zero's range was at the expense of not installing cockpit armor and self sealing fuel tanks.

If Germany had fighters and bombers without those features they would have suffered even worse attrition, and it may have shortened the war.

18 posted on 09/06/2011 8:42:12 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Caulkhead
I suspect that "Yet while the RAF is predictably going with the same set-up as the USAF (F-35A)," is also wrong and all UK F-35s will be the C version. The UK Ministry of Defence site refers to a single JCA (Joint Combat Aircraft). STO/VL doesn't make sense in itself above 30,000 tons CV size - The one advantage of the Royal Navy going with the STO/VL B was the abilty to reinforce with RAF aircraft (the idea behind the past Joint Force Harrier).

Also the F-35A makes no sense to the RAF - it's to replace the F-16, and they already have the Typhoon for that role. Also while they have officialy abandoned FOAS (Future Offensive Air System) to replace the strike GR4 Tornado, an RAF F-35C would plug that gap better that the shorter legged F-35A.

It you have a minimum sized airforce, why go for 2½ types of fast jets when 2 would be a better fit?

19 posted on 09/06/2011 8:48:15 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy (New gets old. Steampunk is always cool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
No, it doesn't much look like a Lightning:


20 posted on 09/06/2011 8:55:56 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson