North Korea Launched it.

**jmw_man** · 04-09-09, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by MaBell37

Originally Posted by asianator365

Originally Posted by MaBell37

He, he. Well, that's all well and fine...for book smarts. But what does all that mean to the troop on the ground, or for specific mission parameters?

Just so you have an idea of where I'm heading with this, Marines really like the kind of support that a Harrier can provide. As a "jump jet" it can land just about anywhere, refuel, rearm, whatever, swap pilots out, etc. As for the support it provides, no other airframe can lend the support it lends, in the way it can lend it. Granted, it may be that that support is best designed for a limited number of situations, but still, they are situations that no other aircraft can perform, to include attack helicopters.

What you posted is good for a reports pogue, but you need to start looking at things with a slightly different perspective. One of, how can I best help my guys on the ground with things they can do for themselves, and with what assets I have available to me?

Anyone can come up with cold facts about the manufacturers specs and such, but, the only problem with that is that it seriously downplays equipment effectiveness in combat conditions.

Mabell, I understand where you are coming from. But the facts are clear: The F-35B Lightning II can perform the exact same missions the the Harrier II does, in addition to some that it can't, better. If you want to think of the F-35B as the Harrier III, go right ahead; that is essentially what it is, just on a different airframe. Phasing out the AV-8B in favor of the F-35B isn't denying the Marine on the ground anything, it is giving him the same support, only the quality of that support is better. As for the Marine piloting the F-35B, he is a safer Marine and more readily able to concentrate on the mission, rather than flying the aircraft, thanks to the advanced fly-by-wire systems incorporated into the F-35B.

What it all really comes down to Mabell, is this: If you were a Marine on the ground, would you want the Marine in the air who has your back to have 9,000 lbs of ordinance or 15,000 lbs of ordinance? I think the answer there is clear.

Ok, Asian, you've proven yourself to be pretty knowledgeable, or at least interested enough to find those answers.

Now comes the real test...

So, the military is to phase out the Harrier for all branches (primarily the Navy and Marine Corps, even though the Air Farce and, I've even seen one in US Army possession, have some), this means that the Marine Corps would actually get their hands on working models, if the transition were to begin tomorrow, when?

A. Within six months

B. Within a year

C. Within 2 years

D. Within the next decade

E. When the Navy gets good and ready, which could be never

What's your answer?

By the way, good answers. I'm impressed that you either know this shit that well, or cared enough to find the answers. I just thought I would play devil's advocate in the hopes of shortcutting any comments that some people have been known to make to you concerning your, 'you cant possibly know what your talking about" that I've witnessed in other threads. (And probably been guilty of myself)

I used to want to fly harriers when I was younger!!!

Anyways, Mabell, I thought that only 4 branches of military in 4 different countries flew harriers. I was pretty sure that the only branch in the US was the Marine corps. I guess I'll have to look this up then to cure 30 years of misinformation...

Hasn't the transition already began? I was watchin the discovery channel last weekend and they were talking about the military and talked a little bit about the F35 in Afghanistan. Just wondering...

Aircraft replacement is a slow transition. Speaking from experience as a former KC-130 mechanic; we had F models that were 50+ years old, we had super F models, R models, T models, super T models, and the new J models which is a completely different aircraft and I never went to school for. The older models range from 10 years old to 50+ years old. I know the same would go for Harriers as well. While it's an old design, there are Harriers with minimal flight hours. That's all I have to add, I don't have any other info.... I just think that the transition, if it hasn't started yet, will start soon one aircraft at a time but a full blown squadron may take a while.

**Nouniquenicks** · 04-09-09, 07:31 AM

I'm pretty sure Australia is getting the JSF in 2012... excuse my retardation for a second, are the JSF and the F-35 the same thing?

**Blakeman** · 04-09-09, 09:39 AM

Ok, finally got to something that I can talk about with some level of experience....

In the USMC airwing you have three types of FARPs (fuel ammo and repair points) also called expeditious runways or landing pads for aircraft. Both use what is commonly referred to as 'matting' which is made of aluminum plates that interlock similar to the newer wooden floors in your home. Smaller farps are made for helo and vtol aircraft, medium ones with the same arresting wires as an aircraft carrier, and the largest ones which can land C-130s or even a Galaxy if need be. The nice thing about the harrier is it could land on the smallest of the farps (usually the ones closest to the front lines) in order to rearm and fuel up to get back in the air to support our friendly grunt herds.

I have set up all sizes (there is a large permanent training one in camp wilson in 29 palms) and had seen them used throughout my USMC service career. I have seen harrier IIs land on small farps and full runways. I used to think they were the coolest thing going until I met a pilot who described them as 'trying to drive a mack truck over a suspension bridge'. The way I see it, if the new aircraft is better then I'm all for it.

As far as bringing this new aircraft into the FMF airwing, it will most likely go the same way as the V-22 Osprey has replaced the venerable CH-46 Seaknight. Slowly and a few at a time the squadrons will get training on the new aircraft and make the switch. Rarely does anything happen all at once in the Marines. With the new cobra and huey on the horizon as well, the airwing was due for an upgrade it is readily getting. In the future the Air Combat Element will be supporting the Marines on the ground better than ever.

Back to NK, I am for more of a denial of opportunity for them to do something rather than an aggressive action that could cost lives. If we have to pull an 'Israel bombing Iraq nuclear facility' then so be it, but that should be one of the last options when we know more clear cut answers to the nature of their advancements. If they are gearing up to take out south korea then we need to stop them, but if they are just doing this to shine their international cocks then let em do it as it sure doesn't impress me.

**Potemkine** · 04-09-09, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Nouniquenicks

I'm pretty sure Australia is getting the JSF in 2012... excuse my retardation for a second, are the JSF and the F-35 the same thing?

Yes

**asianator365** · 04-09-09, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by MaBell37

Ok, Asian, you've proven yourself to be pretty knowledgeable, or at least interested enough to find those answers.

Now comes the real test...

So, the military is to phase out the Harrier for all branches (primarily the Navy and Marine Corps, even though the Air Farce and, I've even seen one in US Army possession, have some), this means that the Marine Corps would actually get their hands on working models, if the transition were to begin tomorrow, when?

A. Within six months

B. Within a year

C. Within 2 years

D. Within the next decade

E. When the Navy gets good and ready, which could be never

What's your answer?

By the way, good answers. I'm impressed that you either know this shit that well, or cared enough to find the answers. I just thought I would play devil's advocate in the hopes of shortcutting any comments that some people have been known to make to you concerning your, 'you cant possibly know what your talking about" that I've witnessed in other threads. (And probably been guilty of myself)

First off, the Navy either does not have or has not reported any AV-8Bs in its inventory, as of January 2009. That's not to say that they have never owned the aircraft, it just means that they don't say they have any now.

Next, the first flight of the F-35B was June 8, 2008. The Marine Corps reports that it will receive and begin training with its first aircraft in 2010, with initial operating capability scheduled for 2012. The first two squadrons that will receive and operate the F-35B for the Marine Corps are VMFA-332 and VMFA-212. Congress paid for six F-35Bs in 2008, and another seven in 2009.

Now to answer your question: I believe that the Marine Corps will receive its first operational model for training purposes on schedule. The JSF program is basically at the end of its development stage, with changes already finalized and the final products about ready to start rolling off the assembly line. Barring any major design issues suddenly arising, the Marines should get their first planes on schedule.

Since the F-35B is intended to replace all of the AV-8Bs and the F/A-18Cs, I think that it will probably take until 2020 or later to replace all of the aircraft, assuming that Congress (Obama) decides to stick with the plan. The Marines had 131 AV-8Bs and 16-TAV-8Bs in May of 2008. At current military procurement rates and with a rather anti-military growth Congress, it's going to be a while.

**deathgodusmc** · 04-09-09, 07:22 PM

Ok asain i'm back and this is a topic i know very well. As an ordnancemen for the corps the harrier is a weapons platform i have delt with day to day. You books that tell you it has a 4000 lbs odnance capacity wrong. It has a 4000lbs vertical lift off capacity meaning straight up.

Using very little runway as a jump jet it has a weapon load of over 13,000 lbs. It also has a 25 mm cannon with armor peircing rounds making it a tank killer. One of its very designs ideas was tank killing hense why it has a 25 mm cannon with a slightly downward angle to it if i remember correctly its an 8 degree angle. The 35 has that same 25mm but not angled so it has to nose down to hit the same targets.

It has already been updated several times and can launch almost any air to air and air to ground weapon we have in our stockpile. Contrarey to the movie true lies it has to have forward momentom to fire its cannon due to the recoil.

Another tip for you harriers cost i believe it was 23,000,000 a peice. 35's are what right at 1 billion a piece. So you saved money buying the harrier and gave yourself an additional 77 million for maintainance. Thats just working with the purchase price. Let's not forget the 35 is going to have maintainance as well. On top of which the harrier has never dropped under a 90% readyness and the 35 hasn't even been proven yet.

Im not saying the 35 isn't a good plane. But to say its hands down better than the harrier i have to disagree. The 35 isn't thru it's testing yet and the harrier is battle tested. It's proven over and over it is a reliable airframe. If you want a stat how about during the 42 days of combat, 86 Harrier IIs flew 3,380 combat sorties, 4,112 combat hours, and delivered more than six million pounds of ordnance.

**asianator365** · 04-09-09, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Ok asain i'm back and this is a topic i know very well. As an ordnancemen for the corps the harrier is a weapons platform i have delt with day to day. You books that tell you it has a 4000 lbs odnance capacity wrong. It has a 4000lbs vertical lift off capacity meaning straight up.

That's what we're talking about here: The ability of the F-35B to replace the AV-8B Harrier II in the role for which the Harrier is best known, Vertical Short Take Off and Landing. And it is clear, the F-35B can carry a heck of a lot more in that role. You may notice, that the number I gave for the F-35B is also for the vertical take off. The two are directly comparable and the Harrier loses.

**deathgodusmc** · 04-09-09, 07:49 PM

and thats why i said update the harrier its cheaper and with a new style engine can perform the same as the 35 that has twice the power plant the harrier has

**asianator365** · 04-09-09, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Another tip for you harriers cost i believe it was 23,000,000 a peice. 35's are what right at 1 billion a piece. So you saved money buying the harrier and gave yourself an additional 77 million for maintainance. Thats just working with the purchase price. Let's not forget the 35 is going to have maintainance as well. On top of which the harrier has never dropped under a 90% readyness and the 35 hasn't even been proven yet.

The F-35 currently has a unit price of around $80 million each, with hopes of getting it down to $50 million each, if the Navy/Marines go through with the planned purchase of 680 F-35B/Cs.