Has anyone seen any figures as to how many sorties need to be generated according the USMC when they need F35Bs to support the ground troops because it is too dangerous for attack helicopters?

Then compared this number to how many can be carried on an LHA.

12 are carried on a LHD. There’s room for more if you leave the aviation assets for the the Marines they are supposed to protect.

Where I am coming from in this post is why is it that the UK decided that it needed a carrier the size of a CVF to support an expeditionary force

The UK decided it needed a carrier the size of CVF to conduct sustained combat operations. They didn’t built it for the royal marines. They wanted it to be able to fight a war against an enemy whose neighbors won’t let the RAF build an airbase next door.

as I understood it the USMC wanted CVF size carriers but where told no. The CVF has the size and the ability to launch the planes with a heavier load and retrieve with a heavier load.

CVF doesn’t carry 2000 Marines. The Marine fixed pilots would like a bunch of things. They are then reminded by the Marines on the ground that their mission is to work for them, not replicate the capabilities of the Navy.

There are only six duty CSG’s though, if memory serves, three per coast with another one on each coast at extended readiness. A shortage of escorts shouldn’t really be an issue.”

If you don’t ever put them in the yard its not an issue. Of course the ships wear out twice as fast.

“I’m all in favour of distributing naval tacair away from the big-deck CVN – after all there is no need for the massive force-packages that had to be assembled to mount 70’s style alpha-strikes.

Except for during sustained round the clock combat operations which your grand visions of harrier carriers could not do.

They did a study on that in the 70s, moving to ships about the size of CVF but twice as many of them. One of the major problems was that no matter the size of the ship, the escort requirement remains about the same. Having 20 battlegroups with smaller carriers would have required a substantial enlargement of the escort fleet.

its a very good capability to have. But its very vulnerable right now, and I hope the MC will be able to go back (if nessesary) to how they operated up to the mid 70s. (actualy to the mid 80s when the AV-8B came online. And on a kinda related note, I sorta wonder why the F-35B isnt designated FV-35B………:confused:

Same reason it wasn’t designated F-24, they wanted to keep the designation consistent with the prototypes (which should have really been designated XF-24 and XF-25).

Israeli one, i.e. Popeye.

TAI has licensed production.

Frankly I don’t see the Japanese turning away propective export buyers. After all we are not talking about overtly offensive – it’s just a transport aircraft. And if someone stills feel skittish they could just sell the civilan version whick kawasaki is promoting and later the customer could discreetly upgrade it.

The Malaysian army uses Isuzu trucks to so why would the Japanese turn away the RMAF if hypothetically they decide the wanted the CX? Like I said it’s just a transport aircraft, not a bomber.

C-1 and even the US-1/2 unarmed flying boats were never exported. They won’t sell anything to a foreign military even its. The Izuzu trucks are a different story since they would be sold through the distributor.

Seems to me that a second-tier carrier capability, like the LHA/F-35B combination, gives surviveable recon, precision strike/DEAD and coercion all in a self-contained force package. One that comes without the costs of dispatching a full CSG. Force multipliers are always good news. One that allows CSG’s to be kept for the tasks they are appropriate for is especially good news.

That self contained force contains 4-6 planes and no AEW capability unless they want to leave the super stallions at home. The F-35B also has no Reconnaissance capability. When the F/A-18D is retired, the Corps will be completely dependent on the Navy for that. Despite the fanastes of the pro-STOVL crowd, these are not aircraft carriers. The Navy does not see them as such, the ground marines don’t see them as such, and Marine helicopter pilots don’t see them as such. The purpose of Marine is not to duplicate the capabilities of a carrier battlegroup, its to cover the Marines on the ground while the Navy worries about recon, CAP, suppression of air defenses, destruction of high value targets, etc. In fact, the LHDs don’t have adequate sized magazines for that.

LOL The F-35B would be the only fixed wing aircraft to support USN Amphibious Landing Ships and Troops going Ashore.

Yeah because we’d send an ESG into a combat situation without support from a CSG.