A detachment of F-35Bs with Fighter Attack Squadron 121 arrived aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp, marking the first time the aircraft has deployed operationally aboard a US Navy ship.

The F-35B, assigned under the Okinawa-based 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, will provide a robust set of sea-based capabilities that will enhance Navy-Marine Corps expeditionary operations they say. The aircraft is equally capable of conducting precision strikes inland, supporting Marines inserted ashore or providing air defence for the Expeditionary Strike Group.

“Pairing F-35B Lightning II’s with the Wasp represents one of the most significant leaps in warfighting capability for the Navy-Marine Corps team in our lifetime,” said Rear Adm. Brad Cooper, commander, Expeditionary Strike Group 7.

“This 5th generation stealth jet is extremely versatile and will greatly enhance and expand our operational capabilities.” 

VMFA-121 Pilots are scheduled to conduct a series of qualification flights on Wasp over a multi-day period. Following qualifications, the F-35Bs and 2,300 Marines that make up the 31st MEU will deploy aboard ships of the Wasp Expeditionary Strike Group for follow-on operations in the Indo-Pacific region as part of a routine patrol to strengthen regional alliances, provide rapid-response capability and advance the ‘Up-Gunned ESG’ concept.

The ‘Up-gunned ESG’ is a US Pacific-fleet initiated concept that aims to provide lethality and survivability to a traditional three-ship amphibious ready group by integrating multi-mission surface combatants and F-35B into amphibious operations. By adding these enabling capabilities, the amphibious force can more effectively defend against adversarial threats in the undersea, surface and air domains, as well provide offensive firepower to strike from the sea.

The 31st MEU is the only forward-deployed MEU in the region. The F-35B serves as one airframe within a multitude of air capabilities of the MEU’s Air Combat Element. Air, ground and logistics forces make up the MEU’s Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF), a composite of capabilities that allow the MEU, in partnership with US Navy amphibious ships, to conduct a wide-range of missions from crisis response to disaster relief.

28
Leave a Reply

avatar
12 Comment threads
16 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
15 Comment authors
andy reevesDerek GreenElliottjohnJohn N Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
trackback

[…] post F-35B jets join USS Wasp for first operational naval deployment appeared first on UK Defence […]

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

its reported that the u.k has taken delivery of its 15th f 35, surely they should be over here

Pacman27
Guest
Pacman27

For me the UK need to follow the MAGTF force structure and build it out to all parts of our force to create a single defence structure.

They do everything they do on 50% of the UK defence budget and have more of everything than us. Surely we can replicate this and use the other 50% to build out the capabilities that the marines dont have (some air, land and Sea assets and Nuclear)..

Very efficient well equipped force, that we can learn a lot from – and they dont need to borrow equipment when sent to theatre.

raftastic
Guest

I see you trump out this idea of a single force structure on a regular basis and first and foremost I think you’re entirely wrong. I joined the RAF, not the Navy and not the Army. I’m also certain you will hear the same from members of my sister services. Further the Canadians tried this a few years back and it was roundly regarded as a total failure and they quickly reverted back to individual services. Now joint operations are excellent, and are the best way to project force. However they only work so well due to the unique perspectives… Read more »

Peter French
Guest
Peter French

its quite amazing to me that contributors find it necessary to sneer at others input, as though they were Masters of the universe as with the above. Rather arrogant I find

raftastic
Guest

It’s one of my many excellent qualities. I’ll happily ‘sneer’ at you too. Cheers.

Steve M
Guest
Steve M

Whilst I agree a certain amount of etiquette should be maintained, raftastic does have a point. There is no way to model our armed forced on the US Marines without taking into account the amount of support that they rely on from the other services. An Amphibious Ready Group deploys with a Naval Support Element of an amphibious assault ship, amphibious transport dock and a dock landing ship (all US Navy), not to mention escorts and such and that’s just when deploying in an amphibious role.

Pacman27
Guest
Pacman27

Steve , Raf I am fine with the banter and feedback and take it as it is meant. My views are entirely my own and as I always am keen to note the USMC does not cover everything – but and it is a big but they do an awful lot on a lot smaller budget than the UK and we need to take a look at why. I am not against separate force structures, but it seems to me decisions are tooth the inter service rivalry is actually doing the whole service down. We have a limited budget (which… Read more »

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

the u.sm.c will always be second fiddle to the army, although the marine corps have the same amount of tanks as the whole u.k arm y approx 400).it would cost far,far too much for the u.k to invest in a similar setup. the rumoured merger of the marines would be a start , but the traditionalists would back it and the beaurocracy would kill it altogether.i’m not adverse to the f.a.a/ r.a.f merging. at least it would stop the main source of inter service rivalry and who gets to play with the f 35’s.

Ben P
Guest
Ben P

The USMC leaches of the other forces and gets everything at a reduced cost. Single force structure is a terrible idea.

Mike Saul
Guest
Mike Saul

All sneering aside the USMC model for the UK armed forces has little merit.

It will undermine morale and produce little if any economy savings.

It is important to note that that technically the USMC is part of the US navy and whilst on operations is dependent on the support of the other branches of the US military to enable it operate in a combat environment.

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

The aspirations and suggestions of Pacman are admirable. I certainly agree with his long term build suggestions, like a drumbeat, to keep orders flowing, people employed, the economy stimulated, and costs down. I don’t agree with the USMC ideas as simply I feel the espirit de corps in the British armed forces is too important to interfere with. The MoD also has hundreds of military facilities of all kinds to pay for which the USMC does not. I’m all for joint operations but we have been going down that path since the mid 90’s anyway first with PJHQ and now… Read more »

Julian
Guest
Julian

Well, let’s all unite behind the happy thought I have in my head that by the end of this year we should be seeing pictures much like these with our very own F-35Bs operating from the deck of HMS QE. OK, only test aircraft and not operational deployment obviously but it’ll still be great to see – first F-35B on QE is getting tantalisingly close now.

I hope the RN/RAF gets nicer weather though, it looks a bit overcast and gloomy where USS Wasp is at the moment.

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Seconded!

Pacman27
Guest
Pacman27

All, I am not proposing a direct copy of the USMC, but they do a lot right (audited budget – loads of kit) and I am sure we can do a very British version of it, but you can’t have it all ways.. We have budget issues, inter force rivalry and many people on here stating we are command top heavy. We have 220k people working in MOD (50k civilians), problems with funding, procurement and a seeming inability to put out a large force at any point in time. Just saying we need to look at change – instead of… Read more »

Ben P
Guest
Ben P

The USMC is geered towards 1 role, we are not. Thank god no one will ever take the single force structure seriously in the UK. It would be a disaster.

sjb1968
Guest
sjb1968

By the time the civil service had employed three consultant companies to assess the rebranding options, produced three white papers and undertaken trials of new uniforms, stationery and corporate logo’s costs were beginning to spiral out of control. There was also a huge argument amongst senior military personnel regarding their new ranks, which took the PM’s personal intervention to resolve. This agreed that on rotation every 4 months you had to be either a General, Admiral or Air Vice Marshal. Finally, BAE Managers were brought in to try and make savings but the net result was the number of civil… Read more »

Tim sinnett
Guest

For me, the joint force structure is the way to go, but only because of the hugely reduced numbers of equipment and personnel. It’s seems such a waste to duplicate structures that support so little.
I also like the idea of removing the rivalry in spending and equipment buys. Buy what we need not what an individual force wants, and have it integrated into a compact efficient single force.

raftastic
Guest

I’m not sure we’d get mullered by the USMC…..let them have a crack at heavy airlift….oh no wait they can’t do that……how about naval warfare? oopps nope sorry no dice there either. The single force structure works for the USMC, it helps for them that they have always been a single force, where as we are not. So trying to split ours down is going to be tough if not impossible. The USMC benefits from the economies of scale in terms of the procurement of their kit so therefore everything they get is cheaper. I’d also question what is included… Read more »

Pacman27
Guest
Pacman27

Raf I think you are missing my point (which I must apologise for). I think we can accomadate everyones concerns here – but the USMC fields more combat capability that the whole of our 3 forces put together by some considerable margin. I accept (and highlighted in my first post ) that they leverage the navy, Airforce and other areas – but lets not forget they do this on an audited budget sub $30bn and have a force of circa 185k personnel. The MOD supposedly has an annual budget of £48bn (so lets say $60bn) and fields about the same… Read more »

John N
Guest
John N

Others have made the apples and oranges point re USMC but in short the USMC has no Navy; i.e. no nuclear deterrent, no submarines or escorts, no RFA and no amphibious ships that they pay for. They also have a significantly curtailed Air Force capability beyond the “fighty stuff” and there are significant questions over the “fightiness” of that stuff too. For example many of those marine aircraft aren’t currently flyable per this 2016 article https://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/04/15/budget-cuts-leaving-marine-corps-aircraft-grounded.html . The following article from today in addition to confirming the continuing readiness issue on many airframes also demonstrates how the USMC can financially… Read more »

Elliott
Guest
Elliott

As noted in the article the Hornets you mention were deliberately kept beyond their planned service dated due to the F-35 program delays. The USMC did NOT join the Super Hornet program so the F-18s the youngest they possess are older than the Clinton Administration. The reasons for this are the Marines love the Harrier which is why they bought so much of the old UK inventory for spare parts. The Marines therefore see the F-35B as a natural evolution and replacement of both aircraft so were willing to wait on the replacements to arrive. As for the Marines financially… Read more »

Mike Saul
Guest
Mike Saul

Total reform of the UK MOD is required which will upset a lot of vested interests.

The most efficient organisations have flat management structures with resources focused on the priorities of the organisation.

The UK MOD fails to prioritize has a huge pyramid of structure and wastes money as routine.

The military needs to become much efficient it what it does.

Derek Green
Guest
Derek Green

Just remind me again, how many 1 billion pounds a pop nuclear powered Astute type attack submarines does the USMC have? Stop comparing apples with oranges, they are entirely different kinds of fruit capability.

john
Guest
john

A single force is the only way forward. I have seen while in the Army officers laughing at the sacking of Admirals, the RAF refusing to feed a nuclear armed guard in Germany because the cook house was closed. and four of my mates burnt badly having to fly to UK because the hospital at Cyprus was RAF. Sack every officer over the rank of one star give the rest a month to think about staying or going. Then create the new force, by the way the Canadian idea was ruined from within.

Derek Green
Guest
Derek Green

Absolutely, there are jobsworths in any service (but in the Armed Forces sometimes people suffer harm because of them, which we all share your pain for) but the number of jobsworths will not be reduced by amalgamating ….. deep understanding and highly refined skills as a Commander in one’s own arm of the services WILL be lost by an ultimate expectation that a squadron of fighter aircraft can be commanded by someone whose background is armoured infantry. One force, one command? It will always fail in my opinion. There were Doctors and there were Nurses ….. and then they put… Read more »

john
Guest
john

Please do not share my pain. Doctors,nurses,cleaners,porters,and grondaughter all in one team that does a pretty good job of working. It can be done we just need the will.

Derek Green
Guest
Derek Green

Sorry John, but they are not one team, everyone of those roles have their own management structure right up to board level at every Hospital. They work collaboratively but Nuses lead nurses, Doctors lead Doctors and they don’t swap those management roles. Neither should the Armed forces in my view.