Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Informative blog on the top 10 reasons the Brit's elected to switch back to B models (announced today). Item 9 is somewhat concerning.

So in no particular order, here are my Top 10 questions about the decision:

1. Why has the MoD dropped the carrier variant F-35C? The cost of fitting "cats and traps" to the second CVF carrier (Prince of Wales) had doubled to £2 billion ($3.2 billion), and extensive work to also retrofit it to HMS Queen Elizabeth was estimated at another £3 billion.

2. Will the Royal Navy operate both carriers? A decision won't be made until the next Strategic Defence and Security Review in 2015, but it looks likely for now. Both will get ski-jump ramps to support the STOVL type, with the Queen Elizabeth to support embarked flight trails from 2018.

3. How much did the UK waste by planning to operate the F-35C? Officially "only" £40 million, as long-lead items for the cats and traps had not yet been ordered.

4. What about the F-35B's smaller weapons load, shorter range and high price? The MoD says the STOVL aircraft will carry everything that the C would, and that the other factors should be balanced against having one carrier available 100% of the time.

5. Is this bad for interoperability with allies? No. Cooperation with France is more about ensuring that one of their carriers (France only has one) is available at any time, with "cross-decking" opportunities very rare. Flying the B will revive the UK's links with the US Marine Corps, and, er, the Italian navy.

6. So is this the end of a navalised Typhoon, Rafale or Super Hornet alternative? Come on, folks, none of those were ever going to happen!

7. Isn't the UK's third IOT&E jet a C-model? Not so, apparently. While STOVL BK-1 flew in April and will be delivered in July, followed by BK-2, plans to change the third aircraft over to "CK-1" were still only an option.

8. When will UK production aircraft enter use? At-sea trials are planned for 2018 on HMS Queen Elizabeth; the same year that the UK should declare land-based initial operational capability with the jet. IOC status on a carrier should come in 2020.

9. How many F-35Bs will the UK get? We don't know; another one for the next defence review. But with a carrier to typically have only 12 aboard (40 is the highest number possible), plus land-based examples and training assets, it'll be nowhere near the 130 or so mentioned previously.

10. Did the UK bother to tell Lockheed Martin about the change this time? Yes, which is an advance on what happened in September 2010.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now some news...

Marine Corps Times

HASC adds $2.8B to DoD’s procurement request

By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer Posted : Monday May 7, 2012 15:53:20 EDT

Consistent with a staunch resistance to further cuts in defense spending,the House Armed Services Committee has added $2.8 billion to the Pentagon’s fiscal 2013 budget request for ships,aircraft and weapons.

The full markup of the HASC bill isn’t scheduled until Wednesday,but details were released Monday under a pledge from chairman Rep. Buck McKeon,R-Calif., to provide more transparency in the committee’s operations.

Overall,the committee’s bill provides $554 billion in defense spending with another $88 billion for overseas contingency funds.

That’s $29 billion over the Pentagon’s request for $525.4 billion in base defense spending,but on par with the contingency request.

Rep. Adam Smith,D-Wash.,ranking member of the committee,noted that “simply spending more money on defense does not make us safer.â€Â

In an email statement,Smith said that “given the size of our debt and deficit and growing budgetary pressures,I am concerned that the top-line number is roughly $8 billion over the Budget Control Agreement. Congress made a commitment to get our budget under control,and I fully expect that the Senate will honor the Budget Control Agreement number. We should do the same.â€Â

Compared with the Pentagon’s fiscal 2013 budget request from earlier this year,the HASC made the following changes to the procurement budget:

AIR FORCE

• Aircraft procurement rose $389 million, largely on the strength of plus-ups to the RQ-4 Global Hawk and MQ-9 Reaper UAV programs and $138 million to keep its C-27Js. Advance procurement funds deemed excessive for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter were cut by $64 million,along with another $23 million in “premature†spares for the aircraft,which has not yet entered service.

• Ammunition spending rose $163 million due to increases in Joint Direct Attack Munitions,general bombs,rockets and fuses.

• Missile procurement rose $95 million from increases to the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile,Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile and Predator Hellfire missile.

ARMY

• Missile procurement jumped $100 million,split between increases for the Hellfire and Patriot PAC-3 missiles.

• Weapons and combat vehicle procurement jumped $383 million,due chiefly to increases in Abrams tank upgrades,the Bradley Fighting Vehicle program and the M88A2 Hercules improved recovery vehicle.

• Ammunition procurement was reduced by $108 million,primarily because of cuts to 5.56 mm and 30mm ammunition and Excalibur 155 mm rounds.

• Funds under “other procurement†dropped $80 million,spread over several programs.

NAVY

• Shipbuilding and conversion funds rose nearly $900 million,primarily for advance procurement of an additional submarine and destroyer to the 2014 shipbuilding program.

• Aircraft procurement rose overall about $100 million,and included an additional $170 million to restore five previously-cut MH-60R Seahawk helicopters.

• Weapons procurement rose $113 million, spread over a number of programs.

• Total Marine Corps procurement funding dropped by $140 million due to a decrease requested by the Corps for the light armored vehicle product improvement program.

Across the Defense Department,the HASC recommends a rise of $2.141 billion in procurement spending,from $97.432 billion to $99.573 billion.

Procurement spending for overseas operations rose by $620 million,from $9.687 billion to $10.308 billion.

Responding to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report criticizing the lack of a senior-level “point of focus†for urgent operational needs and rapid acquisition efforts,the committee would require the defense secretary to designate a senior Pentagon official as that focal point. The official would “manage, oversee,track,and monitor all emerging capability gaps identified by the war fighter in theater.â€Â

A Senior Integration Group established in June 2011 as a single authority to prioritize and direct fulfillment of joint urgent operational needs falls short of the GAO’s recommendations,the committee said, leading to the need for the “senior-level focal point.â€Â

The committee also expressed its concern that a review of the Pentagon’s joint urgent needs process â€â€mandated by the 2011 defense authorization act and required to be sent to Congress in January 2012 â€â€is not expected to be completed before August of this year.

Iran’s development of nuclear weapons drew the committee’s attention with a provision stating,“it is the policy of the United States to take all necessary measures,including military action if necessary,to prevent Iran from threatening the United States,its allies,or Iran’s neighbors with a nuclear weapon.â€Â

The committee directed that in addition to furnishing an annual report on China’s military power,the Pentagon must also report on that country’s space and cyber strategies,goals and capabilities.

In a new requirement,the Pentagon must also compile a report on North Korea’s military and security developments,due Nov. 1,2013.

The committee also approved â€â€again â€â€a request to rename the Department of the Navy as the “Department of the Navy and Marine Corps,†a long-time request from Rep. Walter Jones,R-N.C.

Under Air Force provisions,the committee denied the service the ability to use any money in 2013 “to divest or retire,or prepare to divest or retire,†C-27J aircraft. A series of reporting requirements after 2013 would need to be met before the aircraft could be disposed of,including an affordable spending analysis for the plane’s operation by the Air National Guard.

Defence Management

F-35 'facts have changed' since SDSR 08 May 2012

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has recommended the National Security Council revert to choosing the F-35B joint strike fighter for the UK's Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, it has been reported.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Hammond said that "the facts have changed" since 2010's Strategic Defence and Security Review chose to operate the F-35C 'cat and trap' carrier variant, citing affordability and performance reasons.

The F-35B, which is capable of short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) was the original choice of aircraft when the Queen Elizabeth class carriers were ordered.

Hammond told The Daily telegraph that the choice of aircraft "depends on what you want to do".

"Different aircraft do different things," he said. "It's about thinking about the military effect we want to deliver then working out the most cost-effective way to deliver it."

The F-35C was considered to be the cheaper option at the time of the SDSR, but the cost of fitting the electromagnetic aircraft launch system to just one carrier has been estimated as high as £1.8bn since.

The MoD, which has had to re-absorb the costs of the strategic nuclear deterrent as well as making cuts, would be unlikely to be able afford that cost before carrier strike is set to be restored in 2020.

The Sydney Morning Herald

Defence gives big to budget surplus

Max Blenkin, Defence Correspondent May 8, 2012 - 7:39PM

AAP

Defence is set to deliver almost $1 billion towards the federal government's planned return to a budget surplus in 2012/13 and its contribution will rise steadily over the next four years.

Most of the savings, which will total $5.4 billion by 2015/16, the government is banking on comes from the deferral or cancellation of defence equipment and capital works projects.

Among the savings is $900 million from deferring the acquisition of 12 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft for two years and $220 million from cancelling the proposed acquisition of new self-propelled field guns.

Advertisement: Story continues below

As well, a well-regarded gap year program, introduced by the former coalition government, to give school leaves a year-long taste of military life, will be scrapped to save $91 million over four years, according to the budget papers released on Tuesday.

The army is also planning to mothball some of its M113 armoured personnel carriers and Abrams tanks to save on operating costs. An ongoing program to cut 1000 defence civilian jobs will save $360 million over four years.

However, the government isn't touching funds for ongoing operations in Afghanistan, East Timor and the Solomons.

It's providing $1.3 billion for Afghanistan operations, making $1.7 billion over the next four years.

Defence Minister Stephen Smith said the 2012/13 defence expenditure cuts followed a review of defence spending to find the savings to help deliver the government's broader fiscal strategy.

"The reprioritisation of defence expenditure has been designed to have a minimum impact on the delivery of core defence capabilities," he said in a statement.

"A number of lower priority capability projects will be deferred with a small number cancelled where they have been superceded by alternative capabilities."

Despite the cuts, budget papers show total defence resourcing at $28.6 billion in 2012/13, up from $26.5 billion this financial year.

As well, the defence force continues to grow.

Its permanent force will increase from 57,800 in 2011/12 to an estimated 59,000 in 2015/16.

However, defence appears to be highly ambitious about approvals of new equipment.

From a modest $248 million in 2012/13, defence is planning to double the amount in each of the next three years to $3.2 billion in 2015/16.

This will be a significant challenge for the defence industry, which will be expected to deliver the projects.

The Ottawa Citizen F-35 critics ignore need for jet of the future

Forces need stealth aircraft

By Matthew Fisher,Postmedia News May 8,2012 6:36 AM

One of the untold stories of the F-35 saga has been how opponents of the aircraft have come to urge Canada to switch from Lockheed Martin's fifth-generation Lightning II to Boeing's fourth generation F-18E/F Super Hornet. In the opinion of one bureaucrat at Public Works,the stealth campaign against the Joint Strike Fighter "has been brilliantly conceived and orchestrated" by Boeing, whose Super Hornet is based on technologies developed in the 1970s. There have been many suggestions that Canada should buy Boeing's Super Hornets because the Royal Australian Air Force has bought a few. The U.S. Navy has also recently placed a small order for some additional Super Hornets,but those are being bought to specifically fill a gap caused by delays in the development of the F-35. They are not meant to replace it. To open the door for the Super Hornet, Canadian critics of the F-35 have clamoured for a competition. But the F-35, then known as the X-35,beat Boeing's X-32 in a fly-off competition to become the main future U.S. multipurpose warplane. The Super Hornet was never considered by the U.S. or the eight countries in the Joint Strike Fighter consortium as their main manned warplane for the next half century because it was based on old technologies. It also lost out to the F-35 in a Japanese competition. I saw Super Hornets take off and land many times eight years ago on the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Persian Gulf. It is a magnificent aircraft that meets the challenges of today. But what about tomorrow?Crucially,what the Super lacks and what the F-35 has are stealth characteristics that will be central to future air warfare. Without that you will basically be irrelevant. Boeing's lobbying for the Super Hornet is understandable. It is a business. Having lost out twice already to Lockheed Martin's F-35 and with no fifth generation aircraft of its own to sell,Boeing urgently needs new Super Hornet orders to keep that fighter assembly line open. However,this does not explain why opponents of the F-35 have not acknowledged where they are getting some of the information they are using to attack it. The Harper government has failed to explain why the F-35 is the best option, beyond generalities about buying the best equipment possible so that Canada can play a more active role in global security. This is a fundamentally different view than that of the New Democrats and Liberals. Rather than discuss what the country requires,they prefer to debate process and long-term program estimates (guesses?) for an aircraft that Canada has not yet purchased. If you buy the wrong fighter,you may lose a war. You also end up being a thirdtier player unable to undertake tough assignments and,by definition,largely ignored when big international decisions have to be made. This is an outcome some members of the opposition probably want, though they have been publicly hesitant to say so. The Canadian debate requires a little perspective. The British decided to purchase the jump version of the F-35, switched to the cheaper conventional takeoff variant that Canada is buying,and then switched back to the jump-jet model again when it was realized that the Royal Navy needs an aircraft to land on a pair of hugely expensive aircraft carriers it is building. Yet these follies,which involve billions of pounds in additional expense, have not attracted nearly the same scrutiny or opprobrium as Canada's potential purchase of the F-35. You'd never know by listening to Liberal leader Bob Rae that it was the Chretien government that started down the rocky F-35 road. Nor is there anything to indicate that those Liberals intended to have an open competition for Canada's next warplane. A mischievous op-ed piece by a former Liberal aide recently tried to suggest that the F-35 was still a "paper airplane," falsely or mistakenly comparing it to a European transport aircraft that Canada rejected a few years ago because it really was a "paper airplane." The F-35 prototype began flight tests 12 years ago. Several dozen are flying now. Training squadrons have been stood up. Certification courses for ground crew have begun. A Dutch F-35 has rolled off the assembly line. Although the government has been characteristically silent about it,a Royal Canadian Air Force pilot has already flown an F-35 simulator.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/critics+ignore+need+future/6582579/story.html#ixzz1uHDKrL00

Reuters.com May 7,2012 Lockheed Wins $237 Million More For F-35 Work By Andrea Shalal-Esa,Reuters WASHINGTON -- Lockheed Martin Corp has won $237 million in extra funding for a fourth batch of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to account for changes to the hardware and software of the stealthy,supersonic new warplanes,the Pentagon said on Monday. The modified contract increases the cap on retrofits needed on early production planes due to issues that arose in testing, which is still continuing,the U.S. Defense Department said in a daily listing of contract awards. Lockheed said the change would enable the Defense Department to pay for certain changes they want incorporated into the new jets,up to the new cap. Lockheed is responsible for any additional costs beyond the agreed cap. The Pentagon projects it will cost $397 billion to develop and build three variants of the plane for the U.S. military,a total of 2,447 planes. Eight partner countries also share in the development costs. The U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on the new warplane, the Pentagon's costliest weapons program, on Tuesday afternoon. Vice Admiral David Venlet,who runs the program for the U.S. government,is expected to provide an update on the program and several technical issues, including problems with the helmet worn by F-35 pilots,and the tailhook that helps stop the aircraft carrier variant of the plane. About 3,650 Lockheed employees who work on the plane are in the third week of a strike at the company's Fort Worth, Texas facility and two sites where the U.S. military is carrying out test flights. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers wants to pressure Lockheed to drop its proposal to switch to a different pension system for new hires. Lockheed officials said production and flight testing were continuing despite the strike. No new negotiating sessions have been agreed with the union.

Raise The Hammer (Hamilton, Ontario, Monday, May 07, 2012) has essay critical of Canada’s decision to acquire the F-35.

Excerpt: Saddled with divergent and mutually incompatible design goals, the F-35 tries to be all things to all political players and mostly fails at being well-suited to any of its myriad use cases. It's second-system syndrome writ gargantuan.

========================================================================================================================================================= f F-35 Fighter Jet a Grossly Overpriced Dud

By Ryan McGreal Published May 07, 2012

Politics - Federal

If you've been following the Harper government's F-35 procurement controversy, this article in Foreign Policy magazine won't give you much comfort. Calling the Pentagon's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter a "calamity", the essay states, "A review of the F-35's cost, schedule, and performance - three essential measures of any Pentagon program - shows the problems are fundamental and still growing."

The projected cost per fighter has almost doubled since development started in 2001 and continues to increase steadily as development moves into the flight testing and modification phase. Worse, based on overruns in the similar F-22, the lifecycle costs are likely to be more than three times the costs of the earlier-generation fighter jets the F-35s are replacing.

Forget the $10 billion discrepancy between the Canadian government's cost to buy the jets and its cost to buy and operate them: the actual operating cost will end up much higher than even the revised estimate.

The F-35 is way behind schedule and way over-budget, but that might be acceptable if the end result was exemplary. Unfortunately, this plane is also shaping up to be a dud.

The design was born in the late 1980s in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Pentagon agency that has earned an undeserved reputation for astute innovation. It emerged as a proposal for a very short takeoff and vertical-landing aircraft (known as "STOVL") that would also be supersonic. This required an airframe design that - simultaneously - wanted to be short, even stumpy, and single-engine (STOVL), and also sleek, long, and with lots of excess power, usually with twin engines.

President Bill Clinton's Pentagon bogged down the already compromised design concept further by adding the requirement that it should be a multirole aircraft - both an air-to-air fighter and a bomber. This required more difficult tradeoffs between agility and low weight, and the characteristics of an airframe optimized to carry heavy loads. Clinton-era officials also layered on "stealth," imposing additional aerodynamic shape requirements and maintenance-intensive skin coatings to reduce radar reflections. They also added two separate weapons bays, which increase permanent weight and drag, to hide onboard missiles and bombs from radars. On top of all that, they made it multiservice, requiring still more tradeoffs to accommodate more differing, but exacting, needs of the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy.

Finally, again during the Clinton administration, the advocates composed a highly "concurrent" acquisition strategy. That meant hundreds of copies of the F-35 would be produced, and the financial and political commitments would be made, before the test results showed just what was being bought.

Saddled with divergent and mutually incompatible design goals, the F-35 tries to be all things to all political players and mostly fails at being well-suited to any of its myriad use cases. It's second-system syndrome writ gargantuan.

Canada's most prudent - most conservative - option at this point is probably to back away altogether from its F-35 purchase agreement, even if such an admission would gall a government that has made its support of the planes and their ballooning costs a matter of pride.

Ryan McGreal, the editor of Raise the Hammer, lives in Hamilton.

End

CTV Edmonton Speaker rejects complaint feds misled House on F-35s

View larger image

A Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is shown in this undated handout photo. (Lockheed Martin / THE CANADIAN PRESS) Updated: Mon May. 07 2012 16:21:37

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA  The Speaker of the House of Commons has rejected a complaint that government ministers misled Parliament on the costs of the F-35 fighter-jet program.

Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae had argued a month ago that ministers didn't give accurate information to MPs about the true price tag for the jets.

The auditor general said in a report last month that Parliament didn't get the full picture on the costs of the jets, which are closer to $25 billion rather than the $16 billion the Tories publicized.

Michael Ferguson said members of cabinet would have known about those higher costs.

The parliamentary budget officer has also said he believes the government kept two sets of books on the cost of the fighter jets.

Speaker Andrew Scheer says there isn't enough evidence that the ministers intentionally misled the Commons, and so rejected Rae's question of privilege.

But Scheer noted that a the Commons public accounts committee is studying the issue of the costs and could turn up new evidence.

"I remind the House that a determination that breach or privilege is not (evident) at this time in no way interferes with the right of any honourable member to raise a new question of privilege should the committee arrive at findings that shed new light on this matter, or should other pertinent information become available," Scheer said.

Scheer had also rejected Rae's contention that Parliament had been misled when ministers said they agreed with Ferguson's findings, but the departments said they didn't agree with certain conclusions in the report.

Again, the Speaker said there was a high bar set for findings of breach of privilege, and that includes proving that the Commons was intentionally given erroneous information.

Liberal House Leader Marc Garneau said the ruling sets a precedent that allows ministers to give misleading information in the Commons.

"I think it's setting a precedent, it's strengthening a precedent, yes, and it's unfortunate because it kind of helps everybody wash their hands on that side of the House and walk away from it," Garneau said.

"But the reality is that the government on this whole business of the F-35 has contradicted itself, has been at variance with civil servants and with generals. ... So there is no accountability in the end and that's terribly disappointing."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm certainly not the biggest fan of the F-35, but after reading "...(DARPA), the Pentagon agency that has earned an undeserved reputation for astute innovation..." in that one essay, I had to stop reading. That's just so ridiculous, that it IMO invalidates anything good the guy might have to say...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Big statement. I'm not sure I agree. In my experience, they are no better than the rest. Some are excellent, some are average and a significant number are only in business because they have the advantage over the non-S/DB outfits.

Could be different in other fields but somehow I doubt it.

It's an entirely irrelevant point in the context of JSF anyways. With very few exceptions, F-35 has pretty much 2 contractors--LM, and Pratt. The 3 gajillion little businesses everyone was getting all knotted up over are subs to one of those two giants, and do not have contracts with the govt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you honestly tell me that the program has been engineered efficiently and managed correctly ?

Gregg

Of course it hasn't. Not many recent aviation projects have been. Look at the F-22, F-35, A380, A350, and B787 for starters.

Aaron

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in the UK we can only hope that the US decides to kill off the F35B! Then our brain dead politicians would be forced to complete our new Carriers( providing of course that the incomplete sections arn't sold to a nice man in Turkey for scrap!) with the Cats and Traps, enabling us to purchase a decent airgroup of F18E/F & G's, along with some E2D's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in the UK we can only hope that the US decides to kill off the F35B! Then our brain dead politicians would be forced to complete our new Carriers( providing of course that the incomplete sections arn't sold to a nice man in Turkey for scrap!) with the Cats and Traps, enabling us to purchase a decent airgroup of F18E/F & G's, along with some E2D's.

It makes sense because the US Navy Avaition are going to have a 1 to 1 mix of JSF and Super Hornet on their CVN up to 2030.

The US Marine need the F-35B because they do not have large carrier. It is unlikely to be killed. UK politicians need to have a brain of their own to make the right decision for UK. Where are the UK military planners?

It does not make sense when UK build the Supercarrier size ships and cripple them by leaving out the cats and traps. After the full number of F18E/F & G's, and E2D's, UK may have enough money left over to buy a single squadron of F-35C for show and tell. More can be added later when budget allows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although better methods are needed to control weapon system cost inflation, the man clearly is ignorant of the big picture when he suggests cutting the F-35. The problem is, a whole bunch of people will read this and conclude that his article makes sense as there is no counter argument presented.

Here in the UK we can only hope that the US decides to kill off the F35B! Then our brain dead politicians would be forced to complete our new Carriers( providing of course that the incomplete sections arn't sold to a nice man in Turkey for scrap!) with the Cats and Traps, enabling us to purchase a decent airgroup of F18E/F & G's, along with some E2D's.

That would be wonderful...but the UK is a modest sized country with more limited means than in years past. Even though it has historically played a large role in world affairs, it is more challenging to do so in today's world. Still, a two carrier CTOL fleet should be possible. If all you are going to field is one carrier, some helicopters and a handful of tactical jets, why bother? The height of ridiculousness is the vision of AEW Sea Kings directing F-35s. It is better than nothing I suppose.

Edited by DutyCat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, a two carrier CTOL fleet should be possible. If all you are going to field is one carrier, some helicopters and a handful of tactical jets, why bother? The height of ridiculousness is the vision of AEW Sea Kings directing F-35s. It is better than nothing I suppose.

If we are getting the B then I think the plan is to finish & operate both carriers instead of just the one if we went with the C. And I think our Sea Kings will be all but out of service before we ever get the F-35, last I heard we were to retire the last of them around 2017-2018 time.

---------------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now some news...

Marine Corps Times

HASC adds $2.8B to DoD’s procurement request

By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer Posted : Monday May 7, 2012 15:53:20 EDT

Consistent with a staunch resistance to further cuts in defense spending,the House Armed Services Committee has added $2.8 billion to the Pentagon’s fiscal 2013 budget request for ships,aircraft and weapons.

The full markup of the HASC bill isn’t scheduled until Wednesday,but details were released Monday under a pledge from chairman Rep. Buck McKeon,R-Calif., to provide more transparency in the committee’s operations.

Overall,the committee’s bill provides $554 billion in defense spending with another $88 billion for overseas contingency funds.

That’s $29 billion over the Pentagon’s request for $525.4 billion in base defense spending,but on par with the contingency request.

Rep. Adam Smith,D-Wash.,ranking member of the committee,noted that “simply spending more money on defense does not make us safer.â€Â

In an email statement,Smith said that “given the size of our debt and deficit and growing budgetary pressures,I am concerned that the top-line number is roughly $8 billion over the Budget Control Agreement. Congress made a commitment to get our budget under control,and I fully expect that the Senate will honor the Budget Control Agreement number. We should do the same.â€Â

Compared with the Pentagon’s fiscal 2013 budget request from earlier this year,the HASC made the following changes to the procurement budget:

AIR FORCE

• Aircraft procurement rose $389 million, largely on the strength of plus-ups to the RQ-4 Global Hawk and MQ-9 Reaper UAV programs and $138 million to keep its C-27Js. Advance procurement funds deemed excessive for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter were cut by $64 million,along with another $23 million in “premature†spares for the aircraft,which has not yet entered service.

• Ammunition spending rose $163 million due to increases in Joint Direct Attack Munitions,general bombs,rockets and fuses.

• Missile procurement rose $95 million from increases to the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile,Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile and Predator Hellfire missile.

ARMY

• Missile procurement jumped $100 million,split between increases for the Hellfire and Patriot PAC-3 missiles.

• Weapons and combat vehicle procurement jumped $383 million,due chiefly to increases in Abrams tank upgrades,the Bradley Fighting Vehicle program and the M88A2 Hercules improved recovery vehicle.

• Ammunition procurement was reduced by $108 million,primarily because of cuts to 5.56 mm and 30mm ammunition and Excalibur 155 mm rounds.

• Funds under “other procurement†dropped $80 million,spread over several programs.

NAVY

• Shipbuilding and conversion funds rose nearly $900 million,primarily for advance procurement of an additional submarine and destroyer to the 2014 shipbuilding program.

• Aircraft procurement rose overall about $100 million,and included an additional $170 million to restore five previously-cut MH-60R Seahawk helicopters.

• Weapons procurement rose $113 million, spread over a number of programs.

• Total Marine Corps procurement funding dropped by $140 million due to a decrease requested by the Corps for the light armored vehicle product improvement program.

Across the Defense Department,the HASC recommends a rise of $2.141 billion in procurement spending,from $97.432 billion to $99.573 billion.

Procurement spending for overseas operations rose by $620 million,from $9.687 billion to $10.308 billion.

Responding to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report criticizing the lack of a senior-level “point of focus†for urgent operational needs and rapid acquisition efforts,the committee would require the defense secretary to designate a senior Pentagon official as that focal point. The official would “manage, oversee,track,and monitor all emerging capability gaps identified by the war fighter in theater.â€Â

A Senior Integration Group established in June 2011 as a single authority to prioritize and direct fulfillment of joint urgent operational needs falls short of the GAO’s recommendations,the committee said, leading to the need for the “senior-level focal point.â€Â

The committee also expressed its concern that a review of the Pentagon’s joint urgent needs process â€â€mandated by the 2011 defense authorization act and required to be sent to Congress in January 2012 â€â€is not expected to be completed before August of this year.

Iran’s development of nuclear weapons drew the committee’s attention with a provision stating,“it is the policy of the United States to take all necessary measures,including military action if necessary,to prevent Iran from threatening the United States,its allies,or Iran’s neighbors with a nuclear weapon.â€Â

The committee directed that in addition to furnishing an annual report on China’s military power,the Pentagon must also report on that country’s space and cyber strategies,goals and capabilities.

In a new requirement,the Pentagon must also compile a report on North Korea’s military and security developments,due Nov. 1,2013.

The committee also approved â€â€again â€â€a request to rename the Department of the Navy as the “Department of the Navy and Marine Corps,†a long-time request from Rep. Walter Jones,R-N.C.

Under Air Force provisions,the committee denied the service the ability to use any money in 2013 “to divest or retire,or prepare to divest or retire,†C-27J aircraft. A series of reporting requirements after 2013 would need to be met before the aircraft could be disposed of,including an affordable spending analysis for the plane’s operation by the Air National Guard.

Defence Management

F-35 'facts have changed' since SDSR 08 May 2012

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has recommended the National Security Council revert to choosing the F-35B joint strike fighter for the UK's Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, it has been reported.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Hammond said that "the facts have changed" since 2010's Strategic Defence and Security Review chose to operate the F-35C 'cat and trap' carrier variant, citing affordability and performance reasons.

The F-35B, which is capable of short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) was the original choice of aircraft when the Queen Elizabeth class carriers were ordered.

Hammond told The Daily telegraph that the choice of aircraft "depends on what you want to do".

"Different aircraft do different things," he said. "It's about thinking about the military effect we want to deliver then working out the most cost-effective way to deliver it."

The F-35C was considered to be the cheaper option at the time of the SDSR, but the cost of fitting the electromagnetic aircraft launch system to just one carrier has been estimated as high as £1.8bn since.

The MoD, which has had to re-absorb the costs of the strategic nuclear deterrent as well as making cuts, would be unlikely to be able afford that cost before carrier strike is set to be restored in 2020.

The Sydney Morning Herald

Defence gives big to budget surplus

Max Blenkin, Defence Correspondent May 8, 2012 - 7:39PM

AAP

Defence is set to deliver almost $1 billion towards the federal government's planned return to a budget surplus in 2012/13 and its contribution will rise steadily over the next four years.

Most of the savings, which will total $5.4 billion by 2015/16, the government is banking on comes from the deferral or cancellation of defence equipment and capital works projects.

Among the savings is $900 million from deferring the acquisition of 12 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft for two years and $220 million from cancelling the proposed acquisition of new self-propelled field guns.

Advertisement: Story continues below

As well, a well-regarded gap year program, introduced by the former coalition government, to give school leaves a year-long taste of military life, will be scrapped to save $91 million over four years, according to the budget papers released on Tuesday.

The army is also planning to mothball some of its M113 armoured personnel carriers and Abrams tanks to save on operating costs. An ongoing program to cut 1000 defence civilian jobs will save $360 million over four years.

However, the government isn't touching funds for ongoing operations in Afghanistan, East Timor and the Solomons.

It's providing $1.3 billion for Afghanistan operations, making $1.7 billion over the next four years.

Defence Minister Stephen Smith said the 2012/13 defence expenditure cuts followed a review of defence spending to find the savings to help deliver the government's broader fiscal strategy.

"The reprioritisation of defence expenditure has been designed to have a minimum impact on the delivery of core defence capabilities," he said in a statement.

"A number of lower priority capability projects will be deferred with a small number cancelled where they have been superceded by alternative capabilities."

Despite the cuts, budget papers show total defence resourcing at $28.6 billion in 2012/13, up from $26.5 billion this financial year.

As well, the defence force continues to grow.

Its permanent force will increase from 57,800 in 2011/12 to an estimated 59,000 in 2015/16.

However, defence appears to be highly ambitious about approvals of new equipment.

From a modest $248 million in 2012/13, defence is planning to double the amount in each of the next three years to $3.2 billion in 2015/16.

This will be a significant challenge for the defence industry, which will be expected to deliver the projects.

The Ottawa Citizen F-35 critics ignore need for jet of the future

Forces need stealth aircraft

By Matthew Fisher,Postmedia News May 8,2012 6:36 AM

One of the untold stories of the F-35 saga has been how opponents of the aircraft have come to urge Canada to switch from Lockheed Martin's fifth-generation Lightning II to Boeing's fourth generation F-18E/F Super Hornet. In the opinion of one bureaucrat at Public Works,the stealth campaign against the Joint Strike Fighter "has been brilliantly conceived and orchestrated" by Boeing, whose Super Hornet is based on technologies developed in the 1970s. There have been many suggestions that Canada should buy Boeing's Super Hornets because the Royal Australian Air Force has bought a few. The U.S. Navy has also recently placed a small order for some additional Super Hornets,but those are being bought to specifically fill a gap caused by delays in the development of the F-35. They are not meant to replace it. To open the door for the Super Hornet, Canadian critics of the F-35 have clamoured for a competition. But the F-35, then known as the X-35,beat Boeing's X-32 in a fly-off competition to become the main future U.S. multipurpose warplane. The Super Hornet was never considered by the U.S. or the eight countries in the Joint Strike Fighter consortium as their main manned warplane for the next half century because it was based on old technologies. It also lost out to the F-35 in a Japanese competition. I saw Super Hornets take off and land many times eight years ago on the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Persian Gulf. It is a magnificent aircraft that meets the challenges of today. But what about tomorrow?Crucially,what the Super lacks and what the F-35 has are stealth characteristics that will be central to future air warfare. Without that you will basically be irrelevant. Boeing's lobbying for the Super Hornet is understandable. It is a business. Having lost out twice already to Lockheed Martin's F-35 and with no fifth generation aircraft of its own to sell,Boeing urgently needs new Super Hornet orders to keep that fighter assembly line open. However,this does not explain why opponents of the F-35 have not acknowledged where they are getting some of the information they are using to attack it. The Harper government has failed to explain why the F-35 is the best option, beyond generalities about buying the best equipment possible so that Canada can play a more active role in global security. This is a fundamentally different view than that of the New Democrats and Liberals. Rather than discuss what the country requires,they prefer to debate process and long-term program estimates (guesses?) for an aircraft that Canada has not yet purchased. If you buy the wrong fighter,you may lose a war. You also end up being a thirdtier player unable to undertake tough assignments and,by definition,largely ignored when big international decisions have to be made. This is an outcome some members of the opposition probably want, though they have been publicly hesitant to say so. The Canadian debate requires a little perspective. The British decided to purchase the jump version of the F-35, switched to the cheaper conventional takeoff variant that Canada is buying,and then switched back to the jump-jet model again when it was realized that the Royal Navy needs an aircraft to land on a pair of hugely expensive aircraft carriers it is building. Yet these follies,which involve billions of pounds in additional expense, have not attracted nearly the same scrutiny or opprobrium as Canada's potential purchase of the F-35. You'd never know by listening to Liberal leader Bob Rae that it was the Chretien government that started down the rocky F-35 road. Nor is there anything to indicate that those Liberals intended to have an open competition for Canada's next warplane. A mischievous op-ed piece by a former Liberal aide recently tried to suggest that the F-35 was still a "paper airplane," falsely or mistakenly comparing it to a European transport aircraft that Canada rejected a few years ago because it really was a "paper airplane." The F-35 prototype began flight tests 12 years ago. Several dozen are flying now. Training squadrons have been stood up. Certification courses for ground crew have begun. A Dutch F-35 has rolled off the assembly line. Although the government has been characteristically silent about it,a Royal Canadian Air Force pilot has already flown an F-35 simulator.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/critics+ignore+need+future/6582579/story.html#ixzz1uHDKrL00

Reuters.com May 7,2012 Lockheed Wins $237 Million More For F-35 Work By Andrea Shalal-Esa,Reuters WASHINGTON -- Lockheed Martin Corp has won $237 million in extra funding for a fourth batch of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to account for changes to the hardware and software of the stealthy,supersonic new warplanes,the Pentagon said on Monday. The modified contract increases the cap on retrofits needed on early production planes due to issues that arose in testing, which is still continuing,the U.S. Defense Department said in a daily listing of contract awards. Lockheed said the change would enable the Defense Department to pay for certain changes they want incorporated into the new jets,up to the new cap. Lockheed is responsible for any additional costs beyond the agreed cap. The Pentagon projects it will cost $397 billion to develop and build three variants of the plane for the U.S. military,a total of 2,447 planes. Eight partner countries also share in the development costs. The U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on the new warplane, the Pentagon's costliest weapons program, on Tuesday afternoon. Vice Admiral David Venlet,who runs the program for the U.S. government,is expected to provide an update on the program and several technical issues, including problems with the helmet worn by F-35 pilots,and the tailhook that helps stop the aircraft carrier variant of the plane. About 3,650 Lockheed employees who work on the plane are in the third week of a strike at the company's Fort Worth, Texas facility and two sites where the U.S. military is carrying out test flights. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers wants to pressure Lockheed to drop its proposal to switch to a different pension system for new hires. Lockheed officials said production and flight testing were continuing despite the strike. No new negotiating sessions have been agreed with the union.

Raise The Hammer (Hamilton, Ontario, Monday, May 07, 2012) has essay critical of Canada’s decision to acquire the F-35.

Excerpt: Saddled with divergent and mutually incompatible design goals, the F-35 tries to be all things to all political players and mostly fails at being well-suited to any of its myriad use cases. It's second-system syndrome writ gargantuan.

========================================================================================================================================================= f F-35 Fighter Jet a Grossly Overpriced Dud

By Ryan McGreal Published May 07, 2012

Politics - Federal

If you've been following the Harper government's F-35 procurement controversy, this article in Foreign Policy magazine won't give you much comfort. Calling the Pentagon's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter a "calamity", the essay states, "A review of the F-35's cost, schedule, and performance - three essential measures of any Pentagon program - shows the problems are fundamental and still growing."

The projected cost per fighter has almost doubled since development started in 2001 and continues to increase steadily as development moves into the flight testing and modification phase. Worse, based on overruns in the similar F-22, the lifecycle costs are likely to be more than three times the costs of the earlier-generation fighter jets the F-35s are replacing.

Forget the $10 billion discrepancy between the Canadian government's cost to buy the jets and its cost to buy and operate them: the actual operating cost will end up much higher than even the revised estimate.

The F-35 is way behind schedule and way over-budget, but that might be acceptable if the end result was exemplary. Unfortunately, this plane is also shaping up to be a dud.

The design was born in the late 1980s in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Pentagon agency that has earned an undeserved reputation for astute innovation. It emerged as a proposal for a very short takeoff and vertical-landing aircraft (known as "STOVL") that would also be supersonic. This required an airframe design that - simultaneously - wanted to be short, even stumpy, and single-engine (STOVL), and also sleek, long, and with lots of excess power, usually with twin engines.

President Bill Clinton's Pentagon bogged down the already compromised design concept further by adding the requirement that it should be a multirole aircraft - both an air-to-air fighter and a bomber. This required more difficult tradeoffs between agility and low weight, and the characteristics of an airframe optimized to carry heavy loads. Clinton-era officials also layered on "stealth," imposing additional aerodynamic shape requirements and maintenance-intensive skin coatings to reduce radar reflections. They also added two separate weapons bays, which increase permanent weight and drag, to hide onboard missiles and bombs from radars. On top of all that, they made it multiservice, requiring still more tradeoffs to accommodate more differing, but exacting, needs of the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy.

Finally, again during the Clinton administration, the advocates composed a highly "concurrent" acquisition strategy. That meant hundreds of copies of the F-35 would be produced, and the financial and political commitments would be made, before the test results showed just what was being bought.

Saddled with divergent and mutually incompatible design goals, the F-35 tries to be all things to all political players and mostly fails at being well-suited to any of its myriad use cases. It's second-system syndrome writ gargantuan.

Canada's most prudent - most conservative - option at this point is probably to back away altogether from its F-35 purchase agreement, even if such an admission would gall a government that has made its support of the planes and their ballooning costs a matter of pride.

Ryan McGreal, the editor of Raise the Hammer, lives in Hamilton.

End

CTV Edmonton Speaker rejects complaint feds misled House on F-35s

View larger image

A Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is shown in this undated handout photo. (Lockheed Martin / THE CANADIAN PRESS) Updated: Mon May. 07 2012 16:21:37

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA  The Speaker of the House of Commons has rejected a complaint that government ministers misled Parliament on the costs of the F-35 fighter-jet program.

Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae had argued a month ago that ministers didn't give accurate information to MPs about the true price tag for the jets.

The auditor general said in a report last month that Parliament didn't get the full picture on the costs of the jets, which are closer to $25 billion rather than the $16 billion the Tories publicized.

Michael Ferguson said members of cabinet would have known about those higher costs.

The parliamentary budget officer has also said he believes the government kept two sets of books on the cost of the fighter jets.

Speaker Andrew Scheer says there isn't enough evidence that the ministers intentionally misled the Commons, and so rejected Rae's question of privilege.

But Scheer noted that a the Commons public accounts committee is studying the issue of the costs and could turn up new evidence.

"I remind the House that a determination that breach or privilege is not (evident) at this time in no way interferes with the right of any honourable member to raise a new question of privilege should the committee arrive at findings that shed new light on this matter, or should other pertinent information become available," Scheer said.

Scheer had also rejected Rae's contention that Parliament had been misled when ministers said they agreed with Ferguson's findings, but the departments said they didn't agree with certain conclusions in the report.

Again, the Speaker said there was a high bar set for findings of breach of privilege, and that includes proving that the Commons was intentionally given erroneous information.

Liberal House Leader Marc Garneau said the ruling sets a precedent that allows ministers to give misleading information in the Commons.

"I think it's setting a precedent, it's strengthening a precedent, yes, and it's unfortunate because it kind of helps everybody wash their hands on that side of the House and walk away from it," Garneau said.

"But the reality is that the government on this whole business of the F-35 has contradicted itself, has been at variance with civil servants and with generals. ... So there is no accountability in the end and that's terribly disappointing."

:D, Good grief Mark,

And you reckon my posts are irrelevantly long :lol:.

:cheers:,

Ross.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:D, Good grief Mark,

And you reckon my posts are irrelevantly long :lol:.

:cheers:,

Ross.

If posts with a great deal of info are a problem, you should check out twitter. Nice and short, no heavy reading required.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes sense because the US Navy Avaition are going to have a 1 to 1 mix of JSF and Super Hornet on their CVN up to 2030.

The US Marine need the F-35B because they do not have large carrier. It is unlikely to be killed. UK politicians need to have a brain of their own to make the right decision for UK. Where are the UK military planners?

It does not make sense when UK build the Supercarrier size ships and cripple them by leaving out the cats and traps. After the full number of F18E/F & G's, and E2D's, UK may have enough money left over to buy a single squadron of F-35C for show and tell. More can be added later when budget allows.

UK Military planners? Hmmm, I don't believe we actually have any? Not any with the guts to tell the politicians what a MONUMENTAL MISTAKE they're making! The fact is, that after this ridiculous U-Turn, the UK is going to end up with the largest helicopter carriers in the world( the largest vessels built outside North America), with a varirty of helicopters and a small handful of jump jets! BUT, if we had stuck to the Cats and traps and cancelled the F35 purchase, we could have had two fully operational fleet carriers with fully functional airwings for a far cheaper price.

I was hoping that maybe, Barack Obama might call David Cameron and point out that interoperability is a key factor in this and that there is no point in having two large ships that no-one else can land on or take off from? The F35B is not outa the woods yet, and there's still a chance that it might be cancelled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:D, Well I don't normally do that Berkut, but in this case I did it for effect.

:cheers:,

Ross.

I'm still confused as to you point. That post had exactly 3 words of mine, the rest was entirely relevant news. Sure it was a wall of text, but I didn't have the direct links to work with. Humor has to have some foundation to work...

Link to post
Share on other sites

-and the "show", must go on......

Is it supprising that the traveling simulator turned up now; after an Australian, Budgetry delay and current lack of confiance in the program as a whole ? (retorical question !)

Link to post
Share on other sites

UK Military planners? Hmmm, I don't believe we actually have any? Not any with the guts to tell the politicians what a MONUMENTAL MISTAKE they're making! The fact is, that after this ridiculous U-Turn, the UK is going to end up with the largest helicopter carriers in the world( the largest vessels built outside North America), with a varirty of helicopters and a small handful of jump jets! BUT, if we had stuck to the Cats and traps and cancelled the F35 purchase, we could have had two fully operational fleet carriers with fully functional airwings for a far cheaper price.

I have said it before and I will say it again: No buck, no buck rogers. If the UK wants a super carrier they will have to spend the money... and when is the last time the UK operated a cats and traps carrier anyway? hell you retired your Fleet Air Arm years ago, and now we are getting picky? Simply put, VSTOL worked for years with the Harrier why are we so concerned all of the sudden with cats and traps?

The F-35B is still going to be the most capable aircraft in the UK's arsenal. and yes, more capable than the F-18.

I was hoping that maybe, Barack Obama might call David Cameron and point out that interoperability is a key factor in this and that there is no point in having two large ships that no-one else can land on or take off from?

The US Marines would like to remind you they can operate just fine from the carriers.

The F35B is not outa the woods yet, and there's still a chance that it might be cancelled.

Not really.

-and the "show", must go on......

Is it supprising that the traveling simulator turned up now; after an Australian, Budgetry delay and current lack of confiance in the program as a whole ? (retorical question !)

All they did was shuffle money around to look fiscally responsible. I wouldn't put much deep thought into the delay. You will still get the F-35.

I really don't get how this is so hard to understand:

It's not getting canceled. everyday it gets closer to fruition.

My big hope is that just as it is about to get into full operation/production we then cancel it and begin the whole process over again with a different aircraft. Then again I'm a sadist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The US Marines would like to remind you they can operate just fine from the carriers.

Great point. They do just fine operating from carriers.

As long as they have USN E-2's for AEW coverage, Growlers for ECM support, C-2 COD's to get all those spare parts delivered, etc, etc. Other than that, they are completely self-sufficient.

I am curious as to how the Brits plan on utilizing their carrier, with zero organic AEW and tanker support. I guess as long as you are dropping bombs on Libya in the Med, within close range of land-based NATO assets, it really doesn't matter. That will work out nicely as long as they never plan on deploying out of coverage of land-based support. If that is the case, do they even need a carrier in the first place? Or will they be completely dependent on the French or USN for true blue water ops?

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

All they did was shuffle money around to look fiscally responsible. I wouldn't put much deep thought into the delay. You will still get the F-35.

-Duh !!

I fear you are correct, and 'we' will end up with......a (contractually obligated) handfull ?

Edited by ixgr1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard some nonsense being muttered somewhere about some countries looking at pooling their buys? WTH, one week it's mine, next week it's yours, and go back and forth?

As for the RN carriers, here's an idea... built it properly, with cat & trap. RN FAA can provide an F-35 squadron. RCN can raise up a E-2 squadron, RAN a Growler squadron, RNZN a COD squadron. Each of the four can supply helicopters as needed... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as they have USN E-2's for AEW coverage, Growlers for ECM support, C-2 COD's to get all those spare parts delivered, etc, etc. Other than that, they are completely self-sufficient.

I didn't realize that Marine Amphibs were capable of taking on all those aircraft, so I guess I learned something new today.

I am curious as to how the Brits plan on utilizing their carrier, with zero organic AEW and tanker support. I guess as long as you are dropping bombs on Libya in the Med, within close range of land-based NATO assets, it really doesn't matter. That will work out nicely as long as they never plan on deploying out of coverage of land-based support. If that is the case, do they even need a carrier in the first place? Or will they be completely dependent on the French or USN for true blue water ops?

Seeing as the F-35B is a massively upgraded version of a harrier (to put it in overly simplified terms) The Brits were doing just fine with the latest SHARs I thought. Plus the F-35's radar makes the harrier's radar look like an old TV antennae made from a wire hanger. Its hugely advanced along with all the fused sensors, I dare say the F-35 has some incredible 360 degree coverage without the E-2's help... which once again the UK didn't have and never will.

So why are we so upset that the UK no longer has an option to possess a capability it never had in the first place? This is like me being disappointed my new car doesn't drive to the moon. neither did my old one of course, but I'm still pretty mad. Of course I didn't care about going to the moon, until I decided I did, but then changed my mind a couple years later and bought another car, having never ever made any real changes for my rocket ship. still angry though.

Think of all the things I could have done that I could never afford in the first place :(

Plus, And again correct me if I'm wrong. But the Fleet Air Arm was mixed with the RAF in 2005 or 2006. So just about anything is going to be an improvement over what they have.

Just for arguments sake I think we need to make up our minds a little here:

option A

The F-35B sucks because it can't interoperate with the UK other than those pesky US Marines. And the F-35B needs help from E-2s, CODS, And EA-6Bs/Growlers (Could the UK carriers even operate these? Could they even theatrically crossdeck? Have we checked?)

Again we are complaining about the UK now lacking capability they never possessed in the first place. Like when I was striped of the gold medals I never won. Even if all of the above is true, the UK needed the help anyway. since the F-35C is again, the same aircraft yes?

or option B

The F-35C (A different variant of the SAME AIRCRAFT) would dominate alone with no help from others in which case interoperability isn't even important really.

the F-35B has knocked for its inferior range in comparison to the F-35C Yes the F-35 is so good that you can indeed, only fairly compare it to other F-35s!

Apparently with the UK Beggars can be choosers. You can have all the F-35C you want. You can have Super Carriers. Populate their decks with war and support planes that would make the US Navy envious. But You have to pay for them for first. Pony up the dough and you can buy whatever you want. I don't care. Go nuts!

I have heard from people in the program that the F-35 has the sensor power of an E-8 JSTARS just to give an idea of what it can "see"

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...