mawz Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) And as much add I love the USMC, a little truth. The STOVL could easily be canceled and this program would march on. But if the CTOL was in serious danger, the entire program would fold up like a pup tent. The conventional wisdom that the B model is the linchpin of the program is correct. The CTOL and CATOBAR variants can be replaced by other aircraft currently available, albeit with a potential loss of capability, increase in cost or both. The STOVL variant is the ONLY Harrier replacement on the horizon and there's tens of billions in ships that need B's to be able to do their jobs in the USN alone, not counting the QE class carriers the UK is building and of course the Italians need them too. Kill the B, and the program is dead, kill the A or C and its merely serious jeopardy. Kill any two variants and it's dead. Edited June 23, 2012 by mawz Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted June 23, 2012 Author Share Posted June 23, 2012 The conventional wisdom that the B model is the linchpin of the program is correct. The CTOL and CATOBAR variants can be replaced by other aircraft currently available, albeit with a potential loss of capability, increase in cost or both. The STOVL variant is the ONLY Harrier replacement on the horizon and there's tens of billions in ships that need B's to be able to do their jobs in the USN alone, not counting the QE class carriers the UK is building and of course the Italians need them too. Kill the B, and the program is dead, kill the A or C and its merely serious jeopardy. Kill any two variants and it's dead. This is categorically wrong. The B almost died and the rest of the program barely blinked. Kill the A, all 2500+ of them, and the whole program would fold. It's academic either way. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Antonov Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Winslow T. Wheeler seems to have some pretty strong opinions about the F-35: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/26/the_jet_that_ate_the_pentagon?page=0,0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Horrido Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) Already posted and made fun of at posts #2324 and #2325. Which brings up another question: How do you measure "MOCK" levels in an internet thread? Edited June 27, 2012 by Horrido Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kei Lau Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 US, Japan sign deal on first 4 F-35 fighters. (Routers) The letter of offer and acceptance, which was signed in Japan, includes four conventional takeoff variants of the F-35 fighter at a cost of 10.2 billion yen ($128.61 million) each, a slightly higher price than the 9.9 billion yen ($124.83 million) than Japan initially budgeted to spend. But the cost of the two simulators and other equipment dropped to 19.1 billion yen ($240.83 million) from the anticipated level of 20.5 billion yen ($258.48 million) so the overall price remained at 60 billion yen. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted July 1, 2012 Author Share Posted July 1, 2012 The Japan LOA, unlike Israel's, is just for the first set of LRIP jets they want. They will be getting more than just four. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattC Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Excuse my ignorance here, but are we (in the UK) reverting back to the B model procurement rather than the C? I thought I heard something to that effect. I understood we had abandoned CATOBAR for the new carriers, making the C redundant for our purposes. Also understand we have another Strategic Defence Review in 2015, which will nicely coincide with the next general election, so I expect that whatever the prevailing financial conditions are, there will doubtless be a lot of political posturing over defence expenditure. Personally I don't think we need a carrier force, if Eurofighter are contemplating TVC for a potential navalised version, could we not just hitch a ride with the French if we need it? Just wondering :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kei Lau Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 US, Japan sign deal on first 4 F-35 fighters. (Routers) The Japan LOA, unlike Israel's, is just for the first set of LRIP jets they want. They will be getting more than just four. Japan, which announced in December that it plans to buy a total of 42 F-35 fighters, had warned Washington in February that it might cancel its orders if the price of the new jets rose or deliveries were delayed due to the Pentagon's plan to postpone its own orders for 179 F-35s over the next five years. After the LOA of the fist 4, Japan has passed the point of no return. That is the whole news. They originally had a requirement of delivery on 2016, but, now, will take the delay and price rises just like US and other JSF partners. No one believes that Japan can or will take the delivery ahead of US in 2016. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted July 1, 2012 Author Share Posted July 1, 2012 I think it's fair to say none of the FMS customers expect, or for that matter want to take delivery ahead of the USAF. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flying Pancake Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 (edited) I wouldn't be surprised if there are some -B variants ordered in the future for Japan as well. The Hyuga and Ise are just test beds for larger carriers in development. Edited July 1, 2012 by Flying Pancake Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Litvyak Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Personally I don't think we need a carrier force, if Eurofighter are contemplating TVC for a potential navalised version, could we not just hitch a ride with the French if we need it? Just wondering :) Funny, just 30 years ago people were saying the saying the same thing, the RN doesn't need carriers or an amphibious capability, and then the Argentines proved how wrong that thinking was... why does every lesson learned have to be revisited and agonised over every 30 years? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kei Lau Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) Dutch plans to buy F-35 fighter jets in doubt - Routers (Reuters) - The Netherlands should scrap plans to buy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets because it cannot afford the project's ballooning costs as the country attempts to cut spending, a majority of parliament said on Thursday. The Dutch government collapsed over painful austerity measures in April, but the state has to cut costs by billions of euros to meet EU guidelines. Whether the Netherlands, which has already ordered two F-35 test planes, will quit the project depends on the outcome of the elections, and the new government that takes office afterwards. If the Netherlands does go ahead to buy F-35s, it will buy less than the 85 planes originally planned, Dutch Defence Minister Hans Hillen said in April. Edited July 5, 2012 by Kei Lau Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattC Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 Funny, just 30 years ago people were saying the saying the same thing, the RN doesn't need carriers or an amphibious capability, and then the Argentines proved how wrong that thinking was... why does every lesson learned have to be revisited and agonised over every 30 years? There might be a potential need for it, but again, there may be a foreseeable need for a lot of capability which we don't have, and are not likely to have. Whatever the case, the whole programme as far as the UK is concerned seems to be in a bit of a shambles of dithering. Clicky Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Cats outta of the bag! http://defense.aol.com/2012/07/09/cno-ready-to-cut-back-on-f-35-joint-strike-fighter/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Cats outta of the bag! http://defense.aol.com/2012/07/09/cno-ready-to-cut-back-on-f-35-joint-strike-fighter/ That was tabled way back on Page 109 :) From an earlier article that was quoted in a post: The USN simply does not have the money to pay for F/A-XX. With the USN's ship-building budgets squeezed, Gardner says that naval aviation accounts will likely end up being raided to help pay for submarines and surface ships. The only place the money can come from is from within the F-35 programme, Gardner says. "There is a community over there that says 'let's just skip the F-35C, let's just keep buying F/A-18s and we'll go and develop this other airplane,'" he says. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 I read that, and plenty of other articles, but this is the first one I've heard of the CNO saying what most of us already knew....we can't afford it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) I read that, and plenty of other articles, but this is the first one I've heard of the CNO saying what most of us already knew....we can't afford it. This may be the first real sign that the services are starting to understand that their budgets are going to be hit hard. Sounds like the USN can't afford all the toys on their wish list and may be thinking about spending their shrinking budget on subs and the surface fleet (my suggestion is to forget about CVN's and subs and just buy more of those really cool LCS's). If they actually go this route, it's a huge gamble because if the F/A-XX or the latest and greatest UCAV doesn't pan out in 15-20 years, they are left with an antiquated fast jet force and nothing in the pipeline for replacements. Kinda like what would have happened if the USAF had opted to save money by skipping a generation of jets (the F-15/16) and get by on upgraded F-4's for a few more decades until the F-22 Raptor came on line. Maybe they figure that if they have to go up against a formidable opponent, they can order the USMC to drop what they are doing and deploy their entire F-35B force on the carriers. Just out of curiosity, if the USN did back out completely, any idea what this would do to the unit cost of the F-35A/B's? Edited July 10, 2012 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Exhausted Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Ah, the unions being jerks again... Nothing says "I'm a big boy" quite like throwing a tantrum because you might be a little inconvenienced... I am quite pleased that I've never had anything to do with a union, and can confidently say I never will. Don't like your job? Go elsewhere.... I'm pretty sure that if I have unions available to me I'll take advantage of them. It's draconian to act as some of the heads of companies have taking bail outs and giving themselves bonuses while terminating pensions that could have been payed otherwise. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 I read that, and plenty of other articles, but this is the first one I've heard of the CNO saying what most of us already knew....we can't afford it. Its not that the navy cant afford it. If the USMC can afford it, surely the Navy can. thinking of that in context, It doesn't surprise me at all that the CNO, a Submariner by trade,is advocating Cruise missile launched from (you guessed!!) Submarines and surface ships! I have a feeling that if he was a Wings of Gold! type he would be advocating the F-35, well more accurately (he is Navy) so the super hornet This whole sixth gen fighter thing is the biggest red herring I have seen in a while. They don't even know what a sixth gen fighter entails exactly. Self healing skin? Space travel? The Navy is grossly overwieght, and luckily they are willing to sacrifice the future of naval air to stay that way. This is stupidity at its finest-- They refuse to evolve. The USAF and USMC are going to have a terrifying amount of power in the air compared to the USN. Cruise missiles are very limited and take an awful lot of rank to finally get launched, then take sometime to arrive on target. If the target is stationary that is awesome, if not the news is not so cheerful. F-22s can redirect cruise missiles, luckily we have lots of those. 11bee, huge Lulz on the LCS comment Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted July 10, 2012 Author Share Posted July 10, 2012 The Navy is stuck with a 50% cost share off the US side of the program, at least for development. They'd have to bail completely out of the program to drive major cost. The larger issue is the CNO fails to recognize what technology and economics are doing. Yes, stealth will eventually be easily negated. But by whom, and when? It ain't that cheap or easy. And while aircraft programs may be capital investments like carriers, individual aircraft are not capital assets like carriers are. The way he put it, a 6th gen aircraft sounds a lot like a long range F/A-18E/F with a metric butt load of EW. Modular and reconfigurable doesn't work so well on smaller things like aircraft, where moving a bulkhead or abandoning the map room isa big deal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 "We are really unhappy with the cost, complexity, and features of the fifth generation F-35; so we want a more expensive and complex sixth generation fighter with undecided/unknown features that won't be in service for 3 decades.Boom! Checkmate!!" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spongebob Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 my suggestion is to forget about CVN's and subs and just buy more of those really cool LCS's Read up on the LCS. The Navy is learning that the assumptions that went into the requirements for these ships were wrong. Among others - severely underarmed/armored (their primary weapon got cancelled and they are so flimsy a .50 cal round will go through them), the manpower concept just doesn't work (the super small crews are good for about 3-4 weeks before they are utterly burned out, and since everyone is multi-tasked they've only assigned fairly senior folks with proven track records: 1.) there's no sustainability in the workforce without the bottom end of the pyramid, 2.) pretty much any repair beyond a burned out light bulb is beyond the capability of the crew (look at LCS 1's adventures - more of it's life in drydock than underway) because of training, lack of onboard supplies (no room). 3.) the ships are so small unless they add a "crew module" they can't increase the size of the crew and 4.) because of the above, nobody is going to go back to an LCS after their first tour there...they get beat up to badly. There ares reason they're going to be forward deployed - they're not really strong enough for the mid-pacific on a regular basis and they're going to be swapping the crews out like crazy because of the fatigue issue. There's also a reason all of our FMS partners have run away from them. Israel determined it would increase the price of the ships by 100% to make them combat worthy in their eyes. Should have spend the money on the FFG's...but they aren't sexy enough for the SWO's. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Sponge, that assessment sounds kinda scary ... -Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Read up on the LCS. The Navy is learning that the assumptions that went into the requirements for these ships were wrong. Among others - severely underarmed/armored (their primary weapon got cancelled and they are so flimsy a .50 cal round will go through them), the manpower concept just doesn't work (the super small crews are good for about 3-4 weeks before they are utterly burned out, and since everyone is multi-tasked they've only assigned fairly senior folks with proven track records: 1.) there's no sustainability in the workforce without the bottom end of the pyramid, 2.) pretty much any repair beyond a burned out light bulb is beyond the capability of the crew (look at LCS 1's adventures - more of it's life in drydock than underway) because of training, lack of onboard supplies (no room). 3.) the ships are so small unless they add a "crew module" they can't increase the size of the crew and 4.) because of the above, nobody is going to go back to an LCS after their first tour there...they get beat up to badly. There ares reason they're going to be forward deployed - they're not really strong enough for the mid-pacific on a regular basis and they're going to be swapping the crews out like crazy because of the fatigue issue. There's also a reason all of our FMS partners have run away from them. Israel determined it would increase the price of the ships by 100% to make them combat worthy in their eyes. Should have spend the money on the FFG's...but they aren't sexy enough for the SWO's. I do believe John was being sarcastic. Pretty interesting summary though Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dan 88 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Sponge, that assessment sounds kinda scary ... -Gregg 90% of the Navy's decisions are like that. I got screwed out of 5 months of pay while I waited to report to Pensacola. This year, the Navy decided that was a bad idea and now pays their newly commissioned Ensigns regardless of reporting date. /rant off. :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.