F-16.net

The new article about the Navy's F-35C was most disturbing. The emphasis on budget problems compounded by delays for F-35C production sounds like they are paving the way for balking on purchases for it. This seems to be supported by the additional praise lately for the Super Hornets and the fact they have two engines and can carry two crewmembers. Now they are raising more questions about servicing and maintaining the aircraft on carriers and the stealth characteristics as well. Why do I feel that they aren't really intending to buy the F-35C for the Navy now? Am I the only one that feels they are cheaping out on Naval Aviation these days, with everything just being F/A-18Cs and Ds being replaced by some Es and mostly F models? Will they eventually only have F/A-18F models for the Navy?

If so, am I correct in assuming(theoretically) that without making the F-35C models it will drive up cost dramatically and reduce production considerably for the F-35A and B models? That would not bode well. Confused

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2847

Well, it takes time to develop the aircraft so we will know when we know. The announcement of the toughness of the low observable coating for the carrier aviation environment was impressive. I wouldn't count it out and there are other things not under the control of the program itself : U.S. budget, dollar value etc, limited money for the Navy vs it's ship building needs and so on. Remember that a large portion of the program was crafted before 9/11 and with that expense happening for years now, has effected every defense program and not just the F-35.

I guess we will know a little more next month when a new cost announcement comes out.

I'm an Air Force guy, not a Navy fan- but I shudder to think if we lose more and more quantity and diversity in naval air assets as time goes by. You never know when we won't be able to use air force craft due to politics prohibiting runway use at the wrong time or area. Sure is nice to have those floating air wings out there at those times, eh? Cool

Elite 1K Joined: Jan 31, 2004 Posts: 1525 Status: Offline

Around 2012-ish, the Navy will start phasing itself outta the EW business when the Prowlers start to leave the fleet. And with no viable USAF EW platform in sight, how are the IADS gonna be beat down on Day One? An EW Reaper maybe?

LinkF16SimDude wrote:

Around 2012-ish, the Navy will start phasing itself outta the EW business when the Prowlers start to leave the fleet. And with no viable USAF EW platform in sight, how are the IADS gonna be beat down on Day One? An EW Reaper maybe?

F-18/G-"Growler".

The Prowler at present performs EW support for USN and USAF, with USAF crew flying in the aircraft alongside their naval brethren.

Enthusiast Joined: Sep 21, 2005 Posts: 86 Status: Offline

Aren't they going to be using the E/F-18G Growler as a Prowler replacment?

EDIT: beat me to it!

Enthusiast Joined: Jan 21, 2008 Posts: 52 Status: Offline

As much as I love the F-35, I always thought the navy version was the most disposable one...if the whole program didn't depend so much on numbers, I'd say more F-35B's for the marines and populate the big carriers with E/F/A-18E's...damnit, I hope this won't be another A-12...

StolichnayaStrafer wrote:

The new article about the Navy's F-35C was most disturbing. The emphasis on budget problems compounded by delays for F-35C production sounds like they are paving the way for balking on purchases for it. This seems to be supported by the additional praise lately for the Super Hornets and the fact they have two engines and can carry two crewmembers. Now they are raising more questions about servicing and maintaining the aircraft on carriers and the stealth characteristics as well. Why do I feel that they aren't really intending to buy the F-35C for the Navy now? Am I the only one that feels they are cheaping out on Naval Aviation these days, with everything just being F/A-18Cs and Ds being replaced by some Es and mostly F models? Will they eventually only have F/A-18F models for the Navy?

If so, am I correct in assuming(theoretically) that without making the F-35C models it will drive up cost dramatically and reduce production considerably for the F-35A and B models? That would not bode well. Confused

I think this has more to do with critics constructing ominous articles than what the Navy's plans are. The Navy will do what it has to do to bridge the gap, but in the end they cant pass up a 5th gen fighter. And the Navy's response to the F-35C CDR is proof that it is ready for carrier decks.

Enthusiast Joined: Feb 07, 2008 Posts: 99 Status: Offline

Well if they are just bringing to light the concerns about the stealth of the planes at sea, then how can we be sure what other, if any, theoretical or real problems it will/would encounter in that type of environment that could slow even cancel the project entirely? Now I too am an Air Force guy, but this would affect the whole military (and the loyal taxpayers of America). Though I don't like to admit it, I do support the Navy, in the fact that they are on our (the US) team, and they do play a vital role in military affairs. If they don't feel that the planes are going to always perform at 100%, or only perform at that level for a short period of time, then they shouldn't have to go through with the purchase. Although it would have been nice if they could have said something a little earlier in the process and spare the funding agencies a little agony when it comes right down to "will it perform like they said it would."

Chief of naval operations, Adm. Gary Roughead, confirms that the Navy is not abandoning the F-35.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/CNO03258.xml&headline=Navy%20Wants%20F-35C,%20Maybe%20More%20Super%20Hornets&channel=defense

I'm sorry for my skepticism, but didn't they say the F-22 would be easier to maintain than an F-15? While current unit production models cost $250 mil at last report, including continuation R&D costs to ensure requirement's reliability?

While The F-35C would be the deadliest thing on the seas *today*, and while it's deployment in the near future would certainly be timely for F-18c/d retirements, I still can't help to believe that the 'positive comments' and outlooks, are mainly designed for a 'stay the course' program... come hell or high water?

Just the usual politics.............F-35C is in no danger of being cancel. That said, the program as a whole is running late and the USN is just using up its current fleet of Hornets much faster than expected. This of course should be of no surprise with the 5th Year Annivesary of the War in Iraq. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to see the USN ordering another 50-100 Super Hornets and to give the reminding Hornet Fleet a Service Life Extention of some kind! Regardless, the F-35C is going nowhere for those reasons and many many more!

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2847

Extending the life of classic Hornets should be an interesting magic trick with so many to do with JSF delays. Consider that the CBR (center barrel replacement ) program is working at full tilt now, it will be interesting to see where they will put a new CBR facility to pump up production. Laughing

Best to just by more Super Hornet as even CBR doesn't give the classic that much more life (and just a CBR effort takes the jet out of operation for a long time). ... and then of course there are other life issues to spend money on to fix classics. Face it. The designers of the classic Hornet had no intention of making them fly this long. Minus some fixing along the way, it was a disposable jet. Fly it 5 to 6k hours and dump it. Which given the original goal of the LWF program: To give the US a lot of cheaper fighters in the then Cold War, it met that goal.

As for the F-35C, there are still a lot of test flying hours to do. And unfortunately, a problem with one F-35 variant can effect all variants: Example: STOVL(SWAT).

If the C has NO problems, it still has to deal with total program costs and problems of other variants. Right now because of weight reduction events and other things, cousin-commonality of the three variants has dropped quite a bit from the original goal. That was the whole idea of the program to keep costs down, and one way to do that was to make things more common between variants so assembly was cheaper. I do think that once full rate production starts and most of the basic flight test hours are complete and over time as the production methods gain more experience, you may see some commonality of the 3 types increase by people getting together and improving things. How much though is unknown.

Notice for the Navy the obvious: They have to pay for ship building. Unlike the USAF they are a little more quiet about wanting more funding above their annual budget. And, give more of an appearance of buying within their limited means. Note too that at this time, the quantity of JSFs the USN is asking for isn't anywhere close to populating the entire flight deck with jets, so USN slewing JSF airframe numbers up or down a notch in the plan might not cause too much notice.

We point at the USAF so much because of the obvious reason that they are the biggets customer. With the USAF stated cut of their annual production slots, you are talking less than 1400 airframes for the USAF if they go all the way out to 2035-38. That is over 300 some less than what they are put down for in the original plan. Less total jets also is one more thing that will add to unit price.

Also notice LM officials and most Joint Program Office officials always state the USAF is down for the full number of over 1700 some jets. That is because that is put down on paper in the original plan and no one is going to quote outside that plan except the top officials of the USAF which are free to say:"Look, as it stands now we can only afford 48 jets a year in full rate production." They are the customer and can make those statements. And well it is always added to statements like that that they hope to get their original production slots for full rate production back if the money shows up.

While it may be possible for USAF to get their original production slots back and get the original full amount of JSFs, I don't see it likely given the funding environment. Right now, the funding stress isn't indicating that with everything costing more and other expenses that don't have to do with the JSF that USAF has to pay for to run the store. Look at everything in the USAF that has to be paid for besides new fighters.

Certainly will make for good drama. Again, it will be interesting to see what program cost estimates comes out next month.

You may want to clobber me, but my gut is saying to keep the Super Hornet line open.. upgrade the heck out of it and purchase as many as possible for the USN/USMC over the next 5 yrs or so, integrating the highest 'off-the-shelf' systems potential. If the F-35C is canceled (B curtailed), there is a jump on replacing the A-D hornets. If the B/C 35s are simply delayed and over-cost, then the additional SH's can offset lower procurement numbers of the -35s. But this way at least the gaps can be mitigated.

If the 35C is for some unexpected reason canceled, the SH line for USN can be seamlessly extended beyond the 5 years and can be supplemented by future stealthy UCAV/UCAS-D type strike/CAP drones.

What I currently conclude as 'should have' been the JSF/F-35 program from inception, and you may think I'm totally off the charts on this one too, is to have designed 1 variant only! The F-35C albeit with added 2-D vectoring/reverse thrust.

Why?

The B/STOVL consumed excessive R&D costs, engineering assets and unacceptable delays. Further, the design really limits the mission as the limited range, stealth and restricted weapon load-out. It's deck landing purpose could have be satisfied with alternatives, including perhaps, an adapted C model.

The A mod is the lightest and fastest... but if economics and efficiency of design is paramount, and you follow a 1 variant only, then by deduction, the A couldn't be the carrier variant and thus the single model.

The C model therefor, with large-wing, hypothetical 2-D vectoring, sturdy gear and reverse-thrust, could have been a rapidly popular and widely sought after STOL fighter (for roadway and damaged runway landings) with probably even less landing minimums than the F-15S/MTD's 500m.

Enter the extended range and payload given it's larger wings, and the C would IMHO, have been the most universal, favorable design @ maybe half the R&D costs and ahead of schedule? Two Cents

geogen wrote:

You may want to clobber me, but my gut is saying to keep the Super Hornet line open.. upgrade the heck out of it and purchase as many as possible for the USN/USMC over the next 5 yrs or so, integrating the highest 'off-the-shelf' systems potential. If the F-35C is canceled (B curtailed), there is a jump on replacing the A-D hornets. If the B/C 35s are simply delayed and over-cost, then the additional SH's can offset lower procurement numbers of the -35s. But this way at least the gaps can be mitigated.

If the 35C is for some unexpected reason canceled, the SH line for USN can be seamlessly extended beyond the 5 years and can be supplemented by future stealthy UCAV/UCAS-D type strike/CAP drones.

What I currently conclude as 'should have' been the JSF/F-35 program from inception, and you may think I'm totally off the charts on this one too, is to have designed 1 variant only! The F-35C albeit with added 2-D vectoring/reverse thrust.

Why?

The B/STOVL consumed excessive R&D costs, engineering assets and unacceptable delays. Further, the design really limits the mission as the limited range, stealth and restricted weapon load-out. It's deck landing purpose could have be satisfied with alternatives, including perhaps, an adapted C model.

The A mod is the lightest and fastest... but if economics and efficiency of design is paramount, and you follow a 1 variant only, then by deduction, the A couldn't be the carrier variant and thus the single model.

The C model therefor, with large-wing, hypothetical 2-D vectoring, sturdy gear and reverse-thrust, could have been a rapidly popular and widely sought after STOL fighter (for roadway and damaged runway landings) with probably even less landing minimums than the F-15S/MTD's 500m.

Enter the extended range and payload given it's larger wings, and the C would IMHO, have been the most universal, favorable design @ maybe half the R&D costs and ahead of schedule? Two Cents

That's one way to look at it, but you have to consider a few things. First off, theres no way a C variant can replace the harrier no matter what bells and whistles you put on it. To counter that argument, many people would ask why we even need STOVL, but thats a different discussion. As far as the C replacing the A for the USAF, yes the C can do the A's job, but the USAF and USN dont agree on anything. And if you tell the USAF they're going to get a heavy airplane, because of USN requirements, they won't buy it, and they'll petition for a separate program. One more thing. How do you do reverse thrust on a fighter engine? Perhaps somebody has done it, but Ive never heard of that.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Rough seas on the horizon for the F-35C?