The new F-35C will be a L.O. complement to the F/A-18 S.H.

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
User avatar
Elite 2K
Elite 2K
 
Posts: 2895
Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
Location: Houston

by neptune » 29 Jun 2012, 02:06

http://www.informationdissemination.net ... gle+Reader


Navy plans to purchase 340 of these airframes and eventually equip two out of four squadrons of each CVW with them.

The modularity of the carrier platform ensures its continued adaptability to emerging threat environments. Traditionally, a CVN has operated as a regional strike platform that can project power with short-range tactical aircraft. For instance, tactical strike-fighters were used during the initial stages of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and continued to provide close air support as these conflicts continued. Currently, the CVW has four squadrons of roughly 10-12 F/A-18 fighters, of which the current E/F variants cost $80M apiece. In the years ahead, the new F-35C will be entering the fleet to provide a low signature complement to the F/A-18. At roughly $130M per copy, the Navy plans to purchase 340 of these airframes and eventually equip two out of four squadrons of each CVW with them. While the internal (stealth) payload of the F-35 is more limited than the F/A-18, its sensor package and stealth capability are a quantum leap beyond the F/A-18. However, because of its sophisticated power plant, C4ISR systems, and low-observable characteristics, the operations and maintenance costs of the F-35C will be about $35,000 per flight hour, or twice the O&M costs of the F/A-18........ :idea: :)


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 7720
Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

by popcorn » 29 Jun 2012, 04:03

neptune wrote: While the internal (stealth) payload of the F-35 is more limited than the F/A-18, its sensor package and stealth capability are a quantum leap beyond the F/A-18.


Huh? How much internal storage does the SH have? LOL.


Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 19:40

by arkadyrenko » 30 Jun 2012, 17:44

That cost per flight may explain the 'rumbles' of navy dissatisfaction with the F-35. As it stands, costing twice(!) what a F-18 costs per hour is a pretty bad situation.


Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 355
Joined: 04 Jan 2011, 00:30

by battleshipagincourt » 30 Jun 2012, 17:57

arkadyrenko wrote:That cost per flight may explain the 'rumbles' of navy dissatisfaction with the F-35. As it stands, costing twice(!) what a F-18 costs per hour is a pretty bad situation.


Yeah and F-35 lovers will probably justify this by stating that the F-35 is going to be *at least* twice as capable as the aircraft they're replacing... When's the last time an F-35 could be in two place at once?

I suppose that additional costs associated with airplanes isn't as significant to the navy as the air force, but costing twice as much both to procure and operate is quite appalling.


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 5907
Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

by sferrin » 30 Jun 2012, 18:24

battleshipagincourt wrote:Yeah and F-35 lovers will probably justify this by stating that the F-35 is going to be *at least* twice as capable as the aircraft they're replacing... When's the last time an F-35 could be in two place at once?


Another way to look at it is we'll be able to use F-35s in non-permissive environments that would be fatal to an F/A-18. One is better than zero. The F-35 haters will conveniently forget that. (If they ever knew it in the first place.)
"There I was. . ."


Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 19:40

by arkadyrenko » 30 Jun 2012, 18:37

But, if those targets can be hit with stand-off weapons, and the Navy envisions starting the conflict with a substantial 'stand-off' campaign, then that non-permissive environment capability is has less importance.


Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 355
Joined: 04 Jan 2011, 00:30

by battleshipagincourt » 30 Jun 2012, 18:41

sferrin wrote:Another way to look at it is we'll be able to use F-35s in non-permissive environments that would be fatal to an F/A-18. One is better than zero. The F-35 haters will conveniently forget that. (If they ever knew it in the first place.)


Conveniently I DON'T forget that the F-35 does justify its costs on those rare occasions. As for virtually every other mission where stealth features become a liability, an extremely expensive fighter isn't desirable. If most tasks can just as easily be done with an F-18, then using a much more expensive fighter for CAS and everything else is wasteful.

You seem to think that every war and every task is going to involve defeating first-world air forces and SAM defenses, where only a vaunted stealth fighter can stand a hope of survival. When's the last time this has happened? Yes the future is unpredictable, but going back to Cold War era thinking is completely counterintuitive with everything we've learned in the last 25 years.


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 5907
Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

by sferrin » 30 Jun 2012, 19:33

battleshipagincourt wrote:
sferrin wrote:Another way to look at it is we'll be able to use F-35s in non-permissive environments that would be fatal to an F/A-18. One is better than zero. The F-35 haters will conveniently forget that. (If they ever knew it in the first place.)


Conveniently I DON'T forget that the F-35 does justify its costs on those rare occasions.


However rare, or not (most likely it will be required just to survive going forward) the Hornet fails miserably on those occasions.


battleshipagincourt wrote:As for virtually every other mission where stealth features become a liability,


When is a small RCS a liability in combat?


battleshipagincourt wrote:You seem to think that every war and every task is going to involve defeating first-world air forces and SAM defenses, where only a vaunted stealth fighter can stand a hope of survival.


And you seem to think we'll only be fighting camels and cavemen going forward.

battleshipagincourt wrote:When's the last time this has happened?


Desert Storm, Kosovo.


battleshipagincourt wrote:[Yes the future is unpredictable,


You should keep that in mind.

battleshipagincourt wrote: but going back to Cold War era thinking is completely counterintuitive with everything we've learned in the last 25 years.


What the hell does buying the F-35 have to do with "Cold War thinking" and why is that bad anyway?
"There I was. . ."


Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 713
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 17:35
Location: Columbia, Maryland, USA

by stereospace » 30 Jun 2012, 20:03

I think there's something to be said for the hi-lo mix solution we had in the 1980's. The F-22 and the F-35, cost-wise, have become a hi-hi mix, which as people are pointing out is unsustainable financially - you're not going to project much power if your economy collapses, ask the USSR about that - and quantity has a quality all it's own, as has been demonstrated many times in history.

However, if the F-35 cost can truly be brought down in the $70 mil range, I think it will qualify, although the O&M costs are scary, if true. I suspect Congressman Forbes is not much of an F-35 fan since the article was full of back handed compliments. Problem is, I don't have enough information to know if he's correct about those cost projections.


Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 582
Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 03:27
Location: California

by shingen » 30 Jun 2012, 20:33

A-10 = low

5th gen = high

F-16 is in between for as long as it lasts.


Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 355
Joined: 04 Jan 2011, 00:30

by battleshipagincourt » 30 Jun 2012, 21:32

sferrin wrote:However rare, or not (most likely it will be required just to survive going forward) the Hornet fails miserably on those occasions.


If that were true, the hornet would NEVER have been the mainstay of any military at any point in history. Hornets have since proven themselves very capable and very reliable, unlike your aircraft.

By your standards, the A-10 would fail as well because it wouldn't survive against a top-tier defense network or even a low-end air-superiority fighter... thereby making it completely worthless in your limited perspective. Would you also say that a B-52 is completely worthless because it cannot penetrate a top-tier air defense network like a B-2?

You're suggesting that we get rid of every aircraft because they lack stealth? Why not get rid of your F-35 instead because it's too expensive to use for CAS operations and because it sucks in that role?

You really need to put more thought into your responses.

sferrin wrote:When is a small RCS a liability in combat?


Because it makes the aircraft more expensive to operate and because a low RCS is negated when an aircraft engages in the CAS role. If you're supporting ground forces and need a good CAS aircraft, you're better off with four A-10's than one F-35. NONE of those A-10's can hope to survive against an air superiority fighter or a first class SAM network, but each of those A-10's excel in their own roles exponentially better than would a single F-35. One shot in the wrong place and that F-35 is dead... whereas the A-10 is notorious for taking punishment.

Let me put something into perspective for you... you're not going to use aircraft in roles they're not designed for. Just in the way you wouldn't use a high-end fighter for low-end tasks, in which the F-35 FAILS in just about every way. If the task doesn't need a stealth fighter, then you're better off buying four dedicated CAS aircraft than one F-35. Likewise you're not going to use A-10's as cannon fodder for a task that an F-35 could do easily.

sferrin wrote:
battleshipagincourt wrote:When's the last time this has happened?


Desert Storm, Kosovo.


And look how well those wars turned out with ONLY sixty F-117's, we laid waste to Iraq and Kosovo. Your examples actually prove my point.

sferrin wrote:
battleshipagincourt wrote:[Yes the future is unpredictable,


You should keep that in mind.


I am keeping that in mind. The problem here is that you've failed to realize the Cold War has ended two decades ago. We're not going to keep getting infinite sums of money for super-expensive toys like the F-35. Unlike you, I'm NOT for bankrupting the US economy with overpriced gimmicks when we need more economic solutions.

Edit:

I AM a supporter of having a high-end series of fighters like the F-35, maybe to the point where it would make the F-22 obsolete. What I'm not for is using the F-35 for everything else. What we need is to have a reasonable number of F-35's to form the high-end operations where we would be engaging high-level threats. And to compensate for lack of numbers, we would back that with a large force of low-end aircraft like UCAV's and CAS attack planes for bomb trucks and other low-end operations.

My ideal force structure would be something like 500-1000 F-35's with another 4000+ low-end attack planes. This would allow for a decent balance of quantity and quality all in the same force structure.
Last edited by battleshipagincourt on 30 Jun 2012, 22:23, edited 2 times in total.


Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 582
Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 03:27
Location: California

by shingen » 30 Jun 2012, 21:57

The economic solution is a small number of 5th gens for The Big One and larger numbers of A-10 types for the small ones.

Anything in between is overkill for the small ones and can't handle The Big One.

Soon, there will be UCAVs for the bomb truck role and the Rafale/F-16/F-18 bomb truck with A2A role will disappear.

I don't see us procuring more than 1000 F-35's but procuring any more in between stuff seems idiotic to me.

Look at the Libya scenario. A few single digit SAM's meant that Growlers were needed and that any no-fly zone would have been difficult. Those are systems designed in the 50's and 60's. What happens when some country procures some double digit SAMs and then we're supposed to do a no-fly zone or whatever.

There's two scenarios: COIN with little air defense oppo and the need for 5th gen.


Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 176
Joined: 11 Aug 2007, 20:00

by redbird87 » 01 Jul 2012, 15:11

I'm pretty well sold on the F-35A variant for the USAF. I think the B variant with its tiny payload and super high R&D costs is a waste. Marines need CAS. The F-35 in any variant is not a CAS platform. As for as C variant, I'm still on the fence. Two things the Navy SWORE they would never do again is have a single engine strike aircraft and any kind of fighter without an internal gun. Still, there is no doubt that the Super Hornet, Growler, F-35C, UCAV combination will be formidable. One squadron of 12 new A-10 type aircraft (one with excellent range and endurance) per carrier would round things out perfectly IMO. Not only for CAS, but also for maritime patrolling and the proliferation littoral threats like pirates and fast attack boats such as those belonging to the Iranians.


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 28404
Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
Location: Australia

by spazsinbad » 01 Jul 2012, 15:42

'redbird87' says: "...I think the B variant with its tiny payload..." A colourful statement that is for sure - and not credible. Some facts/figures to refresh memory.
Attachments
F-35LMfastFacts12June2012.gif


Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 176
Joined: 11 Aug 2007, 20:00

by redbird87 » 01 Jul 2012, 16:29

Your chart proves my point spaz. I stand by my statement as factual in relation to what marines on the ground need - CAS. Two AIM-120s and two 1000 lbs bombs are not what is needed for CAS. If you are going to strap external racks and weapons on the bird, how much can it handle and still take off vertically? So did we really need to spend those billions developing this variant? And if you are going to destroy the stealth profile of the aircraft, how much cheaper would newer Harriers or some other solution have been? Finally, the biggest reason the F-35 will suck at CAS, is that one well placed .30 caliber round is likely to turn the entire works into a $120 million smoking hole in the ground. CAS aircraft need to be able to fly slow (and survive) and deliver tremendous amounts of firepower persistently. The F-35B can do neither. The F-35B may be the most ineffective weapon in history on a cost basis considering who it is intended to support directly.
Last edited by redbird87 on 01 Jul 2012, 16:35, edited 1 time in total.


Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 8 guests