Forum: General F-35 Forum

Last edited by spazsinbad on Jul 10, 2012 - 12:20 AM; edited 1 time in total

Interesting that subsequent articles don't mention the clarification by the ADM Greenert spokesperson (characterised by 'tepid commitment' in the above AOL post I guess):

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... ert#227309

The Navy’s advanced weapons shopping list By Philip Ewing Tuesday, July 3rd, 2012

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/07/03/the-n ... ping-list/

"There’s a reason Adm. Jonathan Greenert didn’t call for the Navy to back out of F-35, his spokesman said Tuesday — he doesn’t think it should.

The chief of naval operations continues to support F-35C, said Capt. Danny Hernandez...."

F-16.net Sponsor

[quote="maus92..... What is news, however, is the head of the U.S. Navy signaling a tepid commitment to the military's largest acquisition program, not to mention the many allied and partner country participants."..[/quote]

Not exactly, CNO is not "Gung Ho" for the F-35 at the expense of other programs. Recently, the Navy was to order 20+ SH in 2012 and 20+ in 2013. Also he likes the LCS (if it can keep up the dream). He sees a future for Navy tactical missles (apparently similar to some the Army has but launched from ships). And last but not least the "Almight Ship Killer (DF-21)" equivalent. It also includes mission modules for subs and it will be interesting to see how the Destroyers (2000 and 51) fit into the mission module roles, hmmmm.??

Last edited by 1st503rdsgt on Jul 10, 2012 - 01:34 AM; edited 1 time in total

maus92 wrote:

CNO Ready To Cut Back On F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
By Mackenzie Eaglen / AOL
Published: July 9, 2012

"Chief of Naval Operations Jonathan Greenert's recent article in Proceedings announces in public what many have already known in private: The U.S. Navy is not wholly committed to the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. Admiral Greenert's controversial -- and, potentially, hugely consequential -- article raises several interesting points, among which is the contention that advances in sensing capabilities and electronic and cyber warfare will increasingly degrade America's stealth arsenal.

This is not news. What is news, however, is the head of the U.S. Navy signaling a tepid commitment to the military's largest acquisition program, not to mention the many allied and partner country participants."

http://defense.aol.com/2012/07/09/cno-r ... e-fighter/

This article is nothing more than panicky rehash of old news. The CNO is simply thinking out loud about the future of VLO. As the advantage of VLO platforms degrades over time, the need for it isn't going to disappear (if future systems are able to target the F-35 at a reasonable distance, imagine what they'll do to the legacy platforms). In any case, the fact that Russia and China are both working on their own "stealth" platforms serves as a pretty good indication that the technology will remain useful for a long while yet.

Quote:

By "internationalist crybaby," I mean that you are obviously one of those individuals who, for one reason or another, wants to see the US military reduced by any fashion possible in order to *put America back in its place*.

As for the rest, I'm not gonna waste time debating your rambling posts point by poorly-related point. Seriously, you went from space-attack to container inspection to ballistic missile defense; that... is "lame." What does any of that have to do with fighter aircraft? Saying that the F-35 is useless because it can't inspect CONEXs is like saying my car is useless because it can't chase mice.

You sir are clearly out there. I am emphatically NOT someone who wants to the US military reduced. I am an field grade officer and a disable vet (yes it's possible to have a disability rating and still be in uniform). I have no clue what-so-ever, what you mean by "put America back in its place". You couldn't be farther off base.

The connex and space threats cited are both real and both will cost a lot of money to adequately defense. Are you confident we could stop a ballistic missile attack with the limited resources dedicated to it thus far? Do you think the 2% of containers that currently get inspected is adequate?

In case you hadn't heard, we are running about a $15 trillion dollar deficit. Follow me here, I know you are kind of slow:

- This fact means the military budget is going to tighten. Not my idea or preference - so stop going there. It's just a fact.
- This means tough choices have to be made.
- One of those choices might be to prioritize the budget in a way that deals with the threats that could actually undermine our security in the next 50 years, rather than continuing to fight the cold war.

Now Google the word prioritize. It's doesn't mean that we make no investment in recapitalizing our Tac Air fleet. But it might mean that this can't continue to be the top priority (as it is now in the budget). There are a lot of threats out there that the F-35 simply can't affect. And, as the CNO has eluded to, there are other options worth exploring to get the Tac Air job done.

Why are you so hostile when someone even suggests that perhaps more of the defense budget should be shifted towards other threats and capabilities? Is your 401K loaded with Lockheed stock? I don't get it. And what is all this "internationalist crybaby" BS you keep spouting about??? Simply because I don't love the aircraft as you obviously do (because of the cost and IOC misses), you choose to go there? Really? Like I said, that is weak.

Read my lips: I do not want the defense budget to get cut, but it is going to happen. Why does acknowledging that reality and discussing what that means in the way of defense investment going forward make someone an "internationalist crybaby"? Apparently, I'd be "better American" if I stuck my head in the sand and pretended the world wasn't changing.

Dude, seriously, I wish we could have a 15 carriers loaded with both F-35 and navalized F-22. My grandfather served on the Hancock in the Pacific in WW2. But you can wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which fills up first. The budget is going to get cut. Significantly. And it's very possible that a good portion of the axe is going to fall on the F-35. You can whine about it and call people names all you want. Those of us in the military have to drive on and Charlie Mike. Thankfully our CNO seems determined to do so and is developing different options in case plan A falls through. Good for him.

redbird87 wrote:

I am an field grade officer and a disable vet (yes it's possible to have a disability rating and still be in uniform).

[size=9]:: Message removed by moderator - Personal attacks are not tolerated::/size]

1st503rdsgt wrote:

redbird87 wrote:

I am an field grade officer and a disable vet (yes it's possible to have a disability rating and still be in uniform).

:: Message removed by moderator ::

Personal attributes are moot in this discussion. The national budget must be reduced substantially. The two salients , "ordinary" entitlements and military (including military labor entitlements), are necessarily going to experience the budgetary meat cleaver. Numbers and types of tac air are logical focus points for reduction. Manned aircraft like F-35 are on the chopping block whether folks like this or they don't. We are broke and yet we are still digging the hole deeper. Enough already.

velocityvector wrote:

Numbers and types of tac air are logical focus points for reduction. Manned aircraft like F-35 are on the chopping block whether folks like this or they don't. We are broke and yet we are still digging the hole deeper. Enough already.

Considering the value of air assets in all but the lowest intensity conflicts, and the time and cost to replacement in the event we need more, it's one of the stupidest areas to cut. We need the ability to control the skies over our future battlefields. The planes we have now don't have the airframe life to do so. Not to mention their creeping obsolescence in the face of improving air defenses that are reasonably possible over some future battlefields. If we wind up with too few aircraft (or too little capability in the aircraft we have) to clear the way for an invasion, or to provide CAS over the ground forces, the time to ramp up those planes is measured in years, even decades for modern planes.

Meanwhile it's comparatively easier to increase the size of a land army in a rush. The operational units, people, are already available in abundance, and would just need to be retasked from civilian life. Switching more heavily over to a Reserves/NG model would even allow us to keep a large supply of trained people on hand. Uniforms, guns, tanks, and trucks also mothball comparatively well. Army and Marines infantry and cavalry would be a logical place to cut heavily while we don't need a force large enough to fight a peer enemy. We can fix that defect fast. We have in almost all past wars.

The F-35 is also a logical focus to reduce numbers and types of tac air. Fewer F-35s can do more than larger numbers of legacy aircraft. Retiring other planes in favor of F-35s would allow the use of smaller numbers of planes. It would also allow us to retire planes that duplicate the functions of the F-35. The SH for example are excellent planes with a lot of life left, and will be cheaper to operate for the easy missions like fleet air defense it's not worth wasting an F-35 on. However, retiring the F/A-18 family would allow us to consolidate to an all-F-35 Navy and Marines, and cut the costs of operating multiple types. (Given the waste of good airframes and the relative cheapness of operating F/A-18s we already have, it's probably not a cost savings overall, which is why, surprise, we're probably keeping both types.) In contrast, I don't expect the Harriers to be flying much longer, and while I'll be sad to see them go, many of the F-16s don't have a lot of airframe life left. Once it's flying, and the operational bugs are all worked out, the F-35 could also replace the F-15C; it's likely to be 3-6 times more effective per plane in the air dominance role. And once air dominance is obtained, we don't need to rely on still other airframes in order to start bombing. So if we're looking to cut airpower, it's more cost effective to keep the F-35 and cut the older stuff. It's just front-loaded with cost so it seems more costly.

Of course, the most sensible course is just to raise taxes and cut entitlements. It is, unfortunately, harder to do than the worse options.

That's a pretty good argument Otter. However, I'm not sure the F-35s capability is needed in mid level conflicts. I'll concede that it sure wouldn't hurt though. However, it seems like we are becoming risk adverse to the point of being afraid to lose a single aircraft, no matter what the cost. (I realize that is a delicate subject because the lives of both the pilots and SAR crews are on the line if a bird goes down).

It's also a little harder to stand up an Army than you might think, but it is feasible. Having been "retasked from civilian life" to a forward area in Afghanistan, I can tell you 2 months is about the minimum for individual/small unit deployments. For larger elements, it is significantly longer, more like 6-8 months. Maybe someone on here can educate us on how long it would take comparatively to regenerate aircraft from AMARC and get them into the fight in an emergency??? I understand that the quality of an F-16A reborn from AMARC isn't going to match a F-35. Likewise though, the quality of a 6 month re-gen NG or Reserve INF BDE isn't going to match a BDE from the 101st AB.

I thought your best points were the possible cost savings that could be realized long-term by purchasing the F-35. That makes a lot of sense. I think the die is already cast here for the USAF. Plus, so very much has been invested to get the F-35B going, the USMC seems likely to get theirs as well.

The questions are: 1) numbers for the USAF, 2) the F-35C for the Navy, and 3) international support. Lockheed hasn't inspired confidence through this whole process and I think they now realize they can't afford any further IOC slippages or cost overruns. More economic dominoes are also starting to fall in Europe. Italian bond rates and bank solvency is reaching a critical level. If Italy isn't shored up, Europe could be facing a depression, or at least a long, ugly, divisive recession. The Dutch question is obviously unsettled and Japan is beginning what looks to be a very difficult period industrially. These factors, along with our own deficit issues, put Lockheed and the other contractors in a precarious spot. For political reasons, the Navy may be forced to buy the F-35C whether they decide to or not. The USAF on the other hand is "all in" on the plane. They may not get as many as they want due to budget cuts. It will all be very interesting.

The sad thing for me is, for what we spent in Iraq, (between $3 and $4 trillion depending on whose numbers you like), we could have had 800 F-22 and 2500 F-35 and been set in Tac Air for the next 40 years, and still knocked a big chunk out of the deficit to boot! We spent an awful lot of national treasury after it was obvious there were no WMDs, just to keep the Sunni and Shia out of a major civil war. Time to stop policing the world IMO.

Finally, I am with you on curbing substantially entitlement spending. Unfortunately, we seem to be going the opposite direction there. I am not a fan of raising taxes, and certainly not until the US economic engine has recovered with real sustained growth. Based on the economic indicators, that could be quite a long time:-(

Red, without the US "policing the world", wars of conquest would cut off trade and sink the economy like a rock.

This passage explains why the US should/will be ordering fewer F-35s than currently envisioned, and shift its procurement dollars to more long-range platforms for use in the Pacific theater, conforming to the AirSea Battle doctrine:

"The rapidly changing strategic situation in Asia and the western Pacific should compel policymakers to reexamine the size of the commitment to the F-35. Yet another critical report on the F-35 from the Pentagon's acquisition office dated Dec. 31, 2010, revealed that the Air Force version of the attack jet would have a combat mission radius of 584 miles, just short of the original stated requirement of 590 miles, and significantly less than a recent expectation by program officials that the jet would be able to strike targets 690 miles away without midair refueling.

A combat radius of 584 miles leaves planners with few options when contemplating operations over the vast distances in the Asia-Pacific region. As I discussed in a recent column, China's growing inventories of ballistic and cruise missiles are already capable, according to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, of striking the U.S. Air Force's main bases in the region. These missiles are also putting the Navy's aircraft carriers increasingly at risk, which could compel the Navy to move the vessels out of the F-35's strike range.

The solution is combat aircraft with much longer ranges, which would operate from distant bases less vulnerable to missile attack. This would explain Conaton's increased emphasis on the new long-range bomber and the Navy's interest in a long-range combat drone that would launch from its aircraft carriers and some of its amphibious ships.

There are still significant roles for the F-35 and many of its leading-edge stealth and electronic capabilities. The F-35 can defend against enemy aircraft, can collect and distribute intelligence from over a battlefield, and can attack heavily defended targets within its range. In any case, the program is "too big to fail," or at least "too big to kill," and it is far too late in the day to now consider alternatives. But it seems increasingly likely that the Air Force and Navy will eventually truncate their planned purchases and redirect those savings into new long-range platforms. Doing so would cause the unit cost of the F-35 to spike even higher which would likely lead many foreign partners to drop out. But that regrettable consequence may be necessary if the Air Force and Navy are to have the money to buy capabilities that will actually be useful in the vast stretches of the Pacific."

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/this-w ... e-pentagon

river_otter wrote:

...So if we're looking to cut airpower, it's more cost effective to keep the F-35 and cut the older stuff...

otter -

Isn't that pretty much still the US's TACAIR recapitalization plan -- ie, to replace old, tired legacy jets as the F-35's phase in? I guess I'm not quite sure then if you were proposing something radically different, recap-wise? Or are you more or less justifying the current plan as envisioned, but with some minor tweaks anticipating an overall reduced force structure compared to current estimates by say, 2030?

Could you perhaps elaborate then, on how many F-35 (A and C variant) units you would foresee being procured say, between FY18 and FY27... and when roughly in Fiscal Year you would propose retiring the block 42 and 50 F-16s and F-15C/D?

If you were suggesting however that more accelerated 'front-end' retirement of F-16s and F-15C/D should be made unilaterally (a front-end force-reduction), in order to hopefully better afford maximal numbers of F-35A later on 'down the road', well it would also need to be weighed in that one further accepts and is willing to accept an USAF with an even riskier recap strat and broader and more extensive capability-gap/deterrence-gap than is already rapidly developing in the medium-term.

Either way though, Defense planners and policymakers are definitely finding themselves in a deeper and deeper pickle -- per default of the stay-the-course recap strat -- as time goes on and the compounding realities hit.

But on the Navy side, it would definitely seem to be a near/medium-term question at least of whether or not to start replacing some of the legacy hornets with Super Hornets -- as a stopgap -- or spend such procurement funds (presumably from F-35C procurement budgets?) in upgrading and life-extending as many Hornets as possible? Or perhaps just mothball a few carriers, and reduce to operating say, 6-7 CVN (?)... until a better picture of a post-2025 time-frame reveals USN's longer-term default TACAIR force-structure?

maus92 wrote:

This passage explains why the US should/will be ordering fewer F-35s than currently envisioned, and shift its procurement dollars to more long-range platforms for use in the Pacific theater, conforming to the AirSea Battle doctrine...

So basically in a nutshell... per a multitude of realities; be they strategic-defined, fiscally dictated, politically influenced and cost-effectively/technically uncertain and risky... it's looking as if significant front-end F-35 procurement will be reduced and 'deferred' to later FY procurement years, which will themselves see even further significant reductions in F-35 procurement throughout FRP, as the above suggested realities become the new-norm?

count_to_10 wrote:

Red, without the US "policing the world", wars of conquest would cut off trade and sink the economy like a rock.

I'm sorry Count. I fail to see what keeping the Sunni and Shia in Iraq from slaughtering each other has to do with world trade. You could argue oil I suppose, but there are other sources of untapped crude in more stable places. Plus it is a lot easier militarily (and cheaper) to simply secure the oil fields in Iraq, then it is to police and govern the entire country for 9 years.

Ditto for Libya.

Kosovo

Syria

Somalia

Getting out of quickly or avoiding any of those conflicts wouldn't have decimated world trade and sunk the economy.

Quote:

So basically in a nutshell... per a multitude of realities; be they strategic-defined, fiscally dictated, politically influenced and cost-effectively/technically uncertain and risky... it's looking as if significant front-end F-35 procurement will be reduced and 'deferred' to later FY procurement years, which will themselves see even further significant reductions in F-35 procurement throughout FRP, as the above suggested realities become the new-norm?

That pretty well sums it up geo. The deficit problem is just now beginning to snow-ball as the babyboomers really start to hit their retirement stride. That and entitlements to voters is much like a highly addictive drug to addicts. Once hooked, it's hell breaking the habit. Few elected leaders seem to have the political will to address the problem head on.

The more F-35 procurement gets pushed to the right, the tighter the budget and more acute the deficit is likely to be. That's why letting the IOC dates slip so significantly is screwing everything up. Just as you said, if unit costs are not contained, the internationals will seek other options as well, and the whole problem snowballs.

If they had it to do over again, I bet both Lockheed and the Pentagon would have concentrated on developing, testing, and producing the A model, before moving on to the B and C.

I just don't see us staying financially afloat the way we're going. I am in favor of interim procurement- BUY SUPER HORNETS AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF PREEXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE!!!! Preserving a viable force structure is vital. 600 F-35s will not cut it. It is absolutely vital that political games not negatively impact the nation's internal and external security. New-build Strike Eagles and/or Super Hornets are the way to ensure that a capability gap does not occur. Buy those aircraft now to replace the tired, worn-out Vipers and Eagles. The sure-to-be-reduced F-35 buy will replace the remaining legacy aircraft, and our 4.5+ heavy fighters will provide high-payload/lower-intensity capability to spare $100+ million F-35s from being lost to 'golden BBs' and operational accidents. Let's face it, the F-15/F/A-18 family is extremely tough. The F-35 is a battle-damage uncertainty.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Did CNO just take a big swipe at F-35?