Forum: General F-35 Forum

There is going to be 2000+ F-35As built and cutting them back will affect the B/C more than any affect cutting the B/C will have on the A.

F-16.net Sponsor

This is sharp information strategy on the part of the Navy. Lay the ground work for extraction from the program in the next budget cycle (or sooner) with a CNO article in Proceedings, get it spun up in today's information environment where most of the reporting is merely re-reporting (that goes on and on...), deny the fundamental thrusts of the article, but then make sure there are plenty to chime-in with agreement on all the prominent blogs. Powerful stuff...

There are two fundamental premises in all this -- 1) in terms of operational capability, SH is "good enough" to sustain CVN relevance until 2030 rolls around, and 2) this is a business decision -- the economic climate demands we do this as stewards of both the nation's security interests and the taxpayer's money. The economic argument is stronger than the operational one.

What was once the Navy's 'mercy-date' is now the 'belle of the ball.' There are a few problems with that -- the liquor they've been drinking is going to run out, there isn't enough make-up to keep her pretty, and the clock is going to chime midnight about 2018 and there will be no money for another party called Super-Duper because it will be needed for 6th Gen development. Then they'll have 12 years to hold their breath between their 'SH is good enough' decision and a 6th Gen arrival (assuming the government acquisition clown show can deliver on time -- not a good bet).

Adding an AESA (for all of them), an IRST and SATCOM aren't going to make SH much more than it already is. 'News Flash' -- all AESA's are not created equal, and the IRST isn't an APG substitute in terms of range, scan volume and probability of detection. Stand-off weapons? At the ranges SH is going to be forced to stand-off, you might as well put bigger magazines on ships and launch 'em from those.

No easy decisions, but there's alotta group-think inertia going on over 'SHs are good enough.'

SpudmanWP wrote:

There is going to be 2000+ F-35As built and cutting them back will affect the B/C more than any affect cutting the B/C will have on the A.

That's not what you said, nor what I implied. The biggest impact on B/C URF is B/C production numbers, not 'A' production numbers.

Last edited by spazsinbad on Jul 13, 2012 - 01:24 AM; edited 2 times in total

Here is an outlandish scenario: Cut the F-35C (only one customer). Bump the USMC F-35B buy back to original number or better; and keep them off of CVNs. Good for the F-35B price for all customers (given the foreign interest in B and A).

Lockheed's F-35 fighter attracts foreign interest By Andrea Shalal-Esa 11 July 2012

http://www.sharenet.co.za/news/Lockheed ... 53bc6ca7ce

"* South Korea to pick new fighter by end of year
* Flight test and deliveries progressing
* Company expects to meet delivery target of 30 planes

FARNBOROUGH, England, July 11 (Reuters) - More than 25 countries have expressed interest in Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, including Singapore, which is still evaluating its options, and South Korea,...

...We're executing to plan, and executing to plan means that we're becoming predictable," Larry Lawson, executive vice president for aeronautics at Lockheed, told Reuters during an interview at the Farnborough International Airshow.

"And predictable is a very good thing ... with the amount of oversight that we have on the F-35 program," he said....

...Lockheed is building the new warplane for three U.S. military services and eight international partners -- Britain, Italy, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands. Israel and Japan have also ordered the plane....

...[Pentagon F-35 restructure] also spurred some soul-searching among foreign partners on the program, including Italy, whose own budget pressures have prompted it to cut back its planned orders by one-third.

However, since then, the U.S. government and six of the eight partner countries have put jets under contract. Israel and Japan have also signed agreements locking in their procurements.

"That's the ultimate measure of normalcy," Stephen O'Bryan, vice president of F-35 business development at Lockheed, told Reuters in a separate interview at the air show. "It's the ultimate measure of confidence in the program."

Italian Air Force Lieutenant General Paolo Civalleri told Reuters at the air show that his country was satisfied with progress on the plane. "Everybody is comfortable; the only problem is the budget," Civalleri said...."

Probably best to read the entire article at URL. [And in the words of the 'bearded bard'] FTN! Twisted Evil

Seriously, a lot of what the CNO laid out can be taken as supporting the F-35 over a new F/A-X program. The F-35 is modular, upgradable, supportable, has a reasonable stealth, and will be a platform for standoff weaponry -- as opposed to being a specialized new navy fighter that tries to cut into that diminishing marginal return.

count_to_10 wrote:

Seriously, a lot of what the CNO laid out can be taken as supporting the F-35 over a new F/A-X program. The F-35 is modular, upgradable, supportable, has a reasonable stealth, and will be a platform for standoff weaponry -- as opposed to being a specialized new navy fighter that tries to cut into that diminishing marginal return.

Excellent point re: F-35 v F/A-XX. (But, watch out for the Boeing ninjas in your neighborhood by tomorrow morning).

What many might forget is that F-35 was designed specifically for IADS penetration (SEAD/DEAD and some OCA), thereby diminishing standoff requirements -- not only for other F-35s but for the other 4th Gen cats and dogs.

quicksilver wrote:

the clock is going to chime midnight about 2018 and there will be no money for another party called Super-Duper because it will be needed for 6th Gen development. Then they'll have 12 years to hold their breath between their 'SH is good enough' decision and a 6th Gen arrival (assuming the government acquisition clown show can deliver on time -- not a good bet).

I keep reading this 2018 doomsday date on here. What is going to happen in 2018 that is suddenly going to make an F-18 E/F armed with JASSM or JASSM-ER totally obsolete?

redbird87 wrote:

quicksilver wrote:

the clock is going to chime midnight about 2018 and there will be no money for another party called Super-Duper because it will be needed for 6th Gen development. Then they'll have 12 years to hold their breath between their 'SH is good enough' decision and a 6th Gen arrival (assuming the government acquisition clown show can deliver on time -- not a good bet).

I keep reading this 2018 doomsday date on here. What is going to happen in 2018 that is suddenly going to make an F-18 E/F armed with JASSM or JASSM-ER totally obsolete?

Martians.

LOL.....Oh yeah, I forgot about the fabled Martian 2018 treat once I accepted the Mayan prediction of the world ending this December;-)

As related in another thread....http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-20006.html

1- The.. F/A-XX initiative has been “depicted” as an ultra-advanced "sixth generation" aircraft … ….the most likely candidate for the F/A-XX is, in fact, an upgraded F-35.

3-The service's Request For Information sent out to aerospace companies this spring explicitly solicited concepts – no one is at the stage of submitting actual proposals – both for "new design aircraft" and for "concepts derived from legacy aircraft."….Lockheed Martin has submitted one of each: an all-new, advanced, "sixth-generation" design and a derivative of its F-35C…

CTT nailed it above -- in advance of the later AOLD article. CNO never mentioned F-35 in the original Proceedings article; it was all the re-reporting prognosticators who deduced F-35.

2017-2018 was the generally assumed start window for what was NGAD/F/A-XX. It is also the notional IOC for CV F-35 +/-. Imagine the Navy awaking in that time window having cnxd F-35C for a paper airplane that won't show up for another 12-13 years, and having to live with SH as it's marquee asset aboard the CVN. Navy JSF was born in the wake of the A-12 debacle out of the need for a (and I quote) "...first day of the war survivable..." aircraft that the SH wasn't going to provide. And now all of a sudden SH is the answer until 2030? SH is a superb aircraft. But it is not, and will not be the kind of asset that will sustain the CVN as the kind of instrument of national security that it has been, and must continue to be for our nation's future.

I think this article just boils down to Naval Aviation vs the Silent Service in a Squash Buckling duel for tight budget dollars.

Last edited by spazsinbad on Jul 13, 2012 - 11:47 PM; edited 1 time in total

Swash Buckle?

http://www.thepirateking.com/terminolog ... uckler.htm

"..."Swashbuckler" actually came from the antiquated words "swash" (to make a noise by striking) and "buckler" (shield). A "swashbuckler" was originally a mediocre swordsman who compensated by making a great deal of noise, strutting through the streets banging his sword on his shield, challenging passersby to duels, and just generally acting like a jerk...."

quicksilver wrote:

CTT nailed it above -- in advance of the later AOLD article. CNO never mentioned F-35 in the original Proceedings article; it was all the re-reporting prognosticators who deduced F-35.

2017-2018 was the generally assumed start window for what was NGAD/F/A-XX. It is also the notional IOC for CV F-35 +/-. Imagine the Navy awaking in that time window having cnxd F-35C for a paper airplane that won't show up for another 12-13 years, and having to live with SH as it's marquee asset aboard the CVN. Navy JSF was born in the wake of the A-12 debacle out of the need for a (and I quote) "...first day of the war survivable..." aircraft that the SH wasn't going to provide. And now all of a sudden SH is the answer until 2030? SH is a superb aircraft. But it is not, and will not be the kind of asset that will sustain the CVN as the kind of instrument of national security that it has been, and must continue to be for our nation's future.

Agree completely..

quicksilver wrote:

CTT nailed it above -- in advance of the later AOLD article. CNO never mentioned F-35 in the original Proceedings article; it was all the re-reporting prognosticators who deduced F-35.

2017-2018 was the generally assumed start window for what was NGAD/F/A-XX. It is also the notional IOC for CV F-35 +/-. Imagine the Navy awaking in that time window having cnxd F-35C for a paper airplane that won't show up for another 12-13 years, and having to live with SH as it's marquee asset aboard the CVN. Navy JSF was born in the wake of the A-12 debacle out of the need for a (and I quote) "...first day of the war survivable..." aircraft that the SH wasn't going to provide. And now all of a sudden SH is the answer until 2030? SH is a superb aircraft. But it is not, and will not be the kind of asset that will sustain the CVN as the kind of instrument of national security that it has been, and must continue to be for our nation's future.

Agree completely..

Forum: General F-35 Forum

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