Forum: General F-35 Forum

Last edited by maus92 on Mar 18, 2013 - 11:55 PM; edited 1 time in total

Quote:

Navy Stuck Between the Rock and Hard Place on Joint Strike Fighter
From the Information Dissemination Blog

"Pressure to keep allies happy might be one reason why the U.S. Navy will not be allowed to dump the F-35C. It has been known for years that some Navy leaders would prefer to continue to buy the F/A-18 Super Hornet, and not have to bother with the expense and trouble of having to bring a new type of aircraft into the inventory."

" “If we bought no C's, it would be very detrimental to the overall program” and to international partners, he [CNO Adm. Greenert] said."

"In public statements, it has become very common to hear Admirals say the Navy 'needs the F-35C,' but it has become uncommon to hear any Admiral praise the aircraft. Why the Navy needs the F-35C is never addressed in context, primarily because the well documented problems of the F-35C make it clear that the Navy needs are not yet met by the F-35C at this time, and it is unclear if some of those problems can ever be truly fixed."

"What is important about the comments of both LT. General Christopher C. Bogdan and Admiral Jonathan Greenert is that when it comes to the F-35C, the F-35C is now being purchased by the Navy primarily for reasons of National Security Policy and not for any reason related to maritime policy or strategy. The Navy is now required to continue to pay for the F-35C for purposes of cost consideration of the entire program - all variants, and that consideration is primarily being driven by the multinational character of the program. It is now fair to say that Navy budget spending for the Joint Strike Fighter is now more important to the Department of the Air Force and the Department of State than it is for the Department of the Navy, because it is more important for the National Security Policy of the United States for the F-35A to be affordable to multinational partners than it is for the F-35C to fly off US Navy aircraft carriers.

While it is extremely frustrating that the Navy is essentially being forced to spend huge sums of money on an aircraft the Navy no longer appears to want, it is also valid that the Navy be forced to continue investment in the Joint Strike Fighter for National Security Policy purposes - even when that purpose is primarily for insuring the cost of the platform is affordable to allies. It is completely legitimate that the Navy buying the F-35C is the right thing for the National Security interests of the country even while buying the F-35C itself is not good for advancing naval aviation. This is not a zero sum game."

More at the ID blog:
http://www.informationdissemination.net ... place.html

F-16.net Sponsor

The don't "need" 11 carriers and a surface force that outweighs the next twelve largest navies combined either. Suddenly the navy is thrifty? Thats funny. tell another one. LCS? Stop! youre killing me! Laughing

Who was making the argument that F-35Bs operating off of amphibs would be critical because there aren't enough CVNs to go around?

maus92 wrote:

Who was making the argument that F-35Bs operating off of amphibs would be critical because there aren't enough CVNs to go around?

If the Navy wants to continue watering them down they won't be worth having anyway. Who was saying the USN doesn't have the kind of big strikers it used to?

maus92 wrote:

While it is extremely frustrating that the Navy is essentially being forced to spend huge sums of money on an aircraft the Navy no longer appears to want, it is also valid that the Navy be forced to continue investment in the Joint Strike Fighter for National Security Policy purposes - even when that purpose is primarily for insuring the cost of the platform is affordable to allies. ...

Some of us believe that the "ONLY" reason the Navy bought into the F-35C was the F-35A. The Air force knew they needed to replace the F-16 and the stealth function of the previous a/c types led them to believe that the F-35A was the appropriate replacement for the F-16 Falcon. Now the Navy had to either "get in" and leverage a position or "get out" (not an option; never let the Air Force get appropriations without the Navy having a "finger in the pie"). Also, the F-18 Hornet was getting long in the tooth and the harriers were "falling out of the sky" and the Marines insisted on a "better" replacement. The Marines on one side, the Air Force "pie" on the other, what was the Navy to do?? Laughing

Now they have it; and what to do with it? The systems capability is far beyond what any F-18 will be capable of in the near future and it appears to be able to land on a carrier (maybe it can't stop, but whatever). It's coming to the fleet and with it these immense capabilities that grossly affect the tactics of the "lower" RCS a/c for fleet defense and strike missions.,,,as the admiral said now we have to "figure out" what to do with it (tactics).
Also relevant to this article, is when will the F-35C arrive in quantity to the fleet? Whether it is one squadron or thirty (340 on today’s books), how does LM get from 35 a/c per year to delivering thirty squadrons and by what date (rate of production)? Smile

I don't disagree with you Neptune but I also think the USN tune will change when the plane hits operational service. They are a service with no experience in the LO game right now. Let them get their hands on it and compare it to the F-18 in service and I would guess their tune changes.

I would still put better than 50% odds on the F-35 in some uprated variation being the eventual Superbug replacement.

Quote:

the F-35C is now being purchased by the Navy primarily for reasons of National Security Policy and not for any reason related to maritime policy or strategy.

Jointness!!

This development has been brewing for a long time now. The Navy seem to be looking for a way out of this program. I think that the dramatic perfomance shortfall on the C model's acceleration really hurt it. If there is more problems with the tailhook, that may be the final nail in the coffin. Now, I have been labeled "pathetic" just for stating the obvious. Maybe it is time for someone to finaly start reading the writing on the wall. I'm not optimistic though.

The carriers in my opinion are likely to become irrelavant in the future if the Navy continues to find ways to eliminate the medium range strike mission. First it was the premature retirement of the A-6, the lack of resolve to replace that aircraft with the A-12 of similar system and now the lack of support for the F-35C. I'm waiting for them to reject moving ahead on the U-CLASS UCAV. Prior to 9-11 there were several articles in the publications from the war colleges that spoke of the carrier being a sunset system.

The Navy is also concerned with the Chinese DF-21 missile and it's ability to hit the carriers. If the carrier doesn't have a medium range strike system and is vunerable to the enemies capabilities then the question is why do we need them? Certainly someone in Congress or the administration will ask that in the next several years.

If the AF had been able to field their F-16 replacement without the design constraints impossed by carrier and vertical landing requirements it would have had greater range, better stealth and possibly the ability to super-cruise.

I predict the F-35D which will have the sole responsibility of refuelling other F-35s. This will give a CVN a greater sphere of influence.

Are you kidding me? The Navy really wants to putz around with it's F-18s for another couple of decades? If they pass up the F-35, what is going to happen is that their carriers will be phased out, because they won't be getting any more modern fighters any time soon.

marksengineer wrote:

The carriers in my opinion are likely to become irrelavant in the future....

Many agree with you, but.... please identify the available land based F-35A runway that the AF can use for the next foreign conflict. Often, the first comment from "Management??", is where are the carriers? That floating forward deployable flexibility will always be an asset that is difficult to replace. The AF will be greatly appreciative of the F-35C preparation/ escort into the next foreign conflict, (team, togetherness).

The USS Constitution may be the only boat the USN has in inventory that will never sink, the others hopefully will attain full utilization and be recycled. USN fleet carriers have been sunk before in combat and a effort is made to insure the Carrier Battle Group is sufficient to prevent a re-occurrence, after 71+ years and two years before our opponents last 2 fleet carriers was sunk.

Quote:

This development has been brewing for a long time now. The Navy seem to be looking for a way out of this program.

By praising it?

Quote:

I think that the dramatic perfomance shortfall on the C model's acceleration really hurt it

But that was only news to the public at large. It would be really hard for me to believe that the Navy wasn't aware of these problems until that report.

Quote:

If there is more problems with the tailhook, that may be the final nail in the coffin.

I admit that if the tail hook doesn't work its a no go, thats obvious.

Quote:

Maybe it is time for someone to finaly start reading the writing on the wall. I'm not optimistic though.

What writing on the wall? They are buying it. the last ten years of Naval service on the war on terror havn't exactly helped maritime service or strategy either, so did the navy have the option of sitting it out? did they say "Afghanistan? no thanks"

They are getting the F-35C whether they like it or not-- which is exactly what they are saying. its a national issue that supercedes Navy desire. Staying together for the kids:

Quote:

It would be a mistake to interpret validity and legitimacy as good or bad, because the context matters. National Security Policy trumps maritime strategy, even if I would like to see maritime strategy have more influence in the crafting of National Security Policy. In my opinion if (and this is a BIG "if") the cost of the F-35A comes down to $90 million per aircraft because the Navy spends money on the F-35C, and if international partners ultimately buy a bunch of F-35As at that price, then the Navy's investment in F-35C is simultaneously a poor investment for the Navy and a good investment for the country. What makes all of this really frustrating though is that a poor investment for the Navy and a good investment for the country is the best case outcome of the Joint Strike Fighter as things are today, and it should be noted there is no evidence to date that this represents the most likely outcome. At this point, all it takes is one country to bail out and the whole plan falls apart.

So its not going anywhere. Thats the whole point of the article

marksengineer wrote:

The carriers in my opinion are likely to become irrelavant in the future if the Navy continues to find ways to eliminate the medium range strike mission. First it was the premature retirement of the A-6, the lack of resolve to replace that aircraft with the A-12 of similar system and now the lack of support for the F-35C. I'm waiting for them to reject moving ahead on the U-CLASS UCAV. Prior to 9-11 there were several articles in the publications from the war colleges that spoke of the carrier being a sunset system.

The Navy is also concerned with the Chinese DF-21 missile and it's ability to hit the carriers. If the carrier doesn't have a medium range strike system and is vunerable to the enemies capabilities then the question is why do we need them? Certainly someone in Congress or the administration will ask that in the next several years.

If the AF had been able to field their F-16 replacement without the design constraints impossed by carrier and vertical landing requirements it would have had greater range, better stealth and possibly the ability to super-cruise.

The carriers will not become irrelevant - the opposite is likely. But I agree that the Navy has the wrong strike aircraft on its decks and in the pipeline - with the exception of whatever UCLASS turns out - at least in terms of the Pacific and its limited land basing opportunities. The F-35C provides only a marginal improvement in range over F/A-18E/F.

The DF-21 is a derivative missile that has not be demonstrated - until then its capability is suspect. The Chinese will demonstrate when it has a system that works: like their ASAT and their fledgling CV. That said, the USN should assume that it is a possibility and plan for it - which is why F/A-XX needs to start development in the next few years.

The commonality between the variants is much less than originally planned, with biggest influence being the overall form factor and single engine design dictated by F-35B's STOVL requirement. The CV variant has a different internal structure that really doesn't affect the -A much at all.

maus92 wrote:

... single engine design dictated by F-35B's STOVL requirement...

Bogus, and you probably know better. F-35 is single-engine because that's what the USAF (by far the largest customer) wanted and you know it. The USN wasn't going to get a twin-engine JSF, STOVL or no STOVL.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Navy Stuck Between the Rock and Hard Place on JSF