F-35 Lifetime Cost Estimates DROP 22%

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5942
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post23 Aug 2013, 20:54

Nothing else about the cost of the B variant has been inline with the A variant, why should we believe this nonsense?

The very nature of the B variant, and all its extra complexity ENSURES that it's cost per hour will be significantly greater.


Whats the definition of "inline," whats the definition of "significantly" ?? Maybe he feels a difference of for example 5K extra an hour is inline, you feel its significant.

The B variant and what it has cost (and will cost) makes no sense what-so-ever. So the Marines want dedicated Marine CAS if they conduct a major landing against a hardened sophisticated enemy (something that hasn't happened since WWII)? DOES ANYONE think for a second that such a landing would not be supported by one, if not two fleet carriers?


STOVL is not something dreamed up by the USMC, its going to be used by many nations for fleet carriers like the UK and Italy with big bets placed on Japan and Italy in the future. plus Singapore who plans on keeping it land based.

This "America has CVNs so no one needs anything else" idea needs to be taken behind the shed and shot already

especially since the US is planning on curtailing its carriers here soon. There are also command and control issues of who controls what between CVNs and MEUs, but I don't feel like getting into that unless you want it explained.

So the jar-heads could simply fly F-35Cs and or F/A-18s off the flat-tops, could they not?


They already plan on doing that too. however, the other part of the plan is FOBs as well, where the F-35C won't help, and the B wins out. For the record the Marines offered to do STOVL operations on CVNs, and the navy rejected it not surprisingly.

They should just relegate the Amphib carriers to rotary wing aircraft and save a bundle.


sure, will the Navy be keeping and or adding more CVNs to support Marine ops in the future? perhaps chopping a CVN into an MEU?

The whole concept of the Corps needing F-35s capable of operating from the little carriers is hugely wasteful in the context of what else has to be sacrificed in the defense budget to make it happen


can you tell me what else and how much is being sacrificed? Just so I can compare the two prices? The price of the Marine corps having Bees vs the cost of additional carriers and buying Cs? I've been curious about that.
Offline

cantaz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 782
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2013, 22:01

Unread post23 Aug 2013, 23:35

With the developing CVN shortage, the USMC's fixed-wing-capable amphibs will be expected to shoulder more weight than before.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7697
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post24 Aug 2013, 01:17

Exciting times for the USMC as they explore new CONOPs being made possible by new tech. The public has to divorce itself of the image of amphibious assault simply to storming across the beach to assault the enemy 10 miles inland. The Corps would retain this capability but most future scenarios likely emphasize the ability to project power hundreds of miles island. The concept of the Company Landing Team as demoed during BA 2012 to conduct raiding missions deep inland will capitalize on beefed up aviation capabilities featuring Osprey, CH-56K and F-35B. The new LHAs will bring even more aviation capabilities, relieving pressure on a CVN fleet that is coming under increasing pressure.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23159
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post24 Aug 2013, 01:44

'popcorn' thanks for reminding me. Often I see comments about the new 'aviation LHAs' as 'failures'. What is that about? Only two will be built and then the next will revert to original design. 'So what' I say, no failure there - however I do not understand the comment. Thanks. If you are not able to explain that is OK. I feel your pain. :D
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

redbird87

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 176
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2007, 20:00

Unread post24 Aug 2013, 02:40

f414...you can write all the long pick-apart posts you want and popcorn you can talk warmly about new CONOPs, but it doesn't change the fiscal realities we are dealing with here.

Sure the F-35B is a very nice to have asset for the USMC, but it is not something that is AT ALL necessary and irreplaceable for our national defense. It's like, I would love to have a shiny new Corvette Stingray, but I don't "need" one. The F-35 is only really needed in high intensity conflicts. Of how much value are the amphib ships with a few F-35s in such conflicts compared to what else that amount of money could be invested in? In fact, can you think of any major war scenario where they are going to be the difference makers?

In the Pacific vs the Chinese (which has about a 1% chance of ever happening considering how much our economies are intertwined), the carrier groups are either going to be survivable or not. If they prove to be survivable, they will provide ample airpower platforms and we'd be better off with more F-35C squadrons to cycle into these platforms. If fleet carriers are proven to be non survivable, then the jeep carriers are certainly going to be decimated as well. If this conflict is the high-end IAD war we are concerned with, we'd be MUCH better off investing the billions that went into the F-35B into buying more F-22s, or a next gen bomber, or more VA class subs, among other things. War with North Korea? Nope, the F-35B adds nothing there that couldn't be done better by the C variant off of fleet carriers. Deep penetration missions in Iran? Nope, again better done by the C variant which carries more ordnance, or better yet USAF aircraft. So what does that leave us with? In what kind of high end threat conflict is the F-35B off of amphib ships going to be the difference maker? Again, it's nice to have, but it's value in a high intensity war is not commensurate with how much it is costing us. Not even close.

In a less than high intensity conflict, we'd be much better off spending the funds allocated to the F-35B on a gap filling lot of the latest block of F/A-18s and drones since significant numbers of F-35Cs won't some online until the 2020s. And those of you that think this stubby winged, low payload bird that glows at both ends when viewed through modern and future passive sensors is going to be a war winner into the 30s and 40s need to have your head examined. We currently have 181 true 21st century air superiority aircraft.

Think how many more could have be purchased with what we have spent to get the USMC their Corvette Stingray:-(
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3282
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post24 Aug 2013, 02:56

Redbird, the F-35B is C&C and CAS for amphibious assaults for the USMC, which can really be at all levels of conflict, but is also sea control for the British and Italians (and anyone else thinking of deploying STOVL carriers).
Chances are, the F-35B will be able to beat anything it flies against in air-to-air in the '20s, and probably into the '30s.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

redbird87

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 176
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2007, 20:00

Unread post24 Aug 2013, 03:04

Yes Count, but again, are we ever going to conduct serious amphibious operations without ample fleet carrier support? Of course not, that's ludicrous. Marines could fly off of the flattops with Cs and carry more ordnance and have better endurance. So for the cost to our country for the F-35B, what have we sacrificed? And I could really care less about the Italians and Brits. I also disagree that it will be superior into the 30s, but as you probably know, that has more to do with total system employed (pilot training, tankers, AWACS, the missiles, drone support, jamming, etc) than airplane x vs y.
Offline

lookieloo

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1244
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 08:04

Unread post24 Aug 2013, 03:07

count_to_10 wrote:Redbird, the F-35B is C&C and CAS for amphibious assaults for the USMC, which can really be at all levels of conflict, but is also sea control for the British and Italians (and anyone else thinking of deploying STOVL carriers).
Chances are, the F-35B will be able to beat anything it flies against in air-to-air in the '20s, and probably into the '30s.
Yet by the 2040s, uprated versions of what the Chinese/Russians are testing now will have proliferated to the point where the F-35 doesn't look so hot. At which point, we get to start this whole thing over again with the next generation of crybabies arguing that updating the trusty ol' F-35 is good enough. :roll:
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2620
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post24 Aug 2013, 03:11

Wow. D'ja do that all in one breath...?

Difference maker? A jet that gives the US 20+ Tacair-capable ships with no further investment in ships than it has already made or is making.

(Warning: here comes the "size matters" mantra; yeah, stick with that one for a while and see what happens to GNFPP).
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5942
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post24 Aug 2013, 03:24

redbird87 wrote:f414...you can write all the long pick-apart posts you want and popcorn you can talk warmly about new CONOPs, but it doesn't change the fiscal realities we are dealing with here.


Sorry I didn't realize it was a rhetorical question.

did you dig around to find cost numbers of B vs C or did you just try to think of scenarios where you could dismiss the B?

redbird87 wrote: We currently have 181 true 21st century air superiority aircraft. Think how many more could have be purchased with what we have spent to get the USMC their Corvette Stingray:-(


Or how many more we could afford without billion dollar CVNs?
Last edited by XanderCrews on 24 Aug 2013, 03:50, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

redbird87

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 176
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2007, 20:00

Unread post24 Aug 2013, 03:27

lookie, I think the chances of this dog being revered in 2040 as the F-15 Eagle is now is about.....uhm.......zilch!

OK Quick, good point, but again, tell me a war winning or losing situation where it is really going to matter. Again, if the enemy figures out a way to kill our fleet carriers, do you seriously think the little amphib ships with their short legged, low payload birds are going to get in close and make a difference? I guess in a worldwide war with multiple theaters of different threat levels I can appreciate what you are saying. But again, the capability is not commensurate with the cost and the other weapons and sensor systems that now can't be bought. The thing that folks who tend to be passionately in favor the the plane usually overlook, is that budgets are not infinite piles of cash. When you sink dozens of billions of dollars into a non core defense purchase like the F-35B variant, other systems have to be sacrificed in the budget.
Offline

lookieloo

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1244
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 08:04

Unread post24 Aug 2013, 03:33

XanderCrews wrote:
redbird87 wrote:f414...you can write all the long pick-apart posts you want and popcorn you can talk warmly about new CONOPs, but it doesn't change the fiscal realities we are dealing with here.
Sorry I didn't realize it was a rhetorical question.

did you dig around to find cost numbers of B vs C or did you just try to think of scenarios where you could dismiss the B?
The guy already thinks that the F-4 was as far as we needed to go. He will actually say that eventually if you keep arguing with him... along with claiming to be a field-grade officer (doesn't talk like any I've encountered). Be prepared for an adventure, though I would suggest not bothering.
Offline

redbird87

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 176
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2007, 20:00

Unread post24 Aug 2013, 03:51

Very mature lookie. If you have actually read any of my posts in this string, you will see that is has been centered on the sensibility replacing the B variant with the longer range, greater payload C variant. I also suggested that the money spent on developing the B would have been better spent on F-22s, next gen bombers, and Virgina Class subs, These aren't exactly F-4 Phantom level platforms technologically.

It is amazing how anyone with opposing views on the cost effectiveness of this plane are attacked and basically called idiots.

And for the record, I am currently a Major in the USARNG with six years active duty time and two combat deployments.
Last edited by redbird87 on 24 Aug 2013, 03:52, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

redbird87

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 176
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2007, 20:00

Unread post24 Aug 2013, 04:04

redbird87 wrote:Very mature lookie. If you have actually read any of my posts in this string, you will see that is has been centered on the sensibility replacing the B variant with the longer range, greater payload C variant. I also suggested that the money spent on developing the B would have been better spent on F-22s, next gen bombers, and Virgina Class subs, These aren't exactly F-4 Phantom level platforms technologically.

It is amazing how anyone with opposing views on the cost effectiveness of this plane are attacked and basically called idiots.

And for the record, I am currently a Major in the USARNG with six years active duty time and two combat deployments.


You too 414? Seriously guys, is group think all you know? Someone has opposing views about the cost effectiveness of this aircraft within our current budget and threat environment and you denigrate him by saying he would endorse going to war with F4s flying top cover? Lookie, 414, out of curiosity, have either of you ever had to call for CAS while on the ground in a war?
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7697
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post24 Aug 2013, 04:43

spazsinbad wrote:'popcorn' thanks for reminding me. Often I see comments about the new 'aviation LHAs' as 'failures'. What is that about? Only two will be built and then the next will revert to original design. 'So what' I say, no failure there - however I do not understand the comment. Thanks. If you are not able to explain that is OK. I feel your pain. :D


I look at it from the perspective of providing a more scalable, cost-effective response to crisis situations. The Marines are the original quick response force and they are configured accordingly. One LHA on each coast seems to be the plan. LHA-8 onwards will have a well deck but able to accommodate a reduced number of LCACs (2 instead of 3), presumably to support a more robust aviation capability.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests