F-35B (Probation?) Decision Next Summer (2012?)

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23078
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Aug 2011, 02:39

F-35B Decision Data Ready Next Summer; First Look at Plane in Flight
By Colin Clark Published: July 29, 2011

VIDEO ON PAGE ALSO:

http://defense.aol.com/2011/07/29/f-35b ... ss-gets-f/

"Washington: Sometimes events are, in and of themselves, news. So it was today when the Joint Strike Fighter program working with the Marines, flew the F-35B for the first time in front of a carefully selected portion of the defense press corps.

They flew us in V-22s down to Patuxent River, where the planes are being flight-tested, from the Pentagon. The chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin, Bob Stevens, was there. The Marine Corps Commandant, Gen. James Amos, was there. The vice admiral in charge of the F-35 program, Dave Venlet, was there. The vice admiral in charge of Naval Air Systems Command David Architzel, was there.

Today's trip was clearly an effort by both the Marines and the Joint Program Office, which Venlet heads, to demonstrate to the American public and to Congress that the F-35 is flying well, building up test data and that its price and schedule are under control -- within the limits of a highly advanced technology program. For the Marines, it was more an effort to prove that the F-35B and the V-22 are worth the money -- as are the Marines.

Gen. Amos claimed that today's trip was not a "shaping" exercise and then proceeded to try and shape our views -- all of it legitimate education and an admirable effort to reach beyond the Beltway and tell the American people his story. But it was still shaping. The press had a rare chance to press him on why the country should buy the Marines version of the plane. And Amos, the first pilot to serve as commandant, defended the program pretty convincingly.

"What we wanted today was just to get the truth out," he said.

The country, Amos said, had a basic choice: field 11 or 22 carriers. Take away the F-35B and America would be left with half as many carriers because the Harrier jump jet is closing in on the end of its operational life. If it is retired and there aren't any F-35Bs, then the Marines would be left with their smaller deck carriers and virtually nothing to put on them that could do what the Marines recently did in Libya. They led the way in striking Muammar Qaddafi, without a single big-deck Navy carrier in sight.

So, Amos said, the country and the senior Pentagon leadership need to decide whether building the Vertical Takeoff and Landing version of the F-35, especially in these parlous budgetary times, is worth it. "Is the juice worth the squeeze? We've got to have that discussion..." Amos said.

After Amos took questions, I got about 15 minutes with Venlet and Architzel. I pressed Venlet on when he thought the F-35B could come off the two-year probation which former Defense Secretary Robert Gates imposed on the program. He said they wouldn't have enough flight-test and sea trial data until at least next summer when he would then make a recommendation. The VTOL [STOVL dummy! :roll: :twisted: ] plane is due to head for sea trials aboard the USS Wasp either in September-October (which is what the commandant said) or October-November, which is what someone I couldn't see said at the event today.

Venlet also reiterated his now standard line that all the F-35B problems uncovered during recent testing have solutions. One of the reasons no decision can be made before next summer -- at the earliest -- is because those fixes must now undergo extensive testing. He will take that data and share it with the commandant "for his discussion with the secretary."

And I asked Venlet the money question: who paid for today's flight of the F-35B and all that surrounded it. "It is out of the JPOs budget, which is resourced by all three services." The plane flew one of its more than 100 short vertical takeoffs and provided test data throughout the flight, he said: "So there is value for the dollars expended today."

Adm. Architzel, clearly a bit ruffled by my questions, was more pointed: "This is not an event. We would not do this without capturing the data that comes from this."

What were the impressions gathered from the event? Having witnessed tests of the F-35B's engine, I wasn't surprised by the incredible thrust it generates. But the stability it demonstrated during a sustained hover stunned me. I could picture myself sitting on the wing and fishing in the Pax River. And seeing an advanced fighter jet fly at 60 mph -- slower than Cessna can fly -- was pretty amazing. But all this is part of why the Marines want the plane. It can land or takeoff from a huge array of locations. And its flight envelope is enormous. Combine that with stealth and unparalleled ISR and cyber capabilities and you may just have one impressive weapon."
Last edited by spazsinbad on 14 Aug 2011, 05:25, edited 1 time in total.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post14 Aug 2011, 05:16

Given the vulnerability of forward bases to missile attack (conventional or nuclear), I'm somewhat surprised that the Marines are having to work so hard at explaining why this plane isn't an expendable part of the program. Strategic planners for all branches and all air forces would have killed for an asset like this during the cold war (many books on the subject back then lamented the lack of American commitment to VTOL/STOVL development). It would also be smart to have this plane ready in case our economy degrades to the point where we can no longer sustain our fleet of CVNs, not to mention all the American allies that would then have the option developing their own sea-based TACAIR as a hedge against Chinese aggression.
Offline
User avatar

FlightDreamz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 789
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 17:18
  • Location: Long Island, New York

Unread post14 Aug 2011, 15:11

Agree with 1st503rdsqt Wonder how many nations will order the F-35B once it reaches production stage. Will Britain come back so they can fully utilize their "helicopter carrier"? Other current users of the Harrier (what other choice do they have)?
1st503rdsqt
It would also be smart to have this plane ready in case our economy degrades to the point where we can no longer sustain our fleet of CVNs

Hmmm, that sounds like more fodder for the "very long thread" AKA <a href="http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-12631-postdays-0-postorder-asc.html">Possible small STOVL carrier USN/USMC</a>
With the budget (deficit) the way it is U.S. Navy carriers do make an inviting target for budget cutters. I'm more concerned with getting F-35C's (& B's), and the <a href="http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2011/02/14/AW_02_14_2011_p28-288506.xml">Northrop-Grumman X-47B</a> into service and flying off carrier decks, so we have some actual aircraft on our aircraft carriers (and yeah I know the Navy has plenty of F-18's on order but still)! And I realize that the X-47B has a long way to go, so the Navy will have to depend on the F-18E/F's and F-35's (U.C.A.V.'s can only supplement not replace manned aircraft in my opinion anyway).
Image[/img]
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.
Offline
User avatar

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1073
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Nuevo Mexico

Unread post14 Aug 2011, 17:14

I hate UCAVs...but the X-47B (AQ-47B in service?) is a GREAT platform. LO, long-range, carrier-based. Great deep strike asset with a mobile basing solution. Me like.

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests