Forum: General F-35 Forum

It's safe to say that unless military spending jumps up somewhere that the SHs and Growlers actually will be enough for several decades.

F-16.net Sponsor

Quote:

And let's be clear, SH and Growlers alone -- i.e. absent F-35 -- aren't going to be good enough long before 2030 rolls around.

Really, just what / who are you so worried about being such a threat to our national security between now and 2030 that: 2000+ F-18, UCAV, F-22, USAF/USMC F-35, late block F-16, F-15E, B-1b, B-2, and various other UAVs, all armed with latest smart weapons, and supported by the world's best AWACS, tanker and space capabilities, can't handle? Plus, Aegis cruisers and destroyers, plus Virginia, Sea Wolf, Ohio, and 688 class subs.........who exactly is going to over-match that force in the next 17 years? Oh, not to mention the F-35, F-16, 15, 18, Typhoon, Rafale, UAV and naval fleets brought to bear by our close allies. Is it the Chinese you are concerned with wiping out our fleets? Why? They have too much money to be made off of us? The Martians perhaps? That must be it, the Martians are going to attack from the red planet and without F-35s on our carriers starting in 2020, we'll be doomed before that decade is out. Or, perhaps the Klingons are going to attack us and overwhelm our air and sea fleets between now and 2030? Those damn Klingons. If only our carriers had F-35s, we could have beat them back with admiral Adama's help.

Seriously guys, it's not going to be the end of days if the Navy puts more funding into other advanced systems at the expense of the F-35C. There is more than one way to put lethal ordnance on targets.

sferrin wrote:

firstimpulse wrote:

Apparently the Navy likes boats more than planes. Rolling Eyes

They get rid of the planes they won't have their boats for very long. Laughing

+1

Last edited by neptune on Jul 05, 2012 - 06:15 AM; edited 1 time in total

[quote="redbird87...Seriously guys, it's not going to be the end of days if the Navy puts more funding into other advanced systems at the expense of the F-35C.....[/quote]

revised:

RB87 the total 340 F-35C are a sum of 260 for the USN and 80 for the USMC.

The sum total for all 340 at $100 million each is $34 billion spread over 13 years (2013-2026). So by 2026 you would have Greenert's three new missle systems, maybe. Wink

Militarily speaking this is not a large program at less than $3 billion per year. If you are seriously talking of the 260 Navy "Cs" the $26 billion over 13 years is only $2 billion per year (2012 dollars).

I say this "tongue in cheek", in this time of budgets of a trillion here and trillion there...or there...or there, Ha! It's hardly worth the trouble of our politicians to try to keep up with their "pocket change", if you catch my drift. Laughing

'neptune' has the F-35C numbers backwards Smile

More Marines to fly carrier-variant JSFs By Christopher P. Cavas, Mar 14, 2011

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/03/n ... f_031411w/

"...The Navy Department still intends to buy 680 F-35 joint strike fighters. Of those, 260 will be Navy F-35Cs, another 80 F-35Cs will be Marine aircraft, and the STOVL version for the Corps will make up 340 planes, or half the total Navy-Marine JSF fleet. The Lightnings will serve alongside a total fleet of 556 F/A-18 Es and Fs...."

[quote="spazsinbad"]'neptune' has the F-35C numbers backwards Smile

...Thanks, fixed! Embarassed

Now I will go back and finish fixing that old spreadsheet. Shocked

Time to enter this discussion.

If we look at the Navy today, I would argue its two most important military procurement programs are the Virginia class submarine and the AEGIS missile defense system. Both of those are fundamental requirements for a hyper-war in the Pacific, much more so than the carrier battle group, which could not survive without the submarine and AEGIS building blocks. In this paradigm, the F-35C is at best the 3rd highest acquisition priority for the Navy.

Next, the F-35 represents the largest acquisition program, by far, in the US military's budget. And it would be surprising if the F-35C did not occupy a significant portion of the Navy's budget. We know that the Navy views the F-35C's life-cycle costs as abnormally high, witness the infamous leaked slide from several years ago. One can guess that the Navy is afraid that the F-35C will require a too large portion of their budget. As the Navy's top strategic priorities do not lie in the F-35C, this situation may become unacceptable. Hence the CNO's article.

This article represents the most fundamental attack against the F-35 program in general: the cost of manned stealthy penetration is higher than stealthy cruise missiles delivered by non-stealthy platforms. If the admiral, and the Navy by extension, actually believes that then the F-35 program is a dead man walking in the Navy's wing of the Pentagon. Remember, manned strike aircraft are not the Navy's No. 1 priority. If they were, then the F-35, F-18 upgrade program, or F/A-XX would be on the tips of every Navy commander's tongue.

What would replace the F-35C in the Navy? A combination of N-UCAS and stealthy cruise missiles from F-18s. The Navy is already going for the N-UCAS, no matter what happens with the F-35C. Right now, the Navy has no stealthy persistent recon from the carriers and as part of any attempt to flight a AA/AD network the Navy will need such recon assets.

A CONOPS then appears, which can provide some strike and not require the F-35. N-UCAS provide recon and target locating, then transmit that data to F-18's carrying long range cruise missiles. The F-18s launch from outside the threat ring for the target area. If the target is moving, the N-UCAS provides updates for the cruise missiles. This CONOPS has the following attraction to the Navy. It preserves the ability to hit some targets within enemy territory, it uses assets which are already either in full production or will be produced, and it will certainly cost less than the N-UCAS, F-35C, F-18E/F flight wing for the future. On the other hand, the Navy looses some ability to do strike against defended targets. If the Navy, however, has more fundamental concerns than that, then it makes perfect sense to jettison the F-35C in order to preserve those programs which are of greater importance.

Ironic that the Navy would still want to go for UCAS when their main point in the original article was that they don't believe stealth is viable because there are too many counters being build more cheaply. Also funny considering there are a lot more ways to attack remotely controlled drones than manned aircraft.

If they ditch the F-35 on the basis its a risk, then cancellation of the UCAS is certain.

munny wrote:

Ironic that the Navy would still want to go for UCAS when their main point in the original article was that they don't believe stealth is viable because there are too many counters being build more cheaply. Also funny considering there are a lot more ways to attack remotely controlled drones than manned aircraft.

If they ditch the F-35 on the basis its a risk, then cancellation of the UCAS is certain.

Yes,and add the projected Gen 6 jet to the list. Oh wait, no need for the CVN fleet as well without advanced strike platforms.

madrat wrote:

It's safe to say that unless military spending jumps up somewhere that the SHs and Growlers actually will be enough for several decades.

Maybe not 'several decades'... but at least for a decade and a half(?), as long the said Supers are aggressively upgraded in form (as a front-line platform), and until whichever next-gen platform can begin to join the inventory by around 2025-27?

If it says air-launched weapons are important, then it can't be a hit on F-35, because F-35 can go farther before releasing such weapons...

redbird87 wrote:

Quote:

And let's be clear, SH and Growlers alone -- i.e. absent F-35 -- aren't going to be good enough long before 2030 rolls around.

Really, just what / who are you so worried about being such a threat to our national security between now and 2030 that: 2000+ F-18, UCAV, F-22, USAF/USMC F-35, late block F-16, F-15E, B-1b, B-2, and various other UAVs, all armed with latest smart weapons, and supported by the world's best AWACS, tanker and space capabilities, can't handle? Plus, Aegis cruisers and destroyers, plus Virginia, Sea Wolf, Ohio, and 688 class subs.........who exactly is going to over-match that force in the next 17 years? Oh, not to mention the F-35, F-16, 15, 18, Typhoon, Rafale, UAV and naval fleets brought to bear by our close allies. Is it the Chinese you are concerned with wiping out our fleets? Why? They have too much money to be made off of us? The Martians perhaps? That must be it, the Martians are going to attack from the red planet and without F-35s on our carriers starting in 2020, we'll be doomed before that decade is out. Or, perhaps the Klingons are going to attack us and overwhelm our air and sea fleets between now and 2030? Those damn Klingons. If only our carriers had F-35s, we could have beat them back with admiral Adama's help.

Seriously guys, it's not going to be the end of days if the Navy puts more funding into other advanced systems at the expense of the F-35C. There is more than one way to put lethal ordnance on targets.

Thank you for such a lucid and unemotional articulation of our future. It suggests we don't need CVNs much less the aircraft that make them most relevant, and therefore the DoN should ante up a couple of those in the next round of budget cuts. Shocked

popcorn & mummy - The Navy needs the N-UCAS program to get any UAVs on the carrier. The actual form of the eventual aircraft still remains to be determined, the current Northrop model, officially at least, is just a technology demonstrator. As the N-UCAS program gives the Navy a capability unmatched by the F-35 or F-18, and one that is necessary for the future, its safe to assume that the program won't be cut. Note, there is far more commentary, excluding the Lexington Institute / AEI / Heritage, about the N-UCAS, and its benefits, than the F-35C. Look at the CSBA papers, for example.

delvo - That's a silly argument. Why buy an expensive stealthy fighter, with its dramatically higher flight hour costs, if you're just going to shoot cruise missiles? The lower cost for the legacy systems outweighs the hit on range. (And we still dont' know the final F-35C combat radius, especially with JASSM / SLAM-ER missiles)

Finally, the future of the carrier group is not nearly as certain as some here, namely the F-35C partisans, would make it out to be. With the proliferation of ultra stealthy conventional subs, the carrier group faces a whole new aspect of threats. Not to mention the inevitable stealth aircraft proliferation as well. With that in mind, it is the height of foolishness to assume that the carrier groups can operate in the next 20 years as they have for the past 20. With relatively short ranged, compared to the threats, strike fighters and without any organic ASW or recon.

Last edited by redbird87 on Jul 07, 2012 - 04:58 AM; edited 1 time in total

Nice post ark. I also agree whole wholeheartedly with your earlier statement that the Virgina class and Aegis programs are currently the top priority. It's amazing to me how people can't accept change (such as the decline of the carrier group's effectiveness with 21st century threats and it's problematic issues with cost effectiveness in this budget environment). The costs to deploy a carrier group is astronomical. Maintaining and deploying 10 of them is becoming untenable. In the Taiwan Straight scenario for example, more Virgina's and robust Aegis support to the Island is a more cost effective and less vulnerable approach to keeping the sea and air lines of communication open.

Perhaps things really haven't changed that much. A rather famous Naval Aviator (Bull Halsey) said as much a long time ago: "If I had to give credit to the instruments and machines that won us the war in the Pacific, I would rate them in this order: submarines first, radar second, planes third, bulldozers fourth."

Using that same logic, more Virgina and Aegis (subs and radar) investment at the expense of less investment in carrier groups would seem to be a viable approach.

The budget is going to get cut somewhere. That's just a fact whether we like it or not. This being the case, each service is going to have to look at the their mission, and the funding they can count on, and make some tough choices. Those choices may include doing things differently than we have for the last 40 years.

arkadyrenko wrote:

popcorn & mummy - The Navy needs the N-UCAS program to get any UAVs on the carrier. The actual form of the eventual aircraft still remains to be determined, the current Northrop model, officially at least, is just a technology demonstrator. As the N-UCAS program gives the Navy a capability unmatched by the F-35 or F-18, and one that is necessary for the future, its safe to assume that the program won't be cut. Note, there is far more commentary, excluding the Lexington Institute / AEI / Heritage, about the N-UCAS, and its benefits, than the F-35C. Look at the CSBA papers, for example.

So how is N-UCAS going to help if stealth technology is no longer viable? Didn't the Navy commissionBoeing to do,a,study on,the potential,roles,of,UAV tech on,carriers? Maybe CSBA and Boeing should link their crystal ball so they can get a cleare vision of the future. In the meantime, manned aircraft can still do things UAVs cannot and do many things better than what a robot can do. Give the latter a couple of decades to evolve and then we can reevaluate.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

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