Forum: General F-35 Forum

southernphantom wrote:

I just don't see us staying financially afloat the way we're going. I am in favor of interim procurement- BUY SUPER HORNETS AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF PREEXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE!!!! Preserving a viable force structure is vital. 600 F-35s will not cut it. It is absolutely vital that political games not negatively impact the nation's internal and external security. New-build Strike Eagles and/or Super Hornets are the way to ensure that a capability gap does not occur. Buy those aircraft now to replace the tired, worn-out Vipers and Eagles. The sure-to-be-reduced F-35 buy will replace the remaining legacy aircraft, and our 4.5+ heavy fighters will provide high-payload/lower-intensity capability to spare $100+ million F-35s from being lost to 'golden BBs' and operational accidents. Let's face it, the F-15/F/A-18 family is extremely tough. The F-35 is a battle-damage uncertainty.

Nonsense. There's no real money to be gotten in the near term from DoN F-35. And, in addition to committing Navy aviation to diminishing relevance (SHs are hood ornaments by 2018), you're advocating preservation of an already bloated support infrastructure for what is, and will be, a diminishing number of forces and systems. The ants at this picnic are headed to force structure (people), the supporting establishment (ie NAVAIR) and ships ($15B CVNs). Stand-by for heavy weather.

F-35 live fire test report is on the street. Read it.

F-16.net Sponsor

Quote:

Nonsense. There's no real money to be gotten in the near term from DoN F-35. And, in addition to committing Navy aviation to diminishing relevance (SHs are hood ornaments by 2018), you're advocating preservation of an already bloated support infrastructure for what is, and will be, a diminishing number of forces and systems. The ants at this picnic are headed to force structure (people), the supporting establishment (ie NAVAIR) and ships ($15B CVNs). Stand-by for heavy weather.

Stating that the Super Hornet is going to be a hood-ornament as soon as 2018 is a bit ridiculous. As long as it has top shelf avionics, weapons, and pilots, it will remain relevant. I expect it will be in service and do just fine into the mid to late 2020s. It definitely needs to be augmented though at some point either by UCAV, F-35s, or a combination of the two.

'Elements of Power' POWer POWER! (P P P dreaded LSO command - perhaps followed by a screaming WaveOFF but don't do that - go there) has his ribald way with the CNO. Very Happy

Luddite Chief of Naval Operations Feeds the Anti-Stealth Trolls? WTFO? 11 July 2012 by SMSgt Mac

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/ ... feeds.html

"...Normally, Navy CNO’s don’t openly demonstrate their ignorance. This guy is shaping up to be ‘entertaining’."

Go Read.

redbird87 wrote:

Quote:

Nonsense. There's no real money to be gotten in the near term from DoN F-35. And, in addition to committing Navy aviation to diminishing relevance (SHs are hood ornaments by 2018), you're advocating preservation of an already bloated support infrastructure for what is, and will be, a diminishing number of forces and systems. The ants at this picnic are headed to force structure (people), the supporting establishment (ie NAVAIR) and ships ($15B CVNs). Stand-by for heavy weather.

Stating that the Super Hornet is going to be a hood-ornament as soon as 2018 is a bit ridiculous. As long as it has top shelf avionics, weapons, and pilots, it will remain relevant. I expect it will be in service and do just fine into the mid to late 2020s. It definitely needs to be augmented though at some point either by UCAV, F-35s, or a combination of the two.

"Although the Navy is a (reluctant) member of Club F-35, Morley’s presentation reinforced just how much, and for how long, it will continue to depend on the Superbug. The service is going to extend the lives of some of its A and C model Hornets to 10,000 hours, and one of his charts said the Navy would continue to fly some variety of Super Hornets and E/A-18G Growlers until 2040. Another one of his PowerPoint slides, under the heading “Airborne Networking,” included the bullet point: “UAV connectivity.”"

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2012/07/09/navy- ... z20K4J06SL
Defense.org

Navy admiral hints at jettisoning F-35 fighter
Questions value of stealth technology
By Rowan Scarborough-The Washington Times-Tuesday, July 10, 2012

"The chief of naval operations has penned an opinion column that has military analysts buzzing over whether it signals the Navy may be the first military branch to jettison the costly F-35 stealth fighter jet."

"To military analysts, all of Adm. Greenert’s points add up to a conclusion that the Navy is having second thoughts about pouring billions of dollars into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter."

----------------------

CNO ready to cut back on F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
Mackenzie Eaglen, AEI Analyst | AOL Defense
July 09, 2012

"Chief of Naval Operations Jonathan Greenert's recent article in Proceedings announces in public what many have already known in private: The U.S. Navy is not wholly committed to the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. Admiral Greenert's controversial-and, potentially, hugely consequential-article raises several interesting points, among which is the contention that advances in sensing capabilities and electronic and cyber warfare will increasingly degrade America's stealth arsenal.
This is not news. What is news, however, is the head of the U.S. Navy signaling a tepid commitment to the military's largest acquisition program, not to mention the many allied and partner country participants.

It should not come as too big a surprise given the Navy's objective in last year's 30-year aviation plan a desire to begin investing in a Next Generation Air Dominance Aircraft after 2019. Accordingly, just last month, the Navy solicited concepts (not yet formal bids) from industry for the F/A-XX, a potential sixth-generation replacement for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet."

http://www.aei.org/article/foreign-and- ... e-fighter/

It should be noted that the American Enterprise Institute is a highly respected and conservative think tank here in Washington, and Mr. Eaglen is decidedly not a troll.

Well just for laughs here is what 'Power Power Power' has to say (see above entry for link):

".... Young Mr. Ewing the Journalist’s article gets noticed by and an even younger and infinitely cuter AEI ‘scholar’ named Eaglen who simply amplifies Ewing’s story line by writing an article titled: “CNO ready to cut back on F-35 Joint Strike Fighter” (and it looks like it was picked up by AOLPOGO).

Got that? In three steps we went from:
“Payloads Over Platforms” to...
“Did CNO just take a big swipe at F-35?” to...
“CNO ready to cut back on F-35 Joint Strike Fighter” !

Will tomorrow bring a “CNO says F-35 is Satan!” headline?..." [Stolen from ELP?] Very Happy

Some Hornets will keep on truckin'...

FARNBOROUGH: US Navy's Super Hornet AESA radar retrofit enables legacy upgrade Dave Majumdar Farnborough 10 Jul 2012

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... de-374073/

"As the US Navy retrofits its older Block II Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets with the Raytheon AN/APG-79 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, more APG-73 mechanically-scanned arrays will be available to replace the old APG-65s on legacy F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornets.

The USN intends to retrofit every Super Hornet down to the Lot 26 production run aircraft with the APG-79, says Capt Frank Morley, the USN's programme manager for the F/A-18 family. That means there will be a large number of surplus APG-73 radars available to retrofit older legacy Hornets that are still equipped with the APG-65 - both of which are built by Raytheon.

The navy is still working on new modifications for the APG-73, but the focus is on the APG-79.

But not every Super Hornet can be retrofitted with the APG-79. For older Block I aircraft, the USN could potentially retrofit them with the Raytheon Advanced Combat Radar AESA. "The option is on the table," Morley says.

However, he cautions, there may not be a business case to be made for retrofitting older airframes, although it could be considered."

Really like <a href="http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/luddite-chief-of-naval-operations-feeds.html">The Elements of Power blog rebuttal</a> to Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert, <a href="http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012-07/payloads-over-platforms-charting-new-course">Payloads Over Platforms</a> (that Spaz thoughtfully provided). It really sums up well all the holes in the Admiral's argument (although I agree with good Admiral that modular weapons systems should be used in the future, especially on naval ships - just not his points on stealth technology)!
And with all due respect to redbird87 and others - I too am concerned with how viable the F/A-18's will be in tomorrows battlefield. Networking with other navy/allied systems will be useful in tomorrows wars. Navy fighter pilot training will keep them competitive certainly. But even so, I'm not wildly optimistic about tomorrows pilots flying the short ranged, limited payload F/A-18 Hornets into battle. Just my Two Cents

An interesting post - CNO Hints Towards the (New?) Future of Carrier Launched Naval Aviation - by Galrahn over on the Information Dissemination blog about Adm Greenert's Proceedings piece, and reactions from analysts, commenters, etc. Plus speculation where naval aviation might be headed. Read the entire post, but here are some important points.

1. The Proceeding article is important.

2. Analysis by the usual suspects is suspect.

3. Phil Ewing [Did the CNO just take a big swipe at the F-35?] got it right.

4. The F-35C is important, but might not be in the way you think.

5. The F-35C component of the air wing will be reduced to one squadron.

6. More F/A-18E/Fs will be needed.

7. UCAS-D may not be the answer.

http://www.informationdissemination.net ... ination%29

[edited for size]

If the economic/budget problems cause a reduction in the planned number of F-35s, the cuts will be to version A, not B or C. The Air Force's predicted number so far has been just immense compared to the numbers for the Navy and Marines, and bigger numbers are always easier to reduce. Also, the Air Force is also the only branch with alternative ways to perform F-35's missions (F-22, B-1, B-2, B-3 on the way).

The amount of F-35As being bought is the only thing keeping the other two affordable, either in procurement for lifetime support.

I wonder why the CNO 1didn't mention the 1threat Moore's Law poses to the US sub fleet?

I wonder why the CNO,didn't mention the,threat Moore's Law poses to the US sub fleet?

Notwithstanding the "Keep on Truckin'" theme of Galrahn and whatever I also thought this SWIPE was interesting:

"....In general I have been less than impressed with the analysis of the Proceedings article to date, indeed I think most people who have publicly commented either missed the point, or failed to connect the dots. The whole article is important, not just the pieces that made headlines, and I believe it really informs us on modern ideas being circulated inside the Navy - many of which are very smart....

...First, I have to address something. This kind of industry shrilling [http://defense.aol.com/2012/07/09/cno-ready-to-cut-back-on-f-35-joint-strike-fighter/ ] by think tank people who I thought were credible analysts needs to stop. The suggestion through fear by Mackenzie Eaglen that the end of manned military aviation will occur if any aspect of the Joint Strike Fighter program is changed by the Navy is either the definition of jumping the shark, or perhaps more appropriately the act of 'credibility hara-kiri.' If the defense analyst community continues to promote political fear in lockstep support of industry and policy failures instead of legitimate ideas for the DoD to deal with programs and policies that have gotten way out of control (too big to fail, a meme that applies to both the JSF and Afghanistan), then the defense analyst community is damaging their credentials beyond the ability of those folks to ever effectively lead the defense establishment in the future, and a new source of expertise needs to be sought after.

The fine line between think tank analyst and defense industry lobbyist is being blurred today by a lot of folks who were once thought of as highly credible, and I absolutely include folks at CNAS in the same category as Heritage Foundation and AEI. There is a lot of self-licking Ice Cream cone BS coming out of DC today, and that article in AOL Defense pissed me off with it's new extreme in hyperbole...."

Immediately followed by:
"Second, Phil Ewing got it right, TWICE, but failed to connect the dots. Did the CNO just take a big swipe at the F-35? [http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/07/03/did-cno-just-take-a-big-swipe-at-f35/ ] You bet the CNO did. The CNO absolutely made clear that the cost of stealth and exactly what the capability advantage of stealth is has forced the Navy to evaluate with clear eyes how to use stealth in naval aviation in the future, but the stealth issue is bigger than just the F-35C - it also must be applied to unmanned carrier aviation as well...."

SpudmanWP wrote:

The amount of F-35As being bought is the only thing keeping the other two affordable, either in procurement for lifetime support.

On the contrary, when built at similar numbers the other variants have similar URFs. There was an AvWeek article last fall detailing same. Will find the link and post.