Forum: General F-35 Forum

quicksilver wrote:

This is sharp information strategy on the part of the Navy. Lay the ground work for extraction from the program in the next budget cycle (or sooner) with a CNO article in Proceedings, get it spun up in today's information environment where most of the reporting is merely re-reporting (that goes on and on...), deny the fundamental thrusts of the article, but then make sure there are plenty to chime-in with agreement on all the prominent blogs. Powerful stuff...

There are two fundamental premises in all this -- 1) in terms of operational capability, SH is "good enough" to sustain CVN relevance until 2030 rolls around, and 2) this is a business decision -- the economic climate demands we do this as stewards of both the nation's security interests and the taxpayer's money. The economic argument is stronger than the operational one.

What was once the Navy's 'mercy-date' is now the 'belle of the ball.' There are a few problems with that -- the liquor they've been drinking is going to run out, there isn't enough make-up to keep her pretty, and the clock is going to chime midnight about 2018 and there will be no money for another party called Super-Duper because it will be needed for 6th Gen development. Then they'll have 12 years to hold their breath between their 'SH is good enough' decision and a 6th Gen arrival (assuming the government acquisition clown show can deliver on time -- not a good bet).

Adding an AESA (for all of them), an IRST and SATCOM aren't going to make SH much more than it already is. 'News Flash' -- all AESA's are not created equal, and the IRST isn't an APG substitute in terms of range, scan volume and probability of detection. Stand-off weapons? At the ranges SH is going to be forced to stand-off, you might as well put bigger magazines on ships and launch 'em from those.

No easy decisions, but there's alotta group-think inertia going on over 'SHs are good enough.'

If the USN dumps the F-35C, they'd best hope that the F-35B program collapses as well. It'll be a real hoot if the gators end up running more advanced TACAIR than the CVNs.

F-16.net Sponsor

1st503rdsgt wrote:

quicksilver wrote:

This is sharp information strategy on the part of the Navy. Lay the ground work for extraction from the program in the next budget cycle (or sooner) with a CNO article in Proceedings, get it spun up in today's information environment where most of the reporting is merely re-reporting (that goes on and on...), deny the fundamental thrusts of the article, but then make sure there are plenty to chime-in with agreement on all the prominent blogs. Powerful stuff...

There are two fundamental premises in all this -- 1) in terms of operational capability, SH is "good enough" to sustain CVN relevance until 2030 rolls around, and 2) this is a business decision -- the economic climate demands we do this as stewards of both the nation's security interests and the taxpayer's money. The economic argument is stronger than the operational one.

What was once the Navy's 'mercy-date' is now the 'belle of the ball.' There are a few problems with that -- the liquor they've been drinking is going to run out, there isn't enough make-up to keep her pretty, and the clock is going to chime midnight about 2018 and there will be no money for another party called Super-Duper because it will be needed for 6th Gen development. Then they'll have 12 years to hold their breath between their 'SH is good enough' decision and a 6th Gen arrival (assuming the government acquisition clown show can deliver on time -- not a good bet).

Adding an AESA (for all of them), an IRST and SATCOM aren't going to make SH much more than it already is. 'News Flash' -- all AESA's are not created equal, and the IRST isn't an APG substitute in terms of range, scan volume and probability of detection. Stand-off weapons? At the ranges SH is going to be forced to stand-off, you might as well put bigger magazines on ships and launch 'em from those.

No easy decisions, but there's alotta group-think inertia going on over 'SHs are good enough.'

If the USN dumps the F-35C, they'd best hope that the F-35B program collapses as well. It'll be a real hoot if the gators end up running more advanced TACAIR than the CVNs.

You bethcha. And don't think the consequences of such an eventuality haven't been contemplated. And the President solemnly asks..."where are the Gators?"

OMG...

My daughter just walked in and asked me what I was laughing so hard about.

I tried to explain what was so funny to my wife.
She stopped me at "F-35C".

The SLD boys take on Greenert's essay:

"Building on the shoulders of such giants, Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert, the Chief of Naval operations, in a recent piece in the US Naval Institute's Proceedings provides some insights into his thinking about the future of warfighting. Somewhere along the way this effort was hijacked into a discussion about the F-35. The CNO responded to the hijack attempt through his press spokesman and tried to put the discussion back on track."

Lots of "clarifications" going on by the various interested parties. At the very least, Greenert's Proceedings piece has garnered a lot of attention.

http://defense.aol.com/2012/07/16/what- ... ure-force/

OMG! Smoke 'em if you got 'em. Very Happy

The CNO Said What? Posted by Bill Sweetman Jul 20, 2012

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 6bf2e0943a

"...So for Greenert to take an apparent whack, even in theory, at the principal pillar of the pro-JSF argument in the Navy is a serious matter, and the program's supporters don't seem wholly convinced by any amount of tactical backpedaling.

And who are the Navy's non-fans of the JSF? Mostly dyed-in-the-wool Hornet/SH/Growler aviators, is my observation - and increasingly, the captains and newly minted rear-admirals in the carrier aviation community are from that group.

And the F-35C's key milestones continue to slip. In January, even after tailhook problems had been disclosed in the Quick Look Review report, the first carrier landings were planned for summer 2013. The date is now "early 2014" following roll-in tests at up to 100 knots. "Initial tests were promising," says Lockheed Martin chief test pilot Al Norman, "but we are working on the pressure that we use to hold the hook down."

That's not a fatal problem (so far). But it does complicate matters for the F-35 marketeers when it comes to the Navy's brown-shoed, upwardly mobile critics."

Complicated article with lotsalinks so best read it at source.

"...And who are the Navy's non-fans of the JSF? Mostly dyed-in-the-wool Hornet/SH/Growler aviators, is my observation - and increasingly, the captains and newly minted rear-admirals in the carrier aviation community are from that group...".

Let's put this one in perspective -- with all due respect to the Hawkeye and H-60 guys and gals, "Hornet/SH/Growler aviators" are essentially the whole of the carrier aviation 'club.' Given the power of tribal identities and allegiances in naval aviation, think there isn't any group-think going on? There used to be constructive friction between the communities of carrier aviation -- not no more folks.

Another recent thread has this quote: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-20150.html

Navy, Marines Top Pentagon EW Investment By Michael Fabey 23 July 2012

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... ml&p=1

"......“For the last 30 years, the Air Force has emphasized stealth in its aircraft modernization plans while the Navy has stressed electronic attack,” says Loren Thompson, defense analyst for the Lexington Institute. “The Air Force hasn't paid much attention to jamming and the Navy hasn't paid much attention to low-observables.”

While that likely will change as the Navy acquires a carrier-based version of the stealthy F-35 fighter aircraft, Thompson says, “The Navy is the main repository of electronic warfare expertise in the joint force, and that inclines it to assign less importance to low-observables.” For aircraft launched from carriers or other vessels, jamming and EW are often more valuable and effective than stealthiness...."

I am just a bystander and don't really care what the USN thinks; except how that may affect the USMC use of F-35Bs, and of course now other users of F-35Bs. FTN. Smile

But seriously the USN will have their Shornets and Cs mixed. What's not to like?
____________

Not forgetting that the USMC via DoN will have a mixture now of 80 F-35Cs along with USN 260 F-35Cs whilst USMC will have also 340 F-35Bs.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

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