Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

"I am convinced that the best service a retired general can perform is to turn in his tongue along with his suit, and to mothball his opinions."

Bradley, Omar Nelson

F-16.net Sponsor

Anything in the aviation account of any service other than the F-35 is a threat to the F-35. The USN has some specific requirements for F/A-XX and starting work on a plane they want to see in service in 20+ years is perfectly reasonable unless one views all funding as win/lose, either/or.

Quote:

The F-35, however, Gardner says, is superior to any potential threat for the foreseeable future.

Which is a tough assessment to interpret accurately, whereby the time the first operational F-35C squadron actually achieves IOC and makes it's first deployment, many things such as capabilities (and intentions) of potential emerging threats in the future will be more clearly seen.

Hence, perhaps USN's potential reason in part and possible apprehension over the future, vis-a-vis the F-35C plan and their overlapping interest in an F/A-XX concept?

lb wrote:

The USN has some specific requirements for F/A-XX and starting work on a plane they want to see in service in 20+ years is perfectly reasonable unless one views all funding as win/lose, either/or.

I'm just trying to ponder and assess this proposed procurement schedule.

If in fact USN wants to see FA-XX 'in service' by around 2034, then would that imply test vehicles being procured as early as 2025-2026? LRIP starting by 2028?

But if the F-35 schedule calls for production through FY2034(?), would not there likely be an identifiable conflict right there in terms of what realistic aviation procurement budgets could probably afford? Could the USN truly afford highly expensive test aircraft and then LRIP procurement in addition to FRP F-35C procurement (plus anticipated UCAV buys) simultaneously over a number of budget cycles? Not to mention the probable requirement and expensive costs during this time-frame to also retrofit older block III and block IV F-35C to a notional block V+ standard?!?

I have heard the F/A-XX is meant to replace the Super Hornet by about 2030 so there should be no problem with the F-35 in the Navy's hands.

broseph wrote:

I have heard the F/A-XX is meant to replace the Super Hornet by about 2030 so there should be no problem with the F-35 in the Navy's hands.

If it get's in service. I think the Marine Corp's fear is that the Navy will drop the F-35C in favor of Super Hornets and pushing forward a medium sized FA-XX. It might be slightly paranoid, but it has a basis in fact. When it came to JSF, the Air Force pretty much got its way and some feel that the Navy got saddled with an aircraft it never felt really suited its requirements.

bjr1028 wrote:

broseph wrote:

I have heard the F/A-XX is meant to replace the Super Hornet by about 2030 so there should be no problem with the F-35 in the Navy's hands.

If it get's in service. I think the Marine Corp's fear is that the Navy will drop the F-35C in favor of Super Hornets and pushing forward a medium sized FA-XX. It might be slightly paranoid, but it has a basis in fact. When it came to JSF, the Air Force pretty much got its way and some feel that the Navy got saddled with an aircraft it never felt really suited its requirements.

Funny when a large proportion of the PO staff was/is from NAVAIR (including the PM) and key kpps were designated by the Navy.

I don't think the Navy wants to put off getting it's first stealth fighter for another couple of decades.

bjr1028 wrote:

broseph wrote:

I have heard the F/A-XX is meant to replace the Super Hornet by about 2030 so there should be no problem with the F-35 in the Navy's hands.

If it get's in service. I think the Marine Corp's fear is that the Navy will drop the F-35C in favor of Super Hornets and pushing forward a medium sized FA-XX. It might be slightly paranoid, but it has a basis in fact. When it came to JSF, the Air Force pretty much got its way and some feel that the Navy got saddled with an aircraft it never felt really suited its requirements.

Super Hornet was the Navy's 'mercy date' as the dust settled on A-12, AX, NATF etc. JSF was a path to their desire for 'first day of the war survivable strike aircraft', and their needs largely drove the range, internal payload and RF signature requirements. They'll get most of what they want apart from two engines and complete control of the development.

Hornet and Super Hornet have homogenized Navy TACAIR and its outlook on the future.

The F-35C program seems to have gone a bit too far for the Navy to replace it for Super Hornets and also I don't think the Navy would want to wait an extra two decades for their own stealth aircraft.

The Marines seem to be moving to a more supportable sea basing concept for their F-35Bs, rather than the logistically difficult austere basing concept they promoted in the past. The trouble is that A2/D2 will force the carriers to station farther offshore, outside the envelopes that the current SH and future F-35B/Cs can operate without significant tanking support. It is in the Navy's interest to start the conversation about developing a longer ranged multirole aircraft now, and it is logical that skipping the F-35C might free up the funding necessary to field the F/A-XX sooner than currently envisioned. That threatens the F-35B in three ways: one, it would be an admission that the LHAs will not be able to operate close enough to shore to be effectively deploy short ranged F-35B (at least in the opening days of a conflict); two, if the Navy dumps the F-35C, the economy of scale benefit is diminished by at least 300 airframes, further increasing the cost of the most expensive variant; and three, the Marines don't have a ride to fly from the CVs. I'd say the Marines are correct to be nervous.

Here is a fun question, which I don't know if it is true or not, nor do I know if it is possible.

We know that Boeing is desperate to get a job for their fighter development crew and that they have worked on designing a model F/A-XX. So, this means that Boeing engineers may have done a substantial part of the work which would normally happen after a program launch. Furthermore, I remember reading somewhere, but once again I don't remember exactly the location, that Boeing was working on getting the F/A-XX body to use some parts of the F//A-18 core. Think of it as the center fuselage + new wing structure.

Here's the pure hypothetical: what if Boeing said to the USN that it could get the F/A-XX on a carrier deck by about 2022, ie substantially before the 2030 put forward by the article. That could substantially change the USN's calculation about the JSF vs the F/A-XX. And for all we know, Boeing may be desperate enough to claim that. Note, any sort of fast F/A-XX would probably be just a totally revamped F/A-18, with equivalent sensors. That would make it on par, or worse than the F-35C electronics wise, at least for the first planes.

The biggest counter argument is not that this is impossible, I would say its more that the Navy wants the ADVENT type engines on the F/A-XX. Producing those engines will substantially push back any sort of F/A-XX program.

Other food for thought, if the USN predicts that its military operations will be heavily cruise missile dependent, it may not feel the same urge to get a stealthy strike force. That could be the case for long range air attacks in the Pacific.

maus92 wrote:

It is in the Navy's interest to start the conversation about developing a longer ranged multirole aircraft now, and it is logical that skipping the F-35C might free up the funding necessary to field the F/A-XX sooner than currently envisioned.

My logic would be like this: In the short-medium term there is only one option for financing an F/A-XX and that's new money. The R&D for JSF is largely sunk and the little you could save from cancelling the C would be a fraction of what you need for developing a new jet.

In the interim you could fill the decks with Supers which, although cheaper than the C is likely to be replaced before they have used their airframe hours.

Numbers in the red on both accounts.

The C could be improved or "revamped" for better range as well.

Isn't ADVENT technologies to be incorporated into the F-135, which I assume would be used for better TSFC in the case of the JSF?

A single piece upper wing-fuselage would shave 300 pounds of weight. I think I read somewhere (?) that there should be an additional 600 pounds of weight to shed.

Titanium bulkheads instead of aluminium?

It's revamped C vs. revamped F/A-18. What is most bang for buck if the target date is 2022?

arkadyrenko wrote:

Here is a fun question, which I don't know if it is true or not, nor do I know if it is possible.

We know that Boeing is desperate to get a job for their fighter development crew and that they have worked on designing a model F/A-XX. So, this means that Boeing engineers may have done a substantial part of the work which would normally happen after a program launch. Furthermore, I remember reading somewhere, but once again I don't remember exactly the location, that Boeing was working on getting the F/A-XX body to use some parts of the F//A-18 core. Think of it as the center fuselage + new wing structure.

Here's the pure hypothetical: what if Boeing said to the USN that it could get the F/A-XX on a carrier deck by about 2022, ie substantially before the 2030 put forward by the article. That could substantially change the USN's calculation about the JSF vs the F/A-XX. And for all we know, Boeing may be desperate enough to claim that. Note, any sort of fast F/A-XX would probably be just a totally revamped F/A-18, with equivalent sensors. That would make it on par, or worse than the F-35C electronics wise, at least for the first planes.

The biggest counter argument is not that this is impossible, I would say its more that the Navy wants the ADVENT type engines on the F/A-XX. Producing those engines will substantially push back any sort of F/A-XX program.

Other food for thought, if the USN predicts that its military operations will be heavily cruise missile dependent, it may not feel the same urge to get a stealthy strike force. That could be the case for long range air attacks in the Pacific.

If I were Boeing, I wouldn't use structural components from the F-18 series aircraft. That wouldn't make for a 6th Gen aircraft. I really hope they're learning from all of LM's mistakes and can offer a fighter program with less headaches in the future. That's only half the battle as the government is a MAJOR source of those headaches. Imagine Boeing secretly working on it's own F/A-XX without tax payer dollars. They build a prototype and demonstrate its capabilities. Say the YF/A-XX is so good you might as well consider it the same as an LRIP aircraft. How would the military react to this? How would the USG respond?

I think this discussion is getting hung up on a "6th gen fighter." There is no reason why the F/A-XX absolutely has to be a 6th gen fighter. If Boeing offered a radically redesigned and long range F/A-XX aircraft, based off the F/A-18 core, for deployment in 10 - 15 years, I think the fact that it's not 6th gen can be over looked. But, that will depend entirely on if a Boeing design can offer acceptable performance.

Furthermore, basing it off an existing design as much as possible will allow them to develop and produce the fighter far easier than a "clean sheet" design.

What will be a key sign is Lockheed leaking a plan for an extended range JSF. I'm surprised they haven't shown some cool pictures of a JSF delta wing or something.

Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

Marines view F/A-XX as threat to F-35