F-35 Delayed Again

[PeriscopeDepth]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a0cbf6d14-850c-4dca-9396-e240a4d3e8ee

What really gets me, about a month after Lockheed has a press release that says everything is going great!:
The delay was revealed by the Netherlands Ministry of Defense in a letter (http://www.mindef.nl/binaries/080507_GAO_reactie_JSF_tcm15-82240.pdf) last week.

The taxpayers who are funding the overwhelming majority of the project are notified of further major delays by a foreign ministry of defense? Sneaky sneaky, Lockheed.

PD

[Steel_Tomb]

Seeing that the F-35 is such an advanced aircraft I'm not surprised there have been delays. Some of the tech in there is pretty new stuff... but I think it will be ok in the end. So many things to test with new airframes.

[Syxx_Killer]

It doesn't surprise there are delays when you have an aircraft trying to be the jack of all trades and a master of them as well.

[iambecomelife]

I heard that it & the F-22 might be the last US fighter aircraft to have a human pilot - is this likely?

[CCIP]

I heard that it & the F-22 might be the last US fighter aircraft to have a human pilot - is this likely?

Well, there's certainly nothing else new on the table at this moment. I think this is something we'll find out when the government goes shopping for the next fighter, and at this rate that might not be so soon. The longer it takes, the more likely it is.

That said, who knows if developments in things like anti-air lasers don't make fighter aircraft themselves suddenly obsolete and/or unneeded in the next couple of decades :hmm:

[Platapus]

I heard that it & the F-22 might be the last US fighter aircraft to have a human pilot - is this likely?

Not a chance. What would the yuppy Air Force Academy grads do then. Work for a living? :)

As long as there are ring knockers in charge, there will always be manned planes. They may not do much but you have to keep the bag-hags happy :lol:

[CCIP]

I heard that it & the F-22 might be the last US fighter aircraft to have a human pilot - is this likely?
Not a chance. What would the yuppy Air Force Academy grads do then. Work for a living? :)

As long as there are ring knockers in charge, there will always be manned planes. They may not do much but you have to keep the bag-hags happy :lol:

Nahh, the fighter jocks will eventually re-qualify to space jocks. The athmosphere is too dense to support their desire for faster and cooler-looking machines for much longer :p

[Lagger123987]

I heard that it & the F-22 might be the last US fighter aircraft to have a human pilot - is this likely?

In my opinion, I wouldn't replace the human pilot with a computer, who know if it going to go berserk after watching too much Terminator or somthing similar to that moive.

[CCIP]

I heard that it & the F-22 might be the last US fighter aircraft to have a human pilot - is this likely?
In my opinion, I wouldn't replace the human pilot with a computer, who know if it going to go berserk after watching too much Terminator or somthing similar to that moive.

Solution: don't let military computers download movies :lol:

[PeriscopeDepth]

That said, who knows if developments in things like anti-air lasers don't make fighter aircraft themselves suddenly obsolete and/or unneeded in the next couple of decades :hmm:
I think this is what will make manned military aviation go away completely eventually. When hunting SAMs and directed energy weapons make "fighter pilot (can't touch me while I bomb from 25,000 feet)" no more protected than a foot soldier.

PD

[Platapus]

That said, who knows if developments in things like anti-air lasers don't make fighter aircraft themselves suddenly obsolete and/or unneeded in the next couple of decades :hmm:

I think this is what will make manned military aviation go away completely eventually. When hunting SAMs and directed energy weapons make "fighter pilot (can't touch me while I bomb from 25,000 feet)" no more protected than a foot soldier.

PD


Nah we will just have to lower the standards into the Air Force Academy. More Academy grads = Problem fixed.:know:
:rotfl:

[PeriscopeDepth]

And today Canada has decided they don't need 80 F-35s.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN1231405420080512

PD

[CaptHawkeye]

A lot of the problems with the F-35 just extend from the fact that no one knows what they want with it. Do we want a high speed bomber? An interceptor? A CAS jet? A next generation Harrier? Instead of chosing one, they're trying as hard as they can to make the F-35 do everything and it doesn't seem to be working too well. They would probably be better off conceding the "fighter" role to the F-22 and just making the F-35 more an F-15E equivalent high speed bomber. :)

[PeriscopeDepth]

A lot of the problems with the F-35 just extend from the fact that no one knows what they want with it. Do we want a high speed bomber? An interceptor? A CAS jet? A next generation Harrier? Instead of chosing one, they're trying as hard as they can to make the F-35 do everything and it doesn't seem to be working too well. They would probably be better off conceding the "fighter" role to the F-22 and just making the F-35 more an F-15E equivalent high speed bomber. :)
I disagree. The F-22 would make a better "deep penetrator" F-15E type replacement than the F-35. And it is already paid for and here.

PD

[Zachstar]

The F-35 is going to be the last manned US fighter to be produced. And even so it is only going to last at most 2 decades before the bad guys start deploying lasers and things that can knock them down easier. So a one year delay is fine in my view as long as they actually get some benefit from it and do work to prevent further delays.

[bookworm_020]

I can see Australia not getting the full amount of fighters they put their had up for (up to 100). The RAAF will be selecting recon drone in the near future (the Global Hawk seems to be leading the charge for it). I can see more drones in the future, with a greater range of roles and abilities taking over from manned aircraft.

It makes sese in some respects, do you risk a drone worth $100 million or a plane worth $300+ million with pilot in a risky high threat situation???:hmm:

[Steel_Tomb]

ultimately it comes down to fewer body bags so its easier for politicians to play their war games without hurting public opinion polls. people need to die in war for it to remain a bad thing, if it was just robots that died in war there would be much more of it which would be a bad thing. It will be a long time before a computer is better than a person.

[Zachstar]

I can see Australia not getting the full amount of fighters they put their had up for (up to 100). The RAAF will be selecting recon drone in the near future (the Global Hawk seems to be leading the charge for it). I can see more drones in the future, with a greater range of roles and abilities taking over from manned aircraft.

It makes sese in some respects, do you risk a drone worth $100 million or a plane worth $300+ million with pilot in a risky high threat situation???:hmm:

With drones the inital cost is high but because they can be mass produced and operators do not need to be given as many costly training and supply measures as fighter pilots.. The cost quickly drops.

It is only because the soviet union fell that we are still using manned fighters. Otherwise they would likely have started deploying lasers and they envisioned unmanned drone uses back in the 60s...

And because they can be made smaller. They can start to be transported to the combat zone by transport aircraft. Such as C-130s being converted as carrier aircraft for a small squad of drones.

Add the fact that railguns and stealth would lay waste to any defences beforehand and the drones can come in and clear the entire area with minimal loss of aircraft such as an operation would require.

[Zachstar]

ultimately it comes down to fewer body bags so its easier for politicians to play their war games without hurting public opinion polls. people need to die in war for it to remain a bad thing, if it was just robots that died in war there would be much more of it which would be a bad thing. It will be a long time before a computer is better than a person.

Are human pilots better at moral judgement? yes. For split second actions to avoid loss of mission or aircraft? no...

To prevent war from happening you do not elect war mongers to president and congress. But the fact is once the railguns and fleets of drones come online the power of the .gov will grow rapidly.

And unless we find a way to get off this rock.. War is going to happen regardless. The planet already can't support 6 billion and the population is still going to climb rapidly. Eventually somone is going to start fighting and we have to be prepared to fight regardless. That is why we need to stop wasting time on dumb wars.

[SUBMAN1]

Nahh, the fighter jocks will eventually re-qualify to space jocks. The athmosphere is too dense to support their desire for faster and cooler-looking machines for much longer :pThis is true! Now where is my video??? Crud - must be at home. Must post next gen fighter stuff!

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

I can see Australia not getting the full amount of fighters they put their had up for (up to 100). .
I can see many customers, perhaps the majority not getting the original number of F-35s they signed up for. It's a snowball effect.

It makes sese in some respects, do you risk a drone worth $100 million or a plane worth $300+ million with pilot in a risky high threat situation???:hmm:
$100 million is a drone that does EVERYTHING. Drones, at least initially, will just be cow truck bombs that fly to point X and drop a PGM or two. Which would probably run more in the $20-$30 million range. Which is big for countries like Australia that would be limited to 100 manned JSF. Instead of spending $7 billion on 100 F-35s...you can:
- buy about 150 UCAV for $3.75 billion. Which will have double the combat radius the F-35 will hauling the same two PGMs. And leave you some money to buy a handful of F-22s down the road.
- which will increase the striking reach and power (sortie rate) of the RAAF. More than any manned fighter, except for perhaps the F-22 would.
- Not worry about manning. Because Qantas won't be able to offer your UCAV two-three times more per year to fly for them. And you won't have to shell out another couple million to train a new pilot after that happens.
- Not worry about training expenses nearly as much as you do now. Because a UCAV won't need 40 hours of flying a month minimum just to stay sharp. Nor will they be lost to night training crashes or collide during tactical training.

The APA isn't thrilled with the F-35:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html

But does what the Aussies think matter anyways?
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2008/05/americas-gordon-r-england-decides.html

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Time to post another video! Drones are very important in the future role with F-35. They will be the decoys to get the hidden sam sites to light up!

I have a mock opening shot in a war engagement involving F-35 / Drones / F-22/ and B-2.

Basically the short answer is, anyone that doesn't have stealth is dead. EF2000, Rafale, SU-35, Grippen, all need not apply. They are even marginal as defensive weapons - more of a target than anything, and their reduced RCS doesn't even help.

-S

[Zachstar]

B-2? What on earth would that Expensive beast be doing in a nondesperate combat situation?

A lucky shot can send a billion dollars crashing to the ground.

No B-2, mass the drones in after popping anything but manpads and accept 10-15 of them being downed per airfield, port, or other major objective from hidden assets. 5 if they have good stealth (Much easier with a drone than a manned craft)

Because of the extreme cost of the B-2 we MUST keep them in reserve in case a desperate situation develops.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Time to post another video! Drones are very important in the future role with F-35. They will be the decoys to get the hidden sam sites to light up!
-S
Why are drones unable to engage these SAM sites at least as well, if not better than an F-35?

And people seem to forget that F-35s won't be playing against today's SAMs. They will be playing against the Air Defenses of 15-20 years from now.

PD

[TLAM Strike]

I heard that it & the F-22 might be the last US fighter aircraft to have a human pilot - is this likely?
Not a chance. What would the yuppy Air Force Academy grads do then. Work for a living? :)

As long as there are ring knockers in charge, there will always be manned planes. They may not do much but you have to keep the bag-hags happy :lol:

Nahh, the fighter jocks will eventually re-qualify to space jocks. The athmosphere is too dense to support their desire for faster and cooler-looking machines for much longer :p

From "The Tough Guide to the Known Galaxy":
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/lyonesse/spaceguideS-Z.htm


SPACE FIGHTERS. Small, fast, highly maneuverable COMBAT SPACECRAFT (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/lyonesse/spaceguideA-E.htm#combat_spacecraft). They have very limited range (never FTL (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/lyonesse/spaceguideF-L.htm#ftl)), and no crew habitability to speak of; they can only operate for at most a few hours at a time. The crew is limited to one person, or occasionally two. At least among EARTH HUMANS (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/lyonesse/spaceguideA-E.htm#earth_humans) and ALIENS WTH FOREHEAD RIDGES (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/lyonesse/spaceguideA-E.htm#aliens_with_forehead_ridges), these are usually males in their early twenties, known for their swagger, coolness, and fast moves on any attractive female of an INTERBREEDABLE (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/lyonesse/spaceguideF-L.htm#interbreedable) species. (Who REALLY ALIENS (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/lyonesse/spaceguideA-E.htm#really_aliens) use to crew their Space Fighters is not known.)
Because of their short range, Space Fighters usually must be carried into action by TRANSPORTER (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/lyonesse/spaceguideS-Z.htm#transporter_ship) ships, though in some cases they will be carried piggyback on other, larger Combat Spacecraft. Their tactical value is unclear, since the are really just small spacecraft themselves. Since they don't operate in an essentially different medium, the way aircraft operate in a different medium from surface ships, there is no fundamental reason why they should be all that much faster. In naval terms they are more analogous to motor gunboats than to airplanes.
Mostly Space Fighters fight each other, which is logical enough in itself but doesn't explain why they are used in the first place. Only two other missions can be identified for them:
1) To destroy gargantuan BATTLE STATIONS (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/lyonesse/spaceguideA-E.htm#battle_station), which are vulnerable only to attack by Space Fighters.
2) To give prominent roles to young males in their early twenties, so they can display their swagger, coolness, and fast moves on any attractive female of an Interbreedable species.

Of course I wonder how the USAF will react when someone tells them "There ain't no steath in space"

http://projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html#nostealth

And because they can be made smaller. They can start to be transported to the combat zone by transport aircraft. Such as C-130s being converted as carrier aircraft for a small squad of drones.

Parasite Fighters anyone?
http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/182/xf85goblinne5.th.jpg (http://img501.imageshack.us/my.php?image=xf85goblinne5.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite_fighter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite_fighter)

[Jacky Fisher]

why am I not surprised.

Unless you have a darn good reason, don't build the bloody thing.

[Tchocky]

Well, the price per aircraft of the B-2 is a bit overstated. Huge R&D costs (it's a staggeringly amazng machine) were absorbed over 21 aircraft as opposed to 132 (or whatever).

[Jacky Fisher]

That's why you should stick with stuff that works, especially in an economy like ours right now.

[nikimcbee]

okay, I need to get up to par on all these new jets::dead:
Su-30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORXhn5B4_oM&feature=related

F-35:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpClGm3koco&feature=related

F-22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_Q6Vb9xJM0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teb4NvBLVWg&feature=related

Su-47
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyjxqr4O4Ug&feature=related

[SUBMAN1]

Why are drones unable to engage these SAM sites at least as well, if not better than an F-35?

And people seem to forget that F-35s won't be playing against today's SAMs. They will be playing against the Air Defenses of 15-20 years from now.

PDDo you think that a 4th gen fighter can penetrate against current Russian built Sams or against Patriot? Not a chance. F-35 is needed now against any country putting in cheap new Russian Sams. 15 to 20 yrs from now, it will be even worse! And to top it off, Stealth is not invulnerable - a low frequency radar wave can find it but to declutter the background picture will take a treamendous amount a Gflops to process. Maybe in 15 years that capability will exist at a cheap level.

The drones are equipped with Harm's, but range is on the side of the Sam's, so the SAM lights up and kills the drone, with the F-35's finding the sam after the light up. This will also trick the enemy into thinking the drones are the main wave, but the F-35 will already be behind enemy lines.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

Why are drones unable to engage these SAM sites at least as well, if not better than an F-35?

And people seem to forget that F-35s won't be playing against today's SAMs. They will be playing against the Air Defenses of 15-20 years from now.

PDDo you think that a 4th gen fighter can penetrate against current Russian built Sams or against Patriot? Not a chance. F-35 is needed now against any country putting in cheap new Russian Sams. 15 to 20 yrs from now, it will be even worse! And to top it off, Stealth is not invulnerable - a low frequency radar wave can find it but to declutter the background picture will take a treamendous amount a Gflops to process. Maybe in 15 years that capability will exist at a cheap level.

The drones are equipped with Harm's, but range is on the side of the Sam's, so the SAM lights up and kills the drone, with the F-35's finding the sam after the light up. This will also trick the enemy into thinking the drones are the main wave, but the F-35 will already be behind enemy lines.

-S
You are dancing around my question. What makes a $70+ million F-35 with a man in it a better SEAD asset than a drone that would cost half as much at the most? And HARM is proven to be a suppression weapon now after Allied Force. What is the F-35 going to be killing the SAM with? And why does the SAM find the drone but not the F-35?

PD

[SUBMAN1]

You are dancing around my question. What makes a $70+ million F-35 with a man in it a better SEAD asset than a drone that would cost half as much at the most? And HARM is proven to be a suppression weapon now after Allied Force. What is the F-35 going to be killing the SAM with? And why does the SAM find the drone but not the F-35?

PDThere is no dancing around the question. What is so hard to figure out that the drone is not stealthy (that is not until Darpa makes its system slated for the mid 2020's, but that's another subject)? The F-35 has as small an RCS as an F-22 - about that of a dragonfly, and will be AESA equpped and it will share data and it will have sensors on its skin, all just like F-22. The only things lacking is the addition of 2 missiles the F-22 can carry, Super Cruise, and thrust vectorng. The MQ-9 Reaper will have 4 HARM's onboard, but current gen SAM's can fire well outside its range, and can probably target even a HARM inbound.

F-35 can carry weapons internally. How much internally is classified for air to ground, but at least 2 bombs or 4 AIM-120D's, but you know it can carry at least 15K lbs total according to the published numbers. And what so wrong with the internal payload of the F-35? You keep talking about it like its pathetic. Not only will the airforce version be beam weapon equipped, but it can carry 4x AIM-120D's and 2x AIM-9X's. Same payload of an F-16. An F-15 carry's what? 2 more AIM-9X's? Remember that.

Not sure why you are so against this aircraft. F-22 only exists because we plan to export F-35. We need a one up on any country operating it. No other aircraft can take on F-35. With exports, it also will make it ultimately cheap to procure.

-S

PS. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have more F-22's than F-35's, but the F-35 is no slouch. An F-15 however will have no chance against it, AESA equipped or not.

[PeriscopeDepth]

There is no dancing around the question. What is so hard to figure out that the drone is not stealthy (that is not until Darpa makes its system slated for the mid 2020's, but that's another subject)? Okay, I was not being clear and you misunderstood me. I'm not talking about the MQ-9. I was thinking more along the lines of X-45 and X-47 type UCAV. Which have already BOTH flown and are BOTH fully VLO'd. And the reason they won't IOC before the F-35 is not any sort of tech capability that is lacking. But rather because we have chosen to pursue the F-35 at this point, for reasons having to do with politic$ more than any capability issue. If a fraction of F-35s $300 billion budget was diverted to UCAVs a year or two ago, we'd have them operational BEFORE F-35. And it is VERY clear that Lockheed is lying about how well they are progressing with the F-35 and what the cost will be. And we will see many Key Performance Points lowered by the Pentagon to make sure that F-35 passes. Just like Super Hornet.

The only things lacking is the addition of 2 missiles the F-22 can carry, Super Cruise Super cruise is the key here. It lets you produce a number of sorties that F-35 NEVER will be able to. Because the norm is more and more so denied access entry into a theater. Which means 6-12 hour flights in transit to/from the target to haul two PGMs to a target area and loiter. Which UCAV will undeniably do better and far cheaper than the F-35. F-22's supercruise also lets you loft super cheap weapons like glide-kit SDB far longer than F-35 will be able to.

Not sure why you are so against this aircraft. F-22 only exists because we plan to export F-35. We need a one up on any country operating it. No other aircraft can take on F-35. With exports, it also will make it ultimately cheap to procure. This is EXACTLY what gets me about the F-35. There is NOTHING the F-35 can do better than the F-22. The F-22 is here NOW. R&D paid for. And you want to go ahead with the largest weapons program the world has EVER seen. Financed by the US tax payer with the EXPRESS intent to market it abroad. As you said, the only reason it exists is so Lockheed can make a buck exporting it. What if F-22 buys were doubled-tripled? And we axed the F-35 completely. And we sold F-22 ONLY to countries we truely trusted (Australia and Japan, basically). F-22 would be affordable. Just as "affordable" as the F-35 WILL turn out to be. Because there is NO WAY USAF/USN/USMC will be getting its full complement in the aftermath of Iraq-related funding cuts. And in turn other nations won't be able to afford their full orders. And costs will be driven up. Just as they are being done so now, before any significant order cuts, by a dragged out SDD phase.

I will NEVER be in favor of whoring out our stealth advantage to countries like Turkey and Israel so Lockheed shares will go up. There is NO threat that justifies that. It gives away what DEFINES our current airpower advantage to countries who will undoubtedly turn around and sell it to the Chinese. Which guarantees F-35 will be obsolete within ten years of its IOC. EASILY. And there is nothing cheap about that in the long run.

PD

[Zachstar]

The F-35 exists to give the mainstay of fighter pilots (F-16 dogs) a chance to fight effectively in the 2010s and early 2020s... I do not think exporting it means much because eventually the "bad guys" are going to start getting technology (Optical and thermal aiming system and lasers) that will render even stealth fighters useless (due to unacceptable losses) within 100 miles of a major target.

They have R&D too. Which is why this whole notion of "Man MUST be in the cockpit" is useless.

Drones in 2020 are likely going to be insane in ability. Already there is research that will create CPU cores that are able to beat todays quad cores by 20-40 fold. (That means the drone can process it's own info faster and make better decisions MUCH faster) Laser technology is getting well into the blue range with smaller devices.

Radar for drones is a simple process today compared to the 70s think in 20 from now.

So the F-35 is for the pilots.

[PeriscopeDepth]

So the F-35 is for the pilots.
I understand what you're saying Zachstar. And I think it's spot on. But $300 BILLION of investment as "For the Pilots", when the pilots will be obsolete in less than two decades "either way" pisses me off. It's like medieval kings buying knights mildly better armor so they can survive fire arms for another decade or two. But everybody KNOWS the peasant with the fire arm will win the battle eventually.

Which is why this whole notion of "Man MUST be in the cockpit" is useless.
It's beyond useless. It risks the future security of the USA on the ego/job security of the fighter pilot. When he will surely be put to (greener commercial) pasture in the near future ANYWAYS.

PD

[Zachstar]

Remember that it is not just us. But other nations and the Brit Navy.

They will not be getting the advanced drone technology as fast as we can. So they need the F-35 for effective Defence for a few decades.

Besides with the way things are going groups of F-35s may one day be able to be converted into drones for deep strike missions. I highly doubt they will be broken up for scrap for another 50 years.

Also remember that the plan is to eventually give some aircraft the ability to field lasers. That would make them great missile bait to get the enemy to reveal his SAM forces.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Remember that it is not just us. But other nations and the Brit Navy.

They will not be getting the advanced drone technology as fast as we can. So they need the F-35 for effective Defence for a few decades.
Oh, we owe it to the Brits. That's why we should keep F-35. You're kidding, right? Last time they had real carriers they got rid of them _during the height of the Cold War_. If they want to rebuild their carrier force in a time of relatively no threat, let them pay for their own air wing R&D. Not my problem.

Besides with the way things are going groups of F-35s may one day be able to be converted into drones for deep strike missions. I highly doubt they will be broken up for scrap for another 50 years.
I agree with you here. But if we're going to go that route "eventually" we might as well be doing it NOW.

Also remember that the plan is to eventually give some aircraft the ability to field lasers. That would make them great missile bait to get the enemy to reveal his SAM forces.
Once we have DEW weapons capable of hard kills, so will the enemy shortly thereafter. And when the enemy has a weapon that travels at the speed of light and destroys that $70 million dollar airframe and the man inside it instantaneously, the man is undeniably a liability. And so is an airframe that expensive.

PD

[Tchocky]

Brits have paid for a good bit of the F-35, the lift fan on the VTOL subtype immediately comes to mind.
You're still right, PD. Just a thought.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Brits have paid for a good bit of the F-35, the lift fan on the VTOL subtype immediately comes to mind.
You're still right, PD. Just a thought. $2 billion IIRC. Out of a $300 billion dollar program and counting. And the Brits are interested in what will be the most deveopmentally difficult variant (and most operationally useless to us). And I don't think the partners absorb any more than their initial investment as costs continue to rise. Which works out great for them. Not so much for the US tax payer.

Oh, and Canada has gone from 80->65->"Not any, neccessarily." All inside of a single week. http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN1450699420080514

And the rubber hasn't even hit the road yet in terms of a true cost per unit revealing. Not to mention anything of a development schedule that was just dragged out by another year. It is going to get ugleeee.

PD

[CaptHawkeye]

Everything i've read about the F-35 here and elsewhere just makes it seem like a mediocre aircraft. For it's immense cost, it needs to be more than just average, but it isn't. The F-22 has already beaten it to the punch in every area, including the planned multi-role capabilities it was going to have. It astounds me that development for the F-35 continues while the military throws stuff like the XM8 out the window at the drop of a hat.

[bookworm_020]

It astounds me that development for the F-35 continues while the military throws stuff like the XM8 out the window at the drop of a hat.

But remeber, Military and logic have little in common!

[PeriscopeDepth]

Everything i've read about the F-35 here and elsewhere just makes it seem like a mediocre aircraft. For it's immense cost, it needs to be more than just average, but it isn't. The F-22 has already beaten it to the punch in every area, including the planned multi-role capabilities it was going to have. It astounds me that development for the F-35 continues while the military throws stuff like the XM8 out the window at the drop of a hat. Execs at Lockheed can make a LOT of money with a "mediocre" aircraft like the F-35. Because it is the first widely available fully VLO fighter. That is what sells it. Make no mistake, the F-35 is much more of a product than it will ever be a weapons system. And the execs at Lockheed also happen to have a few "full time" government defense jobs that puts them in a position to strongly lobby for their moneymaker. As if Lockheed didn't have enough of a lobby. It is absolutely criminal what we let these people get away with. The military-industrial demons that Eisenhower warned us about are most certainly here.

PD

[Tchocky]

Retire from the military, spend a few years as a defence industry consultant, then waltz into a DoD position once an election cycle comes round.
Then make unbiased procurement decisions.

:p

[CaptHawkeye]

Everything i've read about the F-35 here and elsewhere just makes it seem like a mediocre aircraft. For it's immense cost, it needs to be more than just average, but it isn't. The F-22 has already beaten it to the punch in every area, including the planned multi-role capabilities it was going to have. It astounds me that development for the F-35 continues while the military throws stuff like the XM8 out the window at the drop of a hat. Execs at Lockheed can make a LOT of money with a "mediocre" aircraft like the F-35. Because it is the first widely available fully VLO fighter. That is what sells it. Make no mistake, the F-35 is much more of a product than it will ever be a weapons system. And the execs at Lockheed also happen to have a few "full time" government defense jobs that puts them in a position to strongly lobby for their moneymaker. As if Lockheed didn't have enough of a lobby. It is absolutely criminal what we let these people get away with. The military-industrial demons that Eisenhower warned us about are most certainly here.



PD

Ah, the same logic prevalent in the M-16's development. Inventions just for the sake of having inventions. Gimmicks just for the sake of having gimmicks. No bother into seeing if anything really works. Just telling the gullible morons in the Pentagon "it's the way of the future!" and KNOWING they'll fall for it.

[TLAM Strike]

This is EXACTLY what gets me about the F-35. There is NOTHING the F-35 can do better than the F-22. WRONG the F/A-35 is capable of landing on short fields (unpaven fields too IIRC) and can launch and trap from a carrier. :know:

Remember that it is not just us. But other nations and the Brit Navy.

They will not be getting the advanced drone technology as fast as we can. So they need the F-35 for effective Defence for a few decades.
Oh, we owe it to the Brits. That's why we should keep F-35. You're kidding, right? Last time they had real carriers they got rid of them _during the height of the Cold War_. If they want to rebuild their carrier force in a time of relatively no threat, let them pay for their own air wing R&D. Not my problem. Got rid of them infavor of ASW carriers. Gee what did the Soviets buy in bulk... could it be Submarines? Plus those ASW carriers were intended to operate in the GIUK gap well with in range of land based fighters from Iceland and Scotland. :yep:

Also don't forget that the RN's last carrier based fighter/interceptor was the F-4 Phantom. BAe and other UK based firms have been out of the non VTOL naval aviation buisness for quite a while so its so suprise that they wan't to buy the same jet the US Navy is going to operate.

[Jacky Fisher]

the Fleet Air Arm/Royal Air Force will probably be the only users of the F35 when its all said and done.

[TLAM Strike]

the Fleet Air Arm/Royal Air Force will probably be the only users of the F35 when its all said and done.

I have a feeling that any NATO navy that has small carriers (Spain, Italy etc) will want them eventually. Those Harriers arn't going to fly forever.

I see Indonesia wanting them too for their baby flattop, and Japan could get in to the carrier buissness again too.

[PeriscopeDepth]

WRONG the F/A-35 is capable of landing on short fields (unpaven fields too IIRC) [/quote]
STOVL B model I'm assuming you're talking about? The least useful to US, most complicated version.

and can launch and trap from a carrier. :know:
IF it is the C model.

Speaking about C model... I wonder if Blue Angels will eventually upgrade to Super Hornet or F-35? I'm betting Super Hornet.

PD

[Tchocky]

Got rid of them infavor of ASW carriers. Gee what did the Soviets buy in bulk... could it be Submarines? Plus those ASW carriers were intended to operate in the GIUK gap well with in range of land based fighters from Iceland and Scotland. :yep: I think the RN figured that they wouldn't be in a combat situation without US CV/BG support. I mean, a proper war situation. So investing in complementary rather than competing designs won out.
That, and the rather large anti-militarist feeling in the country :P

[TLAM Strike]

WRONG the F/A-35 is capable of landing on short fields (unpaven fields too IIRC)
STOVL B model I'm assuming you're talking about? The least useful to US, most complicated version. How is that not useful? Takeoff from short or unpaven fields is something the US Military has been lacking for a very long time. What happens when someone bombs and airfield and fighters can't take off? Or if you have to invade a country like Afganstain where there are no pristine airfields to use? This is why the RAF uses the BAe Harrier, and why the USAF is considering the F/A-35B.

and can launch and trap from a carrier. :know:
IF it is the C model.

Speaking about C model... I wonder if Blue Angels will eventually upgrade to Super Hornet or F-35? I'm betting Super Hornet.

PD The only major diffrence with the C model is that it has bigger gear undercarage with a double forward wheel, wider wings and anti-corrosion paint. The great thing about the F/A-35 is that each model is basicly the same aircraft with a few changes to the airframe or the additon of a lift fan (which personaly I dislike because its unable to VIFF and is dead weight after takeoff.)

I think the Blue Angles will keep whatever aircraft is more fuel efficent or not needed by front line units.

[PeriscopeDepth]

How is that not useful? Takeoff from short or unpaven fields is something the US Military has been lacking for a very long time. What happens when someone bombs and airfield and fighters can't take off?
Then what, we're going to base even closer to that threat which is good enough to successfully put holes in a USAF/USMC runway (basing closer is demanded by F-35B's reduced numbers, mission radius, and weapons carriage) in an unprepared airfield? Give me a break. It (forward VTOL basing of fast jets) sounds cool, but really isn't operationally helpful/feasible.


Or if you have to invade a country like Afganstain where there are no pristine airfields to use? This is why the RAF uses the BAe Harrier, and why the USAF is considering the F/A-35B.
Which they have NEVER done. Simply because it's risky. And I don't think any armed service in their right mind is going to be putting a circa $75 million dollar VLO airframe in a place where it is vulnerable to mortar attacks and the like. And BTW, what would have kept F-16s landing at Afghan airfields shortly after it was secured other than security issues? I mean, that's the kind of thing the Seabees and USAF equivalent exist for, right?

The F-35B is useless to USMC (and the US taxpayer in general) because: what does all of 8 F-35s on a Marine deck get you? They cannot support ground forces with any meaning because of the pitiful sortie rate/weapons carriage offered. To move Marines ashore against any real opposition the USMC _needs_ to have its hands held by a REAL carrier group. F-35B is a product to be sold to Navies that can't afford real carriers. R&D funded by the US taxpayer.

The only major diffrence with the C model is that it has bigger gear undercarage with a double forward wheel, wider wings and anti-corrosion paint. The great thing about the F/A-35 is that each model is basicly the same aircraft with a few changes to the airframe or the additon of a lift fan (which personaly I dislike because its unable to VIFF and is dead weight after takeoff.)
Joint in logistics. There is nothing common about where F-35s can be based though.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

How can you sit there and blast the F-35 when every aircraft it is intended to replace has less range than a similarily configured F-35? An F/A-18C - less rnage, F-16 with two bags of gas hanging under its wings - less range, Harrier - not even close, A-10 - Not sure about but does it even matter?

The F-35 is a step up from every aircraft it is intended to replace, so whats the big deal?

On top of that - sortie rate of an F-35 is reduced over its intended aircraft.

Add on here that the F-35 also has much lower maintenence than an F-16, and I don't understand why everyone is complaining? Yes, you can have 3 block 50+ F-16's for the price of 2 F-35's, but better aircraft always command a higher price tag. An F-16 is starting to enter a world where it can't even do its job anymore without a high loss rate - its days are numbered against any decently equipped country.

I'll take the F-35. It is not an F-22, but it is nearly half the cost of an F-22 anyway. I'm not complaining as long as we field both aircraft in some numbers.

-S

PS. The only aircraft I don't think it should replace is the A-10. That thing simply can't be beat for the air support role.

[PeriscopeDepth]

How can you sit there and blast the F-35 when every aircraft it is intended to replace has less range than a similarily configured F-35? That is all well and good if we are judging the F-35 by the mission its predecessors were created for - WWIII in Europe. But we are not, that mission does not exist anymore. My argument is NOT that we should buy legacy fighters over F-35 in the bomb truck role. But that we should be buying an X-45C or X-47B type UCAV to play bomb truck.

On top of that - sortie rate of an F-35 is reduced over its intended aircraft. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? You want a high sortie rate, not low.

Add on here that the F-35 also has much lower maintenence than an F-16, and I don't understand why everyone is complaining? Well it was supposed to... But F-35 WILL cost more per flight hour than an F-16
http://www.f-16.net/news_article2777.html

I'll take the F-35. It is not an F-22, but it is nearly half the cost of an F-22 anyway. I'm not complaining as long as we field both aircraft in some numbers. Oh we'll surely be taking the F-35. The question is how many. And whether the cost will indeed be half of an F-22. And it doesn't look good for either point.

I am arguing that F-22+UCAV and F/A-18E/F+UCAV would have been a better choice than the F-35. Both capabilites-wise and economics-wise.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

That is all well and good if we are judging the F-35 by the mission its predecessors were created for - WWIII in Europe. But we are not, that mission does not exist anymore. My argument is NOT that we should buy legacy fighters over F-35 in the bomb truck role. But that we should be buying an X-45C or X-47B type UCAV to play bomb truck.We are getting the UCAV. It is coming in time. Most of the time though, you need more capability than a UCAV so i would not be cuaght dead without the F-35. I did check out Boeing's simulator across from Boeing field though on it's UCAV and it is quite capable, but it's not capable of fighting aircraft. The F-35 is more versatile. One person however will have no problem controlling 4 UCAV's with SEAD being the primary role. I would have brought you guys photo's, but not phone, no camera's, no recorders, no nothing was allowed on site, and if you tried, it was probably a destoryed device in short notice. That building is even kind of cool in that it's on stilts/shocks and seperated from the ground so that no one can detect vibrations to listen in on what is going on inside. When we had our 7.0 Earthquake out here a while back, people in this building never knew we had one because the building absorbed the shock.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? You want a high sortie rate, not low.Yes, thats what I mean. Turn around time is quick on this plane.

Well it was supposed to... But F-35 WILL cost more per flight hour than an F-16
http://www.f-16.net/news_article2777.html Well that is not good news. This does not tell me anything though, so why? Is this only during initial deployment? Will this cost go down shortly after? Not enough info to go on.

Oh we'll surely be taking the F-35. The question is how many. And whether the cost will indeed be half of an F-22. And it doesn't look good for either point.

I am arguing that F-22+UCAV and F/A-18E/F+UCAV would have been a better choice than the F-35. Both capabilites-wise and economics-wise

PDI think we need them all. The UCAV programs make great SEAD platforms. i was quite impressed at my demonstration.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

Most of the time though, you need more capability than a UCAV so i would not be cuaght dead without the F-35. Could you expand a little on this? I'd like to hear your reasoning. I agree that UCAV will never really be suitable for air to air work (at least for a LONG while); but if fake Raptor can get there, so can real Raptor.

Yes, thats what I mean. Turn around time is quick on this plane. Sortie rate on a manned aircraft will always be inferior to a UCAV. Simply because any man is going to need a minimum of 12 hours (sleep+eats+next brief/preflight)after a 12 hour sortie before he can hop in the jet again. Keep in mind, USAF manning ratio is only 1.25:1 IIRC. F-22 gets arounds this (to a degree) with supercruise.

Well it was supposed to... But F-35 WILL cost more per flight hour than an F-16
http://www.f-16.net/news_article2777.html Well that is not good news. This does not tell me anything though, so why? Is this only during initial deployment? Will this cost go down shortly after? Not enough info to go on.[/quote]
I trust the GAO more than I trust Lockheed's salesmen. 'nuff said.

I think we need them all. The UCAV programs make great SEAD platforms. Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree SUBMAN. I think we'd be better off if we flushed the F-35 down the toilet yesterday. :)

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Could you expand a little on this? I'd like to hear your reasoning. I agree that UCAV will never really be suitable for air to air work (at least for a LONG while); but if fake Raptor can get there, so can real Raptor.Don't get me wrong! I'll take more F-22's over F-35's in a heartbeat, but I'll take F-35 over the alternatives. F-35 is the next best thing to F-22, so I'm all for it. UCAV has one main drawback in my mind. I was going to write a long reply here, but I erased it since it really comes down to one word - adaptability. It lacks it big time, and the Air Force expects many to get shot down because of this one problem.

Don't get me wrong though, the UCAV has it's place, especially the day that stealth is negated. however, it is not a pilot on site. A good way to put it - It's similar to having a video conference at a company, or having everyone all in one room. Video conference works, but it's not like having a physical presence so that you can direct the conference in the most effective manner.

Sortie rate on a manned aircraft will always be inferior to a UCAV. Simply because any man is going to need a minimum of 12 hours (sleep+eats+next brief/preflight)after a 12 hour sortie before he can hop in the jet again. Keep in mind, USAF manning ratio is only 1.25:1 IIRC. F-22 gets arounds this (to a degree) with supercruise. In the first Gulf war, they were flying more than one pilot to an aircraft. Dunno what they are doing right now, but this negates that problem and has already been used.

I trust the GAO more than I trust Lockheed's salesmen. 'nuff said.Not enough in my book. No one said 'why'? Just said it from what I read.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree SUBMAN. I think we'd be better off if we flushed the F-35 down the toilet yesterday. :)

PDWell, I'll give you this, it is not an F-22, but I will also state that nothing else besidesw F-22, UCAV or not, is as capable. The short answer - it's better than the alternatives when it comes to the warfighters play book. This is the reason it exists, and the reason people much smarter than I keep making sure it exists.

-S

PS. I forgot to talk about it's (the UCAV's) major vulnerability - It's SATCOM link. In an era where a state like China can shoot down a satillite, this is one tech I would not want to be 100% reliant on. One anti-sat missile and your whole strike force is left to fly it's waypoints on it's own and strike on it's own without any hope for mission re-targetting.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Don't get me wrong! I'll take more F-22's over F-35's in a heartbeat, but I'll take F-35 over the alternatives. F-35 is the next best thing to F-22, so I'm all for it. UCAV has one main drawback in my mind. I was going to write a long reply here, but I erased it since it really comes down to one word - adaptability. It lacks it big time, and the Air Force expects many to get shot down because of this one problem. Again, you are overstating the threat. The fact is 99% of the time we will be bombing barbarians further into the stone age. I don't need a man that costs several million dollars to train flying a $70+ million airframe that isn't suited to loiter at radius AT ALL to do this. A robot that flies out to point X, can loiter at point X longer, carries the same two PGMs (or eight SDB on BRU-61 rack)that the F-35 does, and costs 1/4-1/3 as much is FAR more suited to this task. Both economically and in its capabilities. And the other 1% of that threat is Chinese. And the F-35 is utterly incapable of bringing the fight to one of the largest countries in the world and penetrating said country in depth in a denied access scenario. Not to mention that we WILL lose a bunch to the Chinese in 2020+. Far more than Desert Storm. And we all know the US public's opinion of casualties.

And as far as adaptability goes, I wouldn't call the F-35 the pinnacle of adaptability. Block I weapons integration will be JDAM/JSOW (though B model can't sling JSOW due to reduced weapons bay size) only for A2G. So for a long while, F-35 will NEED F-15E and F/A-18E/F for "mission support" (by which I mean the ability to sling anything that doesn't fit in F-35 weapons bay or simply isn't integrated because team J$F screwed the SDD phase so badly). $70+ million a pop for a manned VLO cow fighter spec'd interdictor that can only sling two JDAM/JSOW is f*@king ridiculous. There is no other way to see it.

Don't get me wrong though, the UCAV has it's place, especially the day that stealth is negated. however, it is not a pilot on site. A good way to put it - It's similar to having a video conference at a company, or having everyone all in one room. Video conference works, but it's not like having a physical presence so that you can direct the conference in the most effective manner. BAD analogy. The assumption that you need a man in the cockpit to fly an airliner profile to a point where he pickles a GPS guided munition and then RTBs is completely ridiculous. The vast majority of Day 1/Raid 1 targets are fixed. And since 1991 UCAV's have been flying precision strike in the form of cruise weapons. Granted, there will be cases where you want to retarget the UCAV. But this should be done with a manned air presence directing the cow bomber UCAV to a different target. Not with the majority numbers of manned cow fighter interdictors.

And the day that stealth is negated is coming a lot sooner than you think if we whore out the tech manufacturing processes needed for it in the name of a business model. In the same way the Norwegians and Japanese sold the Soviets the tech they needed to make quiet submarines in the 1980s. Not to mention anything of hunting SAMs and DEW weapons.

In the first Gulf war, they were flying more than one pilot to an aircraft. Dunno what they are doing right now, but this negates that problem and has already been used. We may have very well had a 2:1 manning ratio in '91 before the post Cold War cuts. But since then, the US military has had its nuts cut. And after we get out of Iraq, they WILL have more drawdowns. Which will make F-35 even more unaffordable. Keeping the cost of the F-35 down to halfway affordable absolutely requires mass buys by USAF/USN/USMC and export countries. Which is looking less and less likely. Especially if a Dem wins in November.

Not enough in my book. No one said 'why'? Just said it from what I read. It really shouldn't be that surprising. Every time an aircraft is replaced and its operating costs are touted as being lower, it doesn't turn out that way. F-4->F-15->F-22 being another case.

This is the reason it exists, and the reason people much smarter than I keep making sure it exists. The reason it exists is because we can't mass export the F-22 and mass export is where the money is. And I stopped believing that my government "knows better" a while ago. Government/nation more and more can be called Federated Trade Conglomerate. But that's a different thread.

PS. I forgot to talk about it's (the UCAV's) major vulnerability - It's SATCOM link. In an era where a state like China can shoot down a satillite, this is one tech I would not want to be 100% reliant on. One anti-sat missile and your whole strike force is left to fly it's waypoints on it's own and strike on it's own without any hope for mission re-targetting. Another one is bandwith. There simply isn't enough SATCOM bandwith to run a large UCAV force currently. Both can be overcome through: tech advances in the next decade, as well as directing UCAV's through manned aircraft. When needed. Autonomous UCAVs aren't as big a problem as you make them out to be, just as autonomous Tomahawk missiles weren't. Don't think the UCAV has any more technical hurdles than a manned aircraft that supposedly fits three seperate mission roles into one airframe while VLO'd.

PD

[TLAM Strike]

How is that not useful? Takeoff from short or unpaven fields is something the US Military has been lacking for a very long time. What happens when someone bombs and airfield and fighters can't take off?
Then what, we're going to base even closer to that threat which is good enough to successfully put holes in a USAF/USMC runway (basing closer is demanded by F-35B's reduced numbers, mission radius, and weapons carriage) in an unprepared airfield? Give me a break. It (forward VTOL basing of fast jets) sounds cool, but really isn't operationally helpful/feasible. Its called dispersial. The Russians and Sweeds have been doing it for a long time. The Gulf War proved that airfields are very vulnerable to attack. An intact runway is a prime target, thats why countries like North Korea have hangers built in to mountians and Israel has huge well equipped HAS bunkers capable of full service for their aircraft. Being able to hide a jet in some trees and launch from a highway is a tremendus asset.


Or if you have to invade a country like Afganstain where there are no pristine airfields to use? This is why the RAF uses the BAe Harrier, and why the USAF is considering the F/A-35B.
Which they have NEVER done. Simply because it's risky. And I don't think any armed service in their right mind is going to be putting a circa $75 million dollar VLO airframe in a place where it is vulnerable to mortar attacks and the like. And BTW, what would have kept F-16s landing at Afghan airfields shortly after it was secured other than security issues? I mean, that's the kind of thing the Seabees and USAF equivalent exist for, right? Look at a place like Korea. There you don't have much choice unless they want to fly all the way from Japan to the front line.

The F-35B is useless to USMC (and the US taxpayer in general) because: what does all of 8 F-35s on a Marine deck get you? They cannot support ground forces with any meaning because of the pitiful sortie rate/weapons carriage offered. To move Marines ashore against any real opposition the USMC _needs_ to have its hands held by a REAL carrier group. F-35B is a product to be sold to Navies that can't afford real carriers. R&D funded by the US taxpayer. Its only 8 in an assault role for a Wasp, it can carry 20 plus 6 ASW helos in its Sea Control Role.

The only major diffrence with the C model is that it has bigger gear undercarage with a double forward wheel, wider wings and anti-corrosion paint. The great thing about the F/A-35 is that each model is basicly the same aircraft with a few changes to the airframe or the additon of a lift fan (which personaly I dislike because its unable to VIFF and is dead weight after takeoff.)
Joint in logistics. There is nothing common about where F-35s can be based though.

PD A F/A-35B and C can be based on the same airfield as a F/A-35A or F-22, the reverse is not true.

Would would you like the Navy and Corps to do? The Navy isn't going to buy a Supercarrier sized ship for its MEUs so they can have a large airwing, and they are not going to put billions of $ and a decade of research in to devloping a Navalized F-22. The F/A-35 is the only thing thats going to keep the Navy and Corps in the manned fixwing buisness in the 2010's and 2020's when it come to fighting expaditionary warfare.

[TLAM Strike]

PS. I forgot to talk about it's (the UCAV's) major vulnerability - It's SATCOM link. In an era where a state like China can shoot down a satillite, this is one tech I would not want to be 100% reliant on. One anti-sat missile and your whole strike force is left to fly it's waypoints on it's own and strike on it's own without any hope for mission re-targetting. Another one is bandwith. There simply isn't enough SATCOM bandwith to run a large UCAV force currently. Both can be overcome through: tech advances in the next decade, as well as directing UCAV's through manned aircraft. When needed. Autonomous UCAVs aren't as big a problem as you make them out to be, just as autonomous Tomahawk missiles weren't. Don't think the UCAV has any more technical hurdles than a manned aircraft that supposedly fits three seperate mission roles into one airframe while VLO'd.

PD A Manned aircraft has the same vulnerabltiy as a orbiting Sat, it can be shot down. And at a much lower cost than launching an ASAT missile or putting a H&K Sat in orbit (Although if a orbiting DEW system is put in high orbit its Anti-Sat potential becomes amazingly high, more than enugph to off set its cost). Having a modified 737 or whatnot flying control for UCAVs will insure that our enemies will target that aircraft with the same vigor as the Soviets would have targeted our aircraft carriers back in the cold war.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Hi TLAM,

As for Korea, we were flying P-80s out of Japan during the Korean War. I don't see the problem with flying from Japan, it is a helluva lot shorter than OIF or OEF missions. And the notion that we need a VTOL VLO fighter to defeat the North Koreans is laughable, IMO.

Its only 8 in an assault role for a Wasp, it can carry 20 plus 6 ASW helos in its Sea Control Role. And they aren't going to be doing any assaulting from that Wasp in that config either. I really don't see any reason for an LHA to be in "sea control (with all of 20 VTOL airframes, giggle)". The Marines should stick to assaulting. They will never be able to "be their own air support" in the face of ANY real threat.

Would would you like the Navy and Corps to do? For one, realize that the justification for LHA type ships in a Guadalcanal type scenario is dead. Second, convince me that the USMC even should be in the fixed wing biz. As for what I think they should do, what if every fixed wing flying service bought into UCAV with a tailhook? Truely common basing. And real reach and power in numbers. We haven't ever "needed" a VTOL fighter other than to let the Marines pretend to have an airwing on their LHAs. We certainly don't need one now.

The F/A-35 is the only thing thats going to keep the Navy and Corps in the manned fixwing buisness in the 2010's and 2020's when it come to fighting expaditionary warfare. You're assuming I think the USMC and USN being in "manned fixwing business" in the 2020s is a good thing. ;) For the USN, 10-20 F-35s + 20-30 SuperBugs on a deck is not a real airwing. Certainly not on a carrier designed for 90 aircraft airwings. For the USMC, they will never have a real airwing anyways. 24 Super bugs + 60 or more UCAVs is getting back to a real air wing with a real sustainable sortie rate and reach.

On a side note, I think we are going to have to get away from the super carrier notion in the near future due to fiscal/operational realities. But LHA is not the way. IMO, diesel powered mini carriers with and air wing of 12 manned fixwings + 30-40 UCAVs is the way.

PD

[TLAM Strike]

Hi TLAM,

As for Korea, we were flying P-80s out of Japan during the Korean War. I don't see the problem with flying from Japan, it is a helluva lot shorter than OIF or OEF missions. And the notion that we need a VTOL VLO fighter to defeat the North Koreans is laughable, IMO. The fighters that flew from Japan had very little endurance on station and were limited to bomber escort. The fighters that flew from south korea did most of the MiGCAP duities, and even they had limited time on station.

Its only 8 in an assault role for a Wasp, it can carry 20 plus 6 ASW helos in its Sea Control Role. And they aren't going to be doing any assaulting from that Wasp in that config either. I really don't see any reason for an LHA to be in "sea control (with all of 20 VTOL airframes, giggle)". The Marines should stick to assaulting. They will never be able to "be their own air support" in the face of ANY real threat. Sea Control loadout is for convoy operations, think of it as an escort carrier. Also changes to the airwing have no effect to my knolage on the loadout of LCACs and LCUs a Wasp can carry so it still can support landing operations with the LSDs they sail with. This is perfict for the small scale wars the US is fighting where we don't need a supercarrier's 90 plane airwing.

Would would you like the Navy and Corps to do? For one, realize that the justification for LHA type ships in a Guadalcanal type scenario is dead. Second, convince me that the USMC even should be in the fixed wing biz. As for what I think they should do, what if every fixed wing flying service bought into UCAV with a tailhook? Truely common basing. And real reach and power in numbers. We haven't ever "needed" a VTOL fighter other than to let the Marines pretend to have an airwing on their LHAs. We certainly don't need one now. The Reason for the LHA and LHDs are to allow the US to send troops anywhere it the world. With out them we would be limited to a handfull of LSDs which would need to sail with a carrier group for airdefense and the US Army Airborne. The Falklands showed that having a limited number of carriers is a very bad thing. The LHA and LHD's flight deck is a kind of "Safety net" if a CVN is sunk we still have fight decks at sea that can launch fighters otherwise if the CVN is sunk and there are no other flight decks in the AO losing the conflict before another carrier can enter the area becomes a very real possablity. If the SKYHOOK system whent in to production having no LHA/LHDs wouldn't be that much of a problem since any container ship could be turned in to a ~60 plane VTOL carrier in a few days.

The reason the USMC needs fixed wing? Because their training is diffrent from the USN. They are trained to be CAS pilots where the USN is trained to be Strike pilots.

[PeriscopeDepth]

The fighters that flew from Japan had very little endurance on station and were limited to bomber escort. The fighters that flew from south korea did most of the MiGCAP duities, and even they had limited time on station. That's only half true. They did do fighter bomber work, stopping in Taegu IIRC (can't recall if it was coming or going). And still, aerial refueling makes this an academic argument anyway.

Sea Control loadout is for convoy operations, think of it as an escort carrier. Also changes to the airwing have no effect to my knolage on the loadout of LCACs and LCUs a Wasp can carry so it still can support landing operations with the LSDs they sail with. This is perfict for the small scale wars the US is fighting where we don't need a supercarrier's 90 plane airwing. As for the "small wars", anything other than a Somalia Black Hawk down type scenario is going to require a real airwing for any sort of respectable sortie rate. Which doesn't neccessarily mean a full on CVN, but 20 VTOL airframes ain't gonna cut it.

The Reason for the LHA and LHDs are to allow the US to send troops anywhere it the world. With out them we would be limited to a handfull of LSDs which would need to sail with a carrier group for airdefense and the US Army Airborne. Understood, I wasn't knocking LHAs for their assault capabilities. I think that is the ONLY thing they should be used for. Putting all of 8 VTOL airframes aboard and pretending it accomplishes anything is silly.

The Falklands showed that having a limited number of carriers is a very bad thing. The LHA and LHD's flight deck is a kind of "Safety net" if a CVN is sunk we still have fight decks at sea that can launch fighters otherwise if the CVN is sunk and there are no other flight decks in the AO losing the conflict before another carrier can enter the area becomes a very real possablity. If the SKYHOOK system whent in to production having no LHA/LHDs wouldn't be that much of a problem since any container ship could be turned in to a ~60 plane VTOL carrier in a few days. We are well on our way to having a small amount of carriers, and I don't believe LHAs are worthy "substitute carriers". What do you mean by Skyhook, what I can find mentions C-130s trapping on carriers. Any links?

The reason the USMC needs fixed wing? Because their training is diffrent from the USN. They are trained to be CAS pilots where the USN is trained to be Strike pilots. I don't buy this at all. The USAF does both. And the USN certainly did both in Afghanistan and Iraq. If the Marines do it so well, they can teach it.

PD

[Stealth Hunter]

I'm not entirely surprised that it's been delayed. It's the most hi-tech and up-to-date aircraft that will soon be in military circulation. However, the downside of the delay and the use of "soon" by the military means more of our tax money being used up and "soon" being changed to "two years from now".

[Captain Vlad]

I don't buy this at all. The USAF does both. And the USN certainly did both in Afghanistan and Iraq. If the Marines do it so well, they can teach it.


The USAF would rather be rid of its CAS responsibilities. Congress had to threaten allowing the Army to buy the A-10 to get them to purchase the aircraft.

The Marines, on the other hand, prefer to have air support under the same command umbrella as the troops requiring the support, and any examination of communication snafus from WWII onward will show you exactly why.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I don't buy this at all. The USAF does both. And the USN certainly did both in Afghanistan and Iraq. If the Marines do it so well, they can teach it.

The USAF would rather be rid of its CAS responsibilities. Congress had to threaten allowing the Army to buy the A-10 to get them to purchase the aircraft.

The Marines, on the other hand, prefer to have air support under the same command umbrella as the troops requiring the support, and any examination of communication snafus from WWII onward will show you exactly why. I doubt that. Key West in 1948 gave USAF a HUGE advantage funding wise. They may not think CAS is as **** hot fighter pilot worthy as shootin' down bandits, but they damn well understand that letting the Army do CAS with fixed wings would have put a serious dent in their R&D/procurement funding. And if there is one thing our military is good at, it is snagging funding.

As for the Marines preferring their own service aircraft to be doing their own CAS, tough cookies. The vast amount of CAS given to Marines in OIF/OEF just had to be USN/USAF due to sheer statistics.

PD

[TLAM Strike]

The Falklands showed that having a limited number of carriers is a very bad thing. The LHA and LHD's flight deck is a kind of "Safety net" if a CVN is sunk we still have fight decks at sea that can launch fighters otherwise if the CVN is sunk and there are no other flight decks in the AO losing the conflict before another carrier can enter the area becomes a very real possablity. If the SKYHOOK system whent in to production having no LHA/LHDs wouldn't be that much of a problem since any container ship could be turned in to a ~60 plane VTOL carrier in a few days. We are well on our way to having a small amount of carriers, and I don't believe LHAs are worthy "substitute carriers". What do you mean by Skyhook, what I can find mentions C-130s trapping on carriers. Any links? No not the "Fulton Skyhook" like in Thunderball. :lol: But the Skyhook in this case is just a crazy and looks like something out of a movie. Basicly you put a cargo container on a ship that has a crane and another with a launchpad and Harrier. The crane grabs the Harrier and hangs it over the side for vert launch (or uses a skijump for takeoff). Reverse it for landing- harrier hovers and is grabbed by the crane kind of like in USAF aerial refueling. The idea was that anything could be turned in to a carrier of some sort, from a frigate with 4 or so harriers to a container ship with 40 or more even a submarine! (Can you say Ohio SSGN with an couple of fighter squadrons?! :rock: ) There would even be dedicated Skyhook carriers with a dozen or so for convoy escort. The idea what real hot $h!t for a while in the late 80's but it quickly faded away.

http://home.planet.nl/~alder010/Future/Future.html
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/3939/t/SKYHOOK-Harrier-Carrier.html

[Captain Vlad]

As for the Marines preferring their own service aircraft to be doing their own CAS, tough cookies.

I agree with their rationale. We'll leave it at that.:)