F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[JSFfan]

"12 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft and 12 EA-18G Growler aircraft and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $3.7 billion."

we will then have a 24 sqd of growlers which we will keep, the 12 new and the 12 already wired

as per the original plan....our stop gap 24 SH, which is now 12 new and 12 existing, will be looked at these being replaced when we have ~75 F-35 with the prospect of taking our fleet to ~100, this has always been the case


Canada is a different story, they aren't looking for Growlers or a stop gap, so I don't see a SH buy on their horizon

[Willard Whyte]

Canada is a different story, they aren't looking for Growlers or a stop gap, so I don't see a SH buy on their horizon

Maybe the Canucks don't let any 'foreigners' look at their OTH-SW radar.

[JSFfan]

I bet when the northern lights are running, it messes it up something awful, so with me being well over the canadian horizon, it may give me a visual. My crystal ball shows it's the same stuff our new gov did in 2007/8, to keep face after bagging it in opposition.

[BEagle]

When F-35A is cancelled by the Canadians, perhaps we'll see this sort of thing going on in Canada before very long:

(Photo via a top Luftwaffe mate!)

I gather that the RCAF were mightily impressed by Rafale in Libyan operations last year...

In addition, it would make a good choice for the RN to operate from the UK's new aircraft carriers if F-35B is scrapped.

[SASless]

The F-35 Program is looking more and more like a big fat Turkey to Budget cutters!

If the USAF is forced to terminate their program.....you reckon that will put an end to it all together or will foreign orders keep the program alive?

[Courtney Mil]

SAS,

I can't believe the minority stakeholders could raise the cash to keep it going. How far along does a programme have to be before it can't realistically be cancelled?

[SASless]

It all gets down to Politics.

My impression of events is the Military is playing a game on Congress and the President with a view towards getting their budget made good again.

There was an article out this morning that pointed out some programs that both could be cut and some that need to be cut.

Lets look back at some of the spending that has gone on in the past few years with huge price tags and not a lot of promise or increased capability over current systems or weapons.

The Navy's Littoral Combat Ship program is a very good example of bad spending.

The USMC's hydro-plane Armored Amphibious Tractor Program was an un-mitigated disaster.

The F-35 Program is another program that has been a disaster....both in costs and questionable improvement over existing and much cheaper proven systems.

The US Navy insists on keeping their Ships deployed....steaming around the World and wearing them out doing so. That mindset has been under review since the 80's and was part of the Briefings I was privvy to regards the differences between the Soviet and American Navies.

The Army is being forced to up-date thousands of M-1 Abrams Tanks....and buy new ones....as a political deal.

The Coast Guard's procurement of a new line of Cutters has also been a disaster at no small expense.

What the Military is doing is cutting back on training, flying hours, some overhauls and some deployments, cutting Elementary Schools for Dependent Children and other tactics to create a false crisis.

One example of the problem.....the Joint Chiefs Staff has grown to almost 5,000 people in the Pentagon in the past few Years. Tell me that is not an indicator of the kind of management problem the Military has.

We have far more Generals/Admirals today than we did during WWII when we had almost 18,000,000 people in Uniform.


Here is one program that certainly could have been cancelled sooner.

Typo Leads To Creation Of $179M Gorilla Warfare Program | The Duffel Blog

[Sandy Parts]

Courtney - how about 1 aircraft delivered to customer and 2 others flying with customer crews, all taking part in mission system flight testing? hmmm - that project's 12 aircraft still ended up being smashed to bits behind covers and all the in place support kit (sims etc) also being destroyed after being ripped out of buildings. It would appear to be never too late to cancel if the costs saved over the long-term make it worth the short-term furore. It might help the politicians in those areas affected that there are a few years until the next election as well...

[Courtney Mil]

What a crying waste, Sandy. Funny that a system that's working and ready to go gets canned, but one like Nimrod AEW is propped up beyond all reason.

[Biggus]

Who said it was "working and ready to go".... (sorry for the thread drift)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Originally Posted by SASless

And The US Navy insists on keeping their Ships deployed....steaming around the World and wearing them out doing so. That mindset has been under review since the 80's and was part of the Briefings I was privvy to regards the differences between the Soviet and American Navies.

Surely deploying to sea is what a Navy is for? You cannnot influence world events from your home port!

I have heard a rumour that the number of US carriers will fall. The AV-8B equipped amphibious vessels can help fill this gap, embarking a decent number of jets and acting as light (sic) carriers. If CVN numbers do decline, then surely the continued development and procurement of F-35B will enable the small (in relative terms - 40 000 tons is not small) carriers to mitigate against the risks caused by having less supercarriers.

I read a suggestion from an American Gentleman that politics was perhaps part of the UK's decision to revert to F-35B for CVF, as it would strengthen the USMC's hand in Washington.

I seem to remember discussing these issues back here in September:

An American gentleman once pointed out that (in his view) the United States uses AV-8B equipped amphibious ships in a similar fashion to the way it used its smaller carriers (eg the Essex class) during the Cold War (and they can embark up to twenty Harriers to act as a light (sic) carrier). In other words, it gives the US an option short of sending a CVN, and of course more ships with a fixed wing capability is useful. As such, it offers Washington a degree of political dexterity. Consider the deployment of USS Kearsarge during operations in Libya last year.

Additionally, the reason the USMC wanted the Harrier back in the 70s was that it provided them with firepower only a short flying time from the shore, making up for the loss of the six inch and eight inch gun cruisers that provided naval gunfire support during the Cold War conflicts in Korea and Vietnam.

Both arguments seem sound to me, and relevant today to a future of (relatively) small scale, littoral engagements.

[Courtney Mil]

Originally Posted by WEBfoot

Surely deploying to sea is what a Navy is for? You cannnot influence world events from your home port!

IMHO the wisest words I've seen you post here. Well said.

[cuefaye]

WEBfoot

That's unkind

[Courtney Mil]

Oh, it's a term of endearment. He's never complained.

[orca]

Which would all be fine if it weren't for the way the USMC actually use the amphibs. If one were to ask a USMC Harrier driver how they felt on the deck and how they fared in the priority stakes etc you would probably find repeated tales of woe - not being able to get off the deck due helo ops and a myriad of other RW centric stories.

But it's their train set and if that's the way they want to play with it I wish them all the best. They are pretty formidable as a stand alone entity.

I think you might find it very easy to 'Red Team' statements such as those that seek to justify a Harrier's lack of speed, legs and bring back by saying that they are all plusses because it means you can bring the ship in closer. Slightly skewed thinking really. This is the same ship that's rippling helos like there's no tomorrow to get as much ammunition, water, food to the heroes on the ground as possible.

[Lonewolf_50]

In other words, it gives the US an option short of sending a CVN, and of course more ships with a fixed wing capability is useful

No, it doesn't, since the Amphibs are not deployed with organic AEW, nor is the actual Air Wing component remotely as capable.

In Re AEW: Hawkeye is not a VSTOL aircraft.

Now, if you want to "put a big ship somewhere" and you don't think any actual incoming air assets are likely to show up, sure, send LHA/LHD and a few escorts depending upon how you want the presence mission to play out. Been on a few of those.

But DON'T EVER PRETEND than a Harrier carrying amphib in the USN is a sub for a CVN plus its embarked airwing.

NOT EVEN CLOSE.

I am an American. I was a career Naval officer (aviator sort).

I find your citing "some American" of dubious understanding to be suspect.

EDIT: as to this little joke ....

Additionally, the reason the USMC wanted the Harrier back in the 70s was that it provided them with firepower only a short flying time from the shore, making up for the loss of the six inch and eight inch gun cruisers that provided naval gunfire support during the Cold War conflicts in Korea and Vietnam.

Sorta funny, given that the battleships were reactivated for Viet Nam (see USS New JErsey's fun and games there) for Lebanon (80's) and for Desert Storm. Oddly enough, that didn't put the Harriers to bed. Neither did the RAP rounds for 5", nor the proposed RAP rounds for the 16" before the monpower bill in Rummy's and Cohen's Navy coudl get you the manning of four Arleigh Brurkes for one BB.

You'll also find that, in the 1970's, the USN tried to put an 8" gun on the Spruance and hull -- it didn't work out very well. Likewise with Ticonderoga, same basic hull, and that didn't either. Don't recall if it was money or structural mods, but I think it was a bit of both.

That initiative was in fact directly related to the need for NGFS better than the 5" gun on most destroyers and then cruisers as the 6" and 8" cruisers were one by one retired. USMC continual demand for NGFS over time has, in a pure sense, remained an unfilled desire.

The Marines desire for a jet that operated at something other than a big airfield, or from a flat top, is part of their general operating philosophy of air power being a sub set of the larger battlefield funciton of "fires" but I am digressing into doctrine here.

Anyway, I find some of the mythology to be amusing, some less so.

On the other hand, who knows what soap was being sold in DC when the Harrier was proposed for a Marine Air Wing?

Lobbying for a capability results in some curious statements, like the "ring of iron" justification for more LA class SSN's to be in Direct Support of the CVBG ... and which more or less was never going to happen in practice.

[GreenKnight121]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

You'll also find that, in the 1970's, the USN tried to put an 8" gun on the Spruance and hull -- it didn't work out very well. Likewise with Ticonderoga, same basic hull, and that didn't either. Don't recall if it was money or structural mods, but I think it was a bit of both.

That initiative was in fact directly related to the need for NGFS better than the 5" gun on most destroyers and then cruisers as the 6" and 8" cruisers were one by one retired. USMC continual demand for NGFS over time has, in a pure sense, remained an unfilled desire.

The 8"/55 Mk.71 MCLWG worked fine... it was test-fitted on a Sherman-class destroyer (USS Hull DD-945)... which was 4,050 tons full load, half the 8,040 tons full load displacement of a Sprucan. In that installation there was some hull cracking, but that was to be expected.

The Spruance & Ticonderoga classes had been designed from the start for the gun to be fitted, but none ever got it even for test purposes, as Jimmy gracefully managing the decline of America Carter canceled it in 1978 to save money AFTER it had passed all development and operational testing and had been approved for pre-production work. (The gun barrel for the Mark 71 was the Mark 28 Mod 1, a 55 caliber two-piece loose liner barrel. The production gun mount was to have used a one piece monobloc barrel designated the Mark 32.)

There were claims that the accuracy wasn't sufficient... but meeting the accuracy requirements was always contingent upon the procurement of a laser-guided round. However, to save costs the CLGP projectile program was deferred.

[Not_a_boffin]

the United States uses AV-8B equipped amphibious ships in a similar fashion to the way it used its smaller carriers (eg the Essex class) during the Cold War

Nope. The Essexes either embarked a full CAG (albeit without A6 and F4, chocka with A1, A4 and F8) and did strike ops - and plenty worked Yankee station during Vietnam, or they designated them CVS, filled the deck with S2 Trackers, a few E1 Tracers and used them to provide the ASW cover for carrier groups in 2nd, 6th and 7th Fleet AORs. They never sent them as a substitute for the post Forrestal ships in any meaningful way.

given that the battleships were reactivated for Viet Nam (see USS New JErsey's fun and games there) for Lebanon (80's) and for Desert Storm. Oddly enough, that didn't put the Harriers to bed

While New Jersey was reactivated specifically to provide NGS off Vietnam, the subsequent reactivation of the entire class in the 80s was to provide Surface Action Groups to counter perceived threat from the Sov Kirov class. They were obviously able to provide NGS for both Lebanon and DS, but they were not reactivated specifically for those ops.

Otherwise, what Orca & Green Knight said.

[SpazSinbad]

VSF = ASWFitRon

Some USN CVSs (USS Bennington mid 1960s) had these VSF = ASWFitRon (same same A4Gs aka VF 805 aboard HMAS Melbourne):

VSF Anti-Submarine Warfare Fighter Squadron

The VSF Story by CDR Robert R. 'Boom' Powell Part 1 - VSF-1 Anti-Submarine Warfare Fighter Squadron One ADMIN/Personnel Office
&
The VSF Story by CDR Robert R. 'Boom' Powell Part 2 - VSF-1 Anti-Submarine Warfare Fighter Squadron One ADMIN/Personnel Office

“...Once in WestPac, although Intrepid picked up a VFP-63 Photo-Crusader detachment and YF-111 provided three F-8Cs and pilots to fly photo escort, VSF-3 was considered the resident fighter squadron. The squadron color was red, Ready Room 1# (nearest the flight deck) was assigned-to be shared with the 'Sader pilots--and flight deck alerts during ship transits were stood by an A-4B with a centerline fuel tank and a pair of AIM-9 Sidewinders....”

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Originally Posted by orca

Which would all be fine if it weren't for the way the USMC actually use the amphibs. If one were to ask a USMC Harrier driver how they felt on the deck and how they fared in the priority stakes etc you would probably find repeated tales of woe - not being able to get off the deck due helo ops and a myriad of other RW centric stories.

But it's their train set and if that's the way they want to play with it I wish them all the best. They are pretty formidable as a stand alone entity.

True, but on occasions they have operated as AV-8B carriers with an increased number of jets. Playing second fiddle to rotary wing operations is probably a cultural thing. The USMC used to like embarking aboard RN decks to get experience of having the deck mostly to themselves, but despite the UK having a STOVL future to prepare for this no longer happens for some reason - although it would benefit both parties.

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

No, it doesn't, since the Amphibs are not deployed with organic AEW, nor is the actual Air Wing component remotely as capable.

In Re AEW: Hawkeye is not a VSTOL aircraft.

Now, if you want to "put a big ship somewhere" and you don't think any actual incoming air assets are likely to show up, sure, send LHA/LHD and a few escorts depending upon how you want the presence mission to play out. Been on a few of those.

But DON'T EVER PRETEND than a Harrier carrying amphib in the USN is a sub for a CVN plus its embarked airwing.

NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Quite agree. However, if CVNs become less available, then jets embarked aboard the LHA/LHD may be the only shipborne jets available. F-35B will be a lot more capable than Harrier, with significant ISTAR capabilities of its own. My argument is NOT that a LHA/LHD is as good or as capable as a CVN and air wing, but that since your politicians seem intent on reducing the number of deployed/ready CVNs (a dangerous move in my opinion) then you need to look at other ways of operating fixed wing aircraft at sea or from the sea.

Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin

Nope. The Essexes either embarked a full CAG (albeit without A6 and F4, chocka with A1, A4 and F8) and did strike ops - and plenty worked Yankee station during Vietnam, or they designated them CVS, filled the deck with S2 Trackers, a few E1 Tracers and used them to provide the ASW cover for carrier groups in 2nd, 6th and 7th Fleet AORs. They never sent them as a substitute for the post Forrestal ships in any meaningful way.

Indeed, but whilst the numbers of big deck carriers were being built up, they did sterling work.

Interesting article here: Navy's Newest Assault Ship Moonlights as Pint-Sized Aircraft Carrier | Danger Room | Wired.com

It’s not a totally reckless wager, but it does involve some risk. With the America class, the Pentagon is taking a chance on air power and, more to point, on the Marines’ version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. When America‘s sister ship Tripoli enters service in 2018, the Navy will (in essence) possess 13 carriers — these two smaller, newer models, plus 11 of the big, nuclear-powered variety. That’s up from the 11 nuke flattops in today’s fleet. Commensurately, the number of old-school assault ships will drop by two.

The sailing branch’s other assault ships — currently numbering nine — can also support dozens of helicopters plus a handful of Harrier jump jets apiece. But they lack the facilities for sustained flight ops, meaning they’re more assault ships than classic carriers. The older vessels are built around cavernous “well decks” — in essence, giant swimming pools that open to the sea through the ships’ sterns, allowing them to launch and recover landing craft, hovercraft, swimming vehicles and river boats. These small craft are the primary means of moving Marines onto shore, complemented by helicopters and V-22 tiltrotors taking off from the flight deck.

America and Tripoli don’t have well decks. In their place, the newer ships possess extra hangar space, bigger tanks for aviation fuel and larger weapons magazines. These facilities allow America and her sister to operate, for days on end, as many as 30 fixed-wing planes including today’s Harriers plus the F-35B stealth jump jet that’s still in testing. “It is, for all intents and purposes, a light aircraft carrier,” Navy Capt. Jerry Hendrix wrote of America. But the new ship and her sister can still send Marines ashore in helicopters and V-22s.

Needs must.