F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[orca]

Golly, into the one wire with sparks prior to it to boot! Still, a wire is a wire and given that he has the tanker pod on....maybe he was the last one down and really wanted to make it stick!

The sparks at night always look great - sadly they're always accompanied by some hammer on the platform shouting 'Bolter, Bolter, Bolter!' as if the chap in the cockpit can't work out why he hasn't stopped.

[SpazSinbad]

Creepy Creeping VL + RVL Demonstrated in Video?

No need to bolter here boyo. Early on we see what looks to me like the beginning of a creepy, creeping landing with later a more conventional faster RVL with dust flying. YMMV. I guess this new F-35B chap is lying?

Test Pilot Tuesday Episode 28

"Published on May 7, 2013
Dan Levin, a test pilot whose flight experience is primarily with the F-16, talks about his first time flying the F-35B in short takeoff/vertical landing mode."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFUA...layer_embedded

[Eclectic]

Sorry about the C&P, but when looking up Typhoon thrust vectoring I came across this:

Eurofighter Typhoon « Defense Issues

F-35

F-35 is a radar LO strike aircraft, made obvious by its fat shape, bad rearward cockpit visibility, high wing loading and low thrust-to-weight ratio. Its aerodynamics also mean that it has less vortex lift and less body lift avaliable when turning, excaberating the problem and giving it far worse lift-to-drag and lift-to-weight ratios than those of Typhoon.

Its internal weapons carriage does give it some drag reduction, which is easily offset by increased weight, complexity and reduced payload. Weapons payload in aerodynamically clean air-to-air configuration is identical, with both fighters having 4 BVRAAMs, but Typhoon’s conformal carriage provides it with faster response time as F-35 has to open doors to fire missiles. Similar situation is with guns: whereas F-35s GAU-22/A has a higher rate of fire, 3 300 rounds per minute when compared to 1 700 for BK-27, weight “thrown” by both guns is 7,4 kg per second for BK-27 and 10,12 kg for GAU-22/A. But while BK-27 reaches full rate of fire within 0,05 seconds, GAU-22/A reaches it 0,4 seconds. Thus even assuming that F-35 pilot opened gun doors beforehand, BK-27 would have fired 13 rounds weighting 3,38 kg in first half of second, compared to 16 rounds weighting 3,44 kg for GAU-22/A. If pilot did not open gun doors, then GAU-22/A will only start firing in 0,5 seconds, and reach full rate of fire in 0,9 seconds.

Where air-to-air is concerned, Typhoon also has advantage in sensors department; while F-35s IRST is only optimized for ground targets, Typhoon’s PIRATE’s position and wavelengths are optimised for air-to-air combat. F-35 itself has huge IR signature thanks to its fat shape and a powerful engine which has 7% more thrust than Typhoon’s two engines combined, yet has almost no IR reduction measures.

[Killface]

Is that a joke?

[Heathrow Harry]

the main advantage is that the Typhoon is available, proven and in service

None of which can be said about the F-35 and (as the title of the thread says) may never be in service

[Eclectic]

Navalised Typhoon: http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin...on_cutaway.pdf

Doesn't need cat and trap. Ski jump will work at maximum weight.

It is UKIP policy!!!: UKIP: 'UK must build naval Typhoon' - Defence Management

Article: Naval Eurofighter: An Aircraft Carrier Version Under Development | Navy & Maritime Security News at DefenceTalk

[Killface]

the main advantage is that the Typhoon is available, proven and in service

Not the Naval Version, which is not available proven or in service at all. don't forget that the Typhoon had plenty of trials and tribulations getting into service itself.

may never be in service

its technically in service with the american marines who have 7 of them so far, and IIRC IOC has been announced for 2015 and 2016. As LO pointed out its too big to fail. even the UK has an F-35 or 2 already.

Its going to be in service, it just a matter of what numbers. whether you love or loath this aircraft the window for cancellation has passed. as spazinbad pointed out they are starting to get a solid feel for the cost, which is far more affordable than canceling and starting anew. they aren't going to quit 2 years from the finish line with the price firming up, after investing the kind of time and money they have already with the promise of a monopoly ahead.

We can debate about whether it is worth it or not until the cows come home, but its not going to canceled. I'm amazed that point still has to be clarified still.

And no one has shown any interest in a navalized typhoon. even if they did, the UK can only convert one aircraft carrier to conventional ops, and at greater expense (remember why they went back to the B from the F-35C?). as long as the F-35 is the cheaper alternative (and compared to a typhoon it is) JSF is not going anywhere:

UKIP estimates suggest it would cost Ł1.4bn to develop a naval typhoon, with unit costs of around Ł80m.

In a statement the party said that the development costs would be similar to the cost of converting the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers to use the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) to be used with the F-35C. A naval Typhoon would take off from a 'ski jump' deck.

So 2.8 billion pounds in development and carrier conversion alone? then 80 million per aircraft? how many aircraft would you even buy for one carrier at that cost? never going to happen.

Doesn't need cat and trap

in the brochure you show, under "landing performance" it says

Carrier needs to be fitted with a standard arrestor wire
system

[SpazSinbad]

Skunk Works Responsible for X-47B Hook

Reference hook issues on this thread: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7849998

Unmanned, Virtually Unlimited Jeff Rhodes 6 April 2011

"...UCAS-D
The X-47B, the test vehicle for the US Navy’s Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration, or UCAS-D, program, made its first flight from Edwards AFB, California, on 4 February 2011. UCAS-D is the Navy’s effort to design, develop, and integrate an autonomous, fighter-sized, high subsonic UAS on an aircraft carrier.

Skunk Works is a teammate-subcontractor to Northrop Grumman on the X-47B. The vehicle, which has folding wings, has a wingspan of sixty-two feet and a length of thirty-eight feet. It is stealthy in design, although to reduce cost and complexity for the demonstration program, many parts are not made of stealth materials. The Skunk Works workshare includes development and fabrication of the arresting hook, control surfaces, and edges, including the engine inlet lip. Skunk Works technicians will maintain these components during flight test and carrier operations. The arresting hook system was particularly challenging because it was a clean-sheet design concept. Design of the control surfaces and edges capitalized on Skunk Works expertise and experience....

Code One Magazine: Unmanned, Virtually Unlimited

[Bastardeux]

the window for cancellation has passed.

In its entirety, yes. I don't think anyone is suggesting it will be cancelled out right; but there is a very real threat of the B & C getting cancelled and the A being significantly reduced in number, regardless of whether the marines already have seven in service. Do you honestly think the programme will be unaffected if the sequester is simply replaced by the same level of normal budget cuts??

[Killface]

In its entirety, yes. I don't think anyone is suggesting it will be cancelled out right; but there is a very real threat of the B & C getting cancelled

I'll concede there is a question mark on the C because of the tail hook issues, but the B is off probation and has no alternative, unless boeing creates a hovering hornet. It will also be built in larger numbers than the C. They could have canceled the B when it was having its issues back in 2009 2010. but they hung with it instead.

and the A being significantly reduced in number, regardless of whether the marines already have seven in service. Do you honestly think the programme will be unaffected if the sequester is simply replaced by the same level of normal budget cuts??

It will be about what is prioritized and what isn't. for example getting the F-22 meant halving the b-52 fleet. I still think it will be affected but to the point where certain variants are getting the axe won't happen. plus its going to be in production for a long time, the economy may be improved in 2025, or the aircraft being in service and theoretically working as advertised might expand the desire for more. which is precisely what happened with the F-22. within ten years it went from "how much!?" to "how many more can we get?"

If the tail hook works its check mate for the f-35. I'm not trying to advocate one way or other or sell the F-35 as the second coming of jesus, all I am trying to show is how entrenched it is. I have been reading about how the jsf is on the verge of cancellation for years now. or certain variants therein, and its not happening. governments have invested billions and they are building more of every variant every year. Its getting bigger not smaller.

[Bastardeux]

They could have canceled the B when it was having its issues back in 2009 2010. but they hung with it instead.

They hung with it because the budget could tolerate it, but when $500 billion goes missing from your spending plans, something has to give and a hovering, supersonic, stealthy close air support aircraft quickly becomes the elephant in the room.

They're banking on the economy working fine just for their current spending plans to work...which are currently forcing $1 trillion of defense cuts over a decade, so unless there is another major war then I wouldn't count on more money becoming available.

within ten years it went from "how much!?" to "how many more can we get?"

You mean it went from "how much!?" to cancelled at less than half the number the air force said they wanted, even as late as 2007. At the inception of the programme, the total required was over 500!

[orca]

Bastardeux,

I understand where you're coming from - but I think you've missed a fundamental point. The people with the money to spend, who have never waivered from their intent want the supersonic, stealth aircraft capable of hovering.

Now I am sure that Air Forces the world over (some of them naval) will roll their eyes and point out the error of their ways - but who cares? If the USMC wants that capability and can foot the bill, who are we (well - not me incidentally, my opinion on the subject has changed a little over the last year or so) to deny them?

The added irony of course is that no-one in the USN appears to want the C, because they have a supersonic, twin engine beast with an amazing electronic fit that they quite like.

Lastly, yet another thread with some good old British humour about Typhoon, now multi role and at sea! Amazing, genuinely laughed so hard I could only just make out the screen.

(There's another thread where someone says the GR4 is multi role, give that one a go if you've got a corset on, lest your sides split!)

[LowObservable]

Unfortunately, of all the services, the USMC is the one that least "foots the bill", since most of its expensive kit is on the Navy procurement budget. For example, the Commandant doesn't have to choose among F-35Bs and ships, and the Marines are replacing CH-46s one-for-one with the far more costly V-22.

However, the Marines have learned well from pro-life groups, the NRA and teachers' unions: Single-issue lobbying is a powerful weapon.

[Bastardeux]

The people with the money to spend

That's my point, they no longer have the money to spend. The US federal government is currently (or was before the sequester kicked in) running up debt to the tune of $1 trillion a year. It's looking more and more likely that the sequestered cuts will simply be replaced with targeted cuts at which point the Air Force begins to make a very convincing argument that it needs a new 5th gen aircraft at the expense of the Navy's Army's Air Force.

The low hanging fruit for defense cuts has already been picked in the last budget deal...and they now need to double the savings.

The coming choice seems to be between all 3 variants being produced in far fewer numbers, or the A variant being the sole survivor in moderate numbers. Personally, I think the Air Force will win.

Of course, the corps always punches way above its weight on the hill.

[Killface]

That's my point, they no longer have the money to spend. The US federal government is currently (or was before the sequester kicked in) running up debt to the tune of $1 trillion a year. It's looking more and more likely that the sequestered cuts will simply be replaced with targeted cuts at which point the Air Force begins to make a very convincing argument that it needs a new 5th gen aircraft at the expense of the Navy's Army's Air Force.

The US Government is almost always in debt, and still spends 800 billion a year on defense. Its not that secluded, you can make quips about the navy's army's air force all you want, but air assets are routinely used jointly. for example you would never see the navy advocating more carriers over the air forces big wing KC tankers. everyone needs those and uses them. fewer aircraft for one service means fewer aircraft for the air war commander. Marines and navy assets also fight.


now conversely each service gets a budget so the air force can't ransack the maw-rines whenever they are short on funds. everyone gets their piece, and the fact that the marines are buying a jet that if they didn't recieve would drive the cost up for the air force aircraft ensures that all the services will use their individual funds for the greater good. if it was super hornets the air force wouldn't care, but since its a joint project they care. and depriving the marines of something only to increase their own costs , while having fewer tails for a future war overall does not compute. government funding is compartmentalized like that. some service get cut more than others (the Us army is taking the biggest hit, for example)

lobbying as noted plays a part too. the navy won't just stand by while its back up air force gets ransacked, just because the air force is given priority for some reason. When the Navy wants new aircraft carriers they don't get to walk in and start closing down air force bases, because its what the navy needs, and they are short of funds.

so long story short, budgets don't work that way.

The low hanging fruit for defense cuts has already been picked in the last budget deal...and they now need to double the savings.

don't forget there are other things they can't cut rather than airplanes. the marines have postponed amphibious APCs for example. with 800 billion a year spent there is plenty to cut and a lot of services will just cut other stuff depending on how much they want the jsf. there is plenty of low hanging fruit to pick still. I refuse to believe that in the span of one year the military suddenly got super effeicent and there is nothing left to cut. personnel are going to be the biggest cut anyway.

the jsf advocates can also point to the projected savings over the coming decades of operating a single type. which is a promise that has kept the jsf alive for quite some time now. "its not what it costs, its what it saves" will be the rallying cry.

The coming choice seems to be between all 3 variants being produced in far fewer numbers, or the A variant being the sole survivor in moderate numbers. Personally, I think the Air Force will win.

not really. for the reasons i have outlined above. the air force can't raid the navy or marines (which is another navy) bank. the navy may not like the f-35c but even the marines are buying some to help with the carriers. so for example thats 80 F-35cs the navy gets that they can back door thru the marines. if that money goes the odds of getting the same number of super hornets both through them and the marines (who won't want it, and will try to land base them like they do f-18Ds). at that point we are talking about paltry numbers of aircraft for the carriers, thus fewer carriers. the navy wont let that happen.

Of course, the corps always punches way above its weight on the hill.

yes. plus if the b and c get canceld what does the UK do? a tier one partner nation. does the us refund them their money with an apology or something? "Thanks for hanging on all these years, but the US air force wants theirs so only A's will be produced, sorry we waster your time and money" ??

if canceling the B and C death spirals the cost anyway, whats the point? how does it "save"? thats cutting the program to the tune of about 600 fewer aircraft. which drives the cost up further and will see the UK leaving the program? people already fear Canada and the US navy (possibly) leaving as creating a death spiral and thats only 65, and 260 aircraft respectively. what happens when 600 are cut? does it collapse the program? I'm betting yes, in which case the air force certainly doesn't get what they want, which was the point of shafting the the RN, USMC, and USN in the first place.

finally why is it assumed that the USAF will be given priority over all the services anway? What happens if the navy makes a compelling argument that as a fighter centric air wing they need more fighters, and the air force less? Its not like the air force is the only service that has and uses fighters, and the navy could make the case that carriers arrive faster, have EW assets thanks to growlers, and are rapid deployment, all the same arguments that keep carriers around as it is? What if the navy points out that its cheaper to equip them and the marines with super hornets than it is for the air force to equip itself with a smaller number F-35As that have become massively expensive after the cancellation of the B and C? what if the navy twists the knife by adding that the USAF could also use the super hornet, creating a fighter used by all 3 services? no service, not even the navys armys air force or whatever is going to lay down and let someone steal their toys (whether they need them or not)

from the air force perspective cutting the b and c makes their a cost more, so they won't cut them. why pay more in the interest of "saving?"

[Bastardeux]

Jesus, where do I begin.

Simply saying the government is always in debt and still spends 800 billion on defense verges on intentional ignorance. Yes governments borrow to keep liquidity in the public purse, but that is usually paid off in the very short term by their tax income. The simple fact of the matter is that the US is dealing with a colossal structural deficit and needs to save much more than even sequestration mandates.

each service gets a budget so the air force can't ransack the maw-rines whenever they are short on funds.

You're completely missing the point. The Air Force can't, but the politicians can. In the hypothetical (and highly possible) situation that a cut in order numbers for the F35 is demanded by the government, the Air Force would absolutely be in the position to campaign against the marine variant in favour of more As.

Budgets do work that way, budgets work only to deliver what is necessary in the eyes of the government, not to be shared equally between all 3 services for fairness.

You don't have to lecture me about the use of combined air assets as a tool to the chief of joint ops.

with 800 billion a year spent there is plenty to cut and a lot of services will just cut other stuff depending on how much they want the jsf. there is plenty of low hanging fruit to pick still. I refuse to believe that in the span of one year the military suddenly got super effeicent and there is nothing left to cut. personnel are going to be the biggest cut anyway.

This 800 billion you keep quoting is already $525 billion, without sequestration and the war funding, that will evaporate after Afghanistan, isn't included in the cost savings. So just what is this low hanging fruit still to pick?...if you think "efficiencies" are going to save you another $500 billion over the next 9 years, then you would have to be on glue or something.

Not really, for the reasons i have outlined above. the air force can't raid the navy or marines' (which is another navy) bank. the navy may not like the f-35c but even the marines are buying some to help with the carriers. so for example that's 80 F-35cs the navy gets that they can back door through the marines. if that money goes the odds of getting the same number of super hornets both through them and the marines (who won't want it, and will try to land base them like they do f-18Ds). at that point we are talking about paltry numbers of aircraft for the carriers, thus fewer carriers. the navy wont let that happen.

Well for a start, in all these budget cuts, the threat of losing one carrier strike group is also very real possibility anyway. How would opting for an in-service, cheaper alternative aircraft mean even fewer air frames???

if canceling the B and C death spirals the cost anyway, whats the point? how does it "save"? thats cutting the program to the tune of about 600 fewer aircraft. which drives the cost up further and will see the UK leaving the program? people already fear Canada and the US navy (possibly) leaving as creating a death spiral and thats only 65, and 260 aircraft respectively. what happens when 600 are cut? does it collapse the program? I'm betting yes, in which case the air force certainly doesn't get what they want, which was the point of shafting the the RN, USMC, and USN in the first place.

Obviously no-one involved wants any aircraft cancelled, but I can guarantee that aircraft numbers are going to fall significantly and any cut in numbers is going to increase the cost...but refining the programme to just one design would probably mitigate some of those extra costs. You speak as if you still believe 2400 is an achievable number for the US services, which to me seems quite blatantly not the case any more. I would go as far as to say I would be surprised if they achieve half that number.

Why does the Air Force get priority over the marines in the air warfare game? I think the answer is pretty self explanatory, especially as the navy don't want the F35.

why pay more in the interest of "saving?"

like they did with the F22, B2, F117 etc?

At this point I would like to reiterate that, in the eyes of the US treasury, it's all about gross savings, not marginal savings.

[SpazSinbad]

Third F-35 for the UK Arrives at Eglin AFB

Lockheed Martin Corporation : Third F-35 for the UK Arrives at Eglin Air Force Base 26 Jun 2013

"FORT WORTH, Texas, June 26, 2013 - The third Lockheed Martin [LMT] F-35B Short Takeoff/Vertical Landing (STOVL) Lightning II for the United Kingdom arrived at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., yesterday where it will be used for pilot and maintainer training. U.S. Marine Corps Lt. Col. Roger Hardy piloted the aircraft known as BK-3 (ZM137) on its 90-minute ferry flight from the Lockheed Martin F-35 production facility at Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base...."

Lockheed Martin Corporation : Third F-35 for the UK Arrives at Eglin Air Force Base | 4-Traders

[Killface]

At this point I would like to reiterate that, in the eyes of the US treasury, it's all about gross savings, not marginal savings.

agreed, now how does your theory save exactly though?

Obviously no-one involved wants any aircraft cancelled, but I can guarantee that aircraft numbers are going to fall significantly and any cut in numbers is going to increase the cost...but refining the programme to just one design would probably mitigate some of those extra costs. You speak as if you still believe 2400 is an achievable number for the US services, which to me seems quite blatantly not the case any more. I would go as far as to say I would be surprised if they achieve half that number.

Why does the Air Force get priority over the marines in the air warfare game? I think the answer is pretty self explanatory, especially as the navy don't want the F35.

probably how?

I'm failing to see how the USAF urging for the cancellation of the B and C, which eliminates over 600 aircraft in the US alone, not even including variants international partners will need, and have already invested time an treasure in (like the UK). And that causes fewer F-35s of all types to be purchased overall, thus driving up the cost for other countries that will buy the F-35A like the dutch, norwegiens, Japanese, Australians, and Canadians, who are already having a hard time justifying the cost as it is.

It seems kind of knee jerk to me. and it doesn't make the aircraft cheaper for the air force. It deprives them of interservice, and international support. and the program would essentially collapse as the USAF decides it will destroy the program because only it is worthy of receiving them? your hypothesis is "the jsf will cost so much the only option to get more of them is to make them cost more, and then buy more of them"

Even if the navy doesn't like the F-35C they have publicly acknowledged that their participation helps the program and they will essentially take one for the team, like it or lump it. everyone knows that if they play the jsf game, they get more airplanes rather than going it alone and getting less. speaking of budgets and beggars not being choosers, the DoD doesn't really care about the navy's opinion. they are getting them, providing they can catch a wire

I'm all for saving money and getting a lot of airplanes, what you suggest does neither. so it doesn't help with the trillion dollar debt. if it saved money it might be worth considering, but you have not shown me how killing the b and c would decrease overall cost after increasing cost on the A variant. how does that lead to a net savings? or alternately, how does it lead to more F-35s purchased? you said:

The coming choice seems to be between all 3 variants being produced in far fewer numbers, or the A variant being the sole survivor in moderate numbers.

I would like to see how you conclude that the sole survivor scenario does in fact mean more JSFs overall, than say a 20 percent reduction for the USN (current plan 260) and USMC (current plan 420, total = 680 aircraft F-35B and C) which would be 544 aircraft at 80 percent of planned right now. how does the Air Force meet or exceed that number? can you explain to me how many more the USAF would get with "moderate" numbers? How does the USAF kill the F-35 B and C and get more JSFs than the two services combined would have gotten anyway albeit in fewer numbers? Why does the air force decide to pay more for aircraft it was going to purchase anyway? the JSF line is going to run for decades, why would the USAF push for the cancelation of the B and C now and spend the next 20-30 years trying to carry the load all by itself at a higher cost with no international help?

You might have a case if the USN or USMC could be persuaded into buying the F-35A, because it does simplify things, and doesn't take away 600 aircraft that drive up the cost for the few poor bastards who actually stay in the program (which would be no one, since there are alternatives). It would be your F-22, B-2 scenario all over again. which is why they wont do it. I would think the countries that have been involved in the program would have a problem with it as well. you end up with an F-22 the sequel. an overly expensive jet that only the USAF has.

If the option is 400 JSFs for the Air force or 2,000+ for all the US air arms, and all the partner countries then obviously option 2 will happen. its far more likely that all variants are built in fewer numbers, than one variant built in the fewest numbers. even a 33 percent reduction in all projected US JSFs is still over 1600 aircraft. even at that reduced number the B and C account for nearly 450 of that number. but you said "half that number" didn't you? so lets go with that. 340 B's and C's. vs about 850 F-35As for the USAF. so how can the USAF get to nearly 1200 aircraft or more in your scenario, when you are convinced they will only get 850 at the ideal projected price?
if canceling the B/C (850 F-35As) increases that F-35A cost even further, say 20 percent, we are looking at a total of 960 F-35As for the USAF. so how is that more? how is that saving?

If you have some kind of evidence that deliberately death spiraling the program to the point of cancelation would help, I would like to see it and would consider it. I am open to be convinced on this one. or how the cancellation of the B and C make the A cheaper, when the whole theory is saving through mass production.

so to sum it up:

How does canceling the B and C prevent increased costs on the A?

How/why do international partners stay in the program if the cost does increase?

how/why do partners that wanted the B and C stay in the program?

how does the price increase lead to the USAF being able to afford more than if the price was lower, and the burden more evenly spread?

how does higher cost mean more aircraft purchased, when you acknowledge there is less funding?

how does canceling the B and C lead to a net savings? and/or more aircraft?

how does the program not collapse, with the withdrawal of everyone except the USAF?

[Bastardeux]

probably how?

Because it is effectively 3 different aircraft now, all with different problems that are eating cash like you read about. 1 variant means only 1 spares line, 1 supply line etc. Though, I'm by no means suggesting it would cancel out the extra unit costs of an overall numbers cut.

It seems kind of knee jerk to me. and it doesn't make the aircraft cheaper for the air force. It deprives them of interservice, and international support. and the program would essentially collapse as the USAF decides it will destroy the program because only it is worthy of receiving them? your hypothesis is "the jsf will cost so much the only option to get more of them is to make them cost more, and then buy more of them"

Jesus wept. That's not what I'm saying at all!!!! Where on earth are you getting the idea that I'm suggesting a higher total is purchased!?

To make this chrystal clear for you. I'm saying it is highly likely the government is going to say overall numbers of all variants need to be cut. Even without defense cuts, the 2400 total wasn't going to happen. Therefore, let's imagine the US government decides that only 1200 can be afforded, leaving the Air Force sub 1000 F-35As. Given the choice of having an all Air Force, all F35A fleet of 1200 aircraft, at the expense of the marines stealth amphib capability ~ or ~ 3 seperate fleets totalling 1200 aircraft that leave the Air Force with far fewer aircraft than it is happy with, then the Air Force is obviously going to have a very strong argument in favour of canning the most expensive variant, which also happens to fill the least necessary role!

in any case, the A is considerably cheaper, so even if I was making the case that canning the B & C would free up more cash for As, the assumption that a greater number of As could be bought is also true, but that's not my argument, ffs.

[Killface]

Because it is effectively 3 different aircraft now,

It is? I thought they were fairly common?

all with different problems that are eating cash like you read about.

yes they are, but the billions have already been spent. there seems to be a need for these aircraft you aren't seeing.

1 variant means only 1 spares line, 1 supply line etc. Though, I'm by no means suggesting it would cancel out the extra unit costs of an overall numbers cut.

that is the whole goal of the program though, commonality. its replacing the prowler, the hornet, the harrier, and the viper. so the marines with no F-35B would just switch to the super hornet/growler? the navy would go all growler/super bug? is that the plan? I'm just trying to see the logic

Jesus wept. That's not what I'm saying at all!!!! Where on earth are you getting the idea that I'm suggesting a higher total is purchased!?

relax, you don't need to be rude. I probably got that impression when you said:

The coming choice seems to be between all 3 variants being produced in far fewer numbers, or the A variant being the sole survivor in moderate numbers.

Therefore, let's imagine the US government decides that only 1200 can be afforded, leaving the Air Force sub 1000 F-35As.

panic

Given the choice of having an all Air Force, all F35A fleet of 1200 aircraft, at the expense of the marines stealth amphib capability ~ or ~ 3 seperate fleets totalling 1200 aircraft that leave the Air Force with far fewer aircraft than it is happy with, then the Air Force is obviously going to have a very strong argument in favour of canning the most expensive variant, which also happens to fill the least necessary role!

The B or C (whichever one they picked this week) is necessary to the royal navy, even if you don't think so. its necessary to the marines, and yes even the navy. you are seeing this from a completely american perspective with the basis that if the USAF doesn't get its toys everyone else has to give theirs up. apparently the USAF being short of F-35s is a tragedy and everyone else being short of f-35s is a minor inconvenience.

you are experiencing the jsf blues. its a common affliction that happens when you discover that a tri service aircraft isn't what you want because it hurts the service you think is most important. the only cure is a time machine back to the mid 1990s, before someone thought the whole thing up. what you are advocating is a JSF that isn't a JSF. but a single fighter for air forces, with the navies of the world and marines buying other things. thus not a joint program. if you think the JSF is suddenly going to become a single service fighter in the interest of saving, you are far far too late.

by the time your "OMG we only have 1000!!" problem comes up the JSF will have probably been in service for 10 years. in which case I guess the USAF can try stealing the Bs and Cs for themselves. I'm sure they would love em. you may well be right someday, but too late to do anything about it.