F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, given the time its taken, it's last generation technology
It has been increasingly clear for a long time that no-one can build a state-of -the art fighter without over expending vast sums = cuts = increased unit price etc etc
N R Augustine's Law 16, still holds
Defence budgets grow linearly but the unit cost of a new military aircraft grows exponentially: In the year 2054, the entire defence budget will purchase just one aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3½ days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day.
It has been increasingly clear for a long time that no-one can build a state-of -the art fighter without over expending vast sums = cuts = increased unit price etc etc
N R Augustine's Law 16, still holds
Defence budgets grow linearly but the unit cost of a new military aircraft grows exponentially: In the year 2054, the entire defence budget will purchase just one aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3½ days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day.
F-35B is not the USMC's only airpower option, its the USMC's only fixed-wing airpower option.
the nasty, grotty truth is the USMC's CAS needs would be far better supplied by 3 times as many AH-64's as F-35B, as F-35B doesn't have a gun, is so expensive that it can't be forward based where it might get walloped ala Bastion, and is so expensive that the USMC's buy will be too small to provide them with the on-call, right-now, everywhere-we-are CAS that they require as a high-end expeditionary force.
the only people really driving this programme are the USMC, and they are the people who's doctrine least needs a stealthy, high-cost, no external ordinance, based-far-from-danger platform - everyone else is getting F-35 because the USMC need the other services to buy it to allow them to have their version.
the nasty, grotty truth is the USMC's CAS needs would be far better supplied by 3 times as many AH-64's as F-35B, as F-35B doesn't have a gun, is so expensive that it can't be forward based where it might get walloped ala Bastion, and is so expensive that the USMC's buy will be too small to provide them with the on-call, right-now, everywhere-we-are CAS that they require as a high-end expeditionary force.
the only people really driving this programme are the USMC, and they are the people who's doctrine least needs a stealthy, high-cost, no external ordinance, based-far-from-danger platform - everyone else is getting F-35 because the USMC need the other services to buy it to allow them to have their version.
The USMC does at least have the option to fly (say) newer F18's (not to mention some 2nd hand harriers 
)...it is the brit FAA who do not have a plan B at present,because their guvmint decided to build a carrier without cats etc LOL
)...it is the brit FAA who do not have a plan B at present,because their guvmint decided to build a carrier without cats etc LOL
JSFfan,
This is a site for military aircrew and those that support them; it is not a fanboy site. To help your education there is a gulf between operating an aircraft and making it operational. There is even more work required to turn an operational aircraft assigned to a squadron into an operational squadron. Yet more to turn it into an operational capability.
Please keep in mind that flying the F-35B around is far from operational. Operational aircraft need to be able to fly at night, fly in cloud, fly at meaningful speeds, at meaningful altitudes with meaningful software with key systems fitted and switched on.
For an aircraft designed to carry ordinance it worthwhile to remember how many live IR missiles have been fired, how many AMRAAM, how many gun rounds, how many live stores from how many cleared stations. Beyond that you may wish to remember how many electrons the EW systems have moved about and how often any of this has been tied together as a complete package.
The aircraft has a long way to go to being operational vs giving the pilots and support elements something to do.
This is a site for military aircrew and those that support them; it is not a fanboy site. To help your education there is a gulf between operating an aircraft and making it operational. There is even more work required to turn an operational aircraft assigned to a squadron into an operational squadron. Yet more to turn it into an operational capability.
Please keep in mind that flying the F-35B around is far from operational. Operational aircraft need to be able to fly at night, fly in cloud, fly at meaningful speeds, at meaningful altitudes with meaningful software with key systems fitted and switched on.
For an aircraft designed to carry ordinance it worthwhile to remember how many live IR missiles have been fired, how many AMRAAM, how many gun rounds, how many live stores from how many cleared stations. Beyond that you may wish to remember how many electrons the EW systems have moved about and how often any of this has been tied together as a complete package.
The aircraft has a long way to go to being operational vs giving the pilots and support elements something to do.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it might help if you read what I wrote "the first operational F-35 unit (VMFA-121) F-35 got it's first F-35B"
and I said they were "standing a squadron" not that the squadron or the f-35b will be IOC
and I said they were "standing a squadron" not that the squadron or the f-35b will be IOC
Last edited by JSFfan; 18th Nov 2012 at 11:26.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cokecan,
You have upset me now. I am going to sulk. Are you telling me that Mrs Hval is the only person that thinks I am important, and possibly not her either?
sorry, i was talking about important people. us wanting - really, really wanting - to buy 50 F-35's does not put us in that bracket.
The problem is that the UK, by reverting to the B, has made STOVL the key to its biggest defense equipment plan.
The F-35B in the US is also sustained by the thesis that STOVL fast-jet air is a strategic necessity, but will you find that view supported in public by anyone except the Marines and their support network.
And if you think that Carrier Navy is happy about more than half the service's TacAir recap budget going to the Grunts, think again.
NaB - The campaign that you mention is a reality. What's gradually changing is that, a couple of years ago, to talk too loudly about whether Hornet/Growler is a better investment for the Navy, at least for the next 10-15 years, was not career-enhancing. Now that a lot of Hornet/Growler people are rising to flag rank, it's different.
The F-35B in the US is also sustained by the thesis that STOVL fast-jet air is a strategic necessity, but will you find that view supported in public by anyone except the Marines and their support network.
And if you think that Carrier Navy is happy about more than half the service's TacAir recap budget going to the Grunts, think again.
NaB - The campaign that you mention is a reality. What's gradually changing is that, a couple of years ago, to talk too loudly about whether Hornet/Growler is a better investment for the Navy, at least for the next 10-15 years, was not career-enhancing. Now that a lot of Hornet/Growler people are rising to flag rank, it's different.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even Australia said the Shornet is fine for the next 10-15 as day one, but you can't swap the fleet over in one year for the needed numbers of f-35 for 15+ years and that's the reason we are getting our first delivery in 2014...so there is no gap in the switch-over.
The USMC isn't happy that the USN is getting 50% of TACAIR funds either, sounds normal.
The USMC isn't happy that the USN is getting 50% of TACAIR funds either, sounds normal.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The aircraft has a long way to go to being operational vs giving the pilots and support elements something to do.
Marines’ First Frontline Stealth Fighter Lacks Vital Gear
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave-B
ORAC, thanks
It seems to this unreconstructed cynic that the USMC may be pushing ahead this hard in order to make Dave-B a fait accompli when the budget cutters cut their deal to avoid the fiscal cliff over the next few weeks.
However, it's so transparently absurd to claim that VFMA-121 is combat ready, or will be anytime soon, that if anything it focusses attention on whether the USMC needs Dave-B at all? If so, is it worth the (very considerable) price?
Given that, as LO points out
Yup!
I hope saner heads prevail in DC, and that the B is dumped after setting as many FAI World Records as it can. Leaves us in the untreated sewage, but will force HMG to find the cash to convert CVF to CATOBAR and order Dave-C (which was, arguably, the most sensible decision in SDSR - not that there was a lot of competition for that award....
)
S41
It seems to this unreconstructed cynic that the USMC may be pushing ahead this hard in order to make Dave-B a fait accompli when the budget cutters cut their deal to avoid the fiscal cliff over the next few weeks.
However, it's so transparently absurd to claim that VFMA-121 is combat ready, or will be anytime soon, that if anything it focusses attention on whether the USMC needs Dave-B at all? If so, is it worth the (very considerable) price?
Given that, as LO points out
And if you think that Carrier Navy is happy about more than half the service's TacAir recap budget going to the Grunts, think again.
I hope saner heads prevail in DC, and that the B is dumped after setting as many FAI World Records as it can. Leaves us in the untreated sewage, but will force HMG to find the cash to convert CVF to CATOBAR and order Dave-C (which was, arguably, the most sensible decision in SDSR - not that there was a lot of competition for that award....
)S41
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You do realise that the B being cancelled now would mean the death of fixed carrier air in the UK. Anyone who wants the B cancelled wants fixed RN aviation dead at this point. It's far far too late, 2010 was far too late.
CVF was always going to be STOVL if you read all the presentations and design synopsis it's always in terms of STOVL. 2010 would have been a rubbish mickey mouse part time carrier capability, it was one carrier only, 1 fricking carrier what's the point. You need at least two to provide 365 day a year 24/7 carrier capability. The reasons it was going to be expensive to do then are even worse now.
Right now two gigantic sections of QE (mostly internally fitted out) are sat in Roysth No 1 Dock with large sections of the rest of it sat on the side of the dock. EMALS won't be certified on the G Ford until 2015 (there is absolutely no guarentee that this will actually happen). The POW will be mostly built by 2015, in fact large blocks of it are well underway all over the country.
I'm willing to bet a one of two reasons that the cat and trap cost was so high would have been delaying the POW build several years (the carriers build start has already been delayed a year and added a billion on in costs). The sheer cost involved in ripping one completed and one mostly completed aircraft carrier apart will be eye watering (plus the ships were built in many different blocks so the skills and knowledge to do it is scattered across the country not all in one place, it'd be an expensive logistical nightmare) not to mention the cost of redesign work, certification the whole smash.
Then factor in that the navy wouldn't be getting an aircraft carrier in 2016 for trials but an indeterminate time afterwards 'capability holiday' indeed. All the planning gets totally screwed, which leads to yet more costs. If the B gets cancelled then its likely that the government completes the carriers and then either moth balls them or sells them which is what the SDSR was going to do with one of them lest we forget. It's going to be a lot harder justifying getting rid of one of them in 2015 if you can just pop the planes off QE and onto POW to give that year round capability. I'd rather have two carriers flying aircraft we are already buying (we own two already) and a year round capability.
CVF was always going to be STOVL if you read all the presentations and design synopsis it's always in terms of STOVL. 2010 would have been a rubbish mickey mouse part time carrier capability, it was one carrier only, 1 fricking carrier what's the point. You need at least two to provide 365 day a year 24/7 carrier capability. The reasons it was going to be expensive to do then are even worse now.
Right now two gigantic sections of QE (mostly internally fitted out) are sat in Roysth No 1 Dock with large sections of the rest of it sat on the side of the dock. EMALS won't be certified on the G Ford until 2015 (there is absolutely no guarentee that this will actually happen). The POW will be mostly built by 2015, in fact large blocks of it are well underway all over the country.
I'm willing to bet a one of two reasons that the cat and trap cost was so high would have been delaying the POW build several years (the carriers build start has already been delayed a year and added a billion on in costs). The sheer cost involved in ripping one completed and one mostly completed aircraft carrier apart will be eye watering (plus the ships were built in many different blocks so the skills and knowledge to do it is scattered across the country not all in one place, it'd be an expensive logistical nightmare) not to mention the cost of redesign work, certification the whole smash.
Then factor in that the navy wouldn't be getting an aircraft carrier in 2016 for trials but an indeterminate time afterwards 'capability holiday' indeed. All the planning gets totally screwed, which leads to yet more costs. If the B gets cancelled then its likely that the government completes the carriers and then either moth balls them or sells them which is what the SDSR was going to do with one of them lest we forget. It's going to be a lot harder justifying getting rid of one of them in 2015 if you can just pop the planes off QE and onto POW to give that year round capability. I'd rather have two carriers flying aircraft we are already buying (we own two already) and a year round capability.
Good thing the Marines have a degree of perspective when it comes to programs judged in the media and on the hill. Generally they've come out on top.
It is somewhat curious what the squadron designation lost with the transition, VMFA 121 used to be VMFA 121 (AW). The AW standing for all weather, the norm with two seat D models.
It is somewhat curious what the squadron designation lost with the transition, VMFA 121 used to be VMFA 121 (AW). The AW standing for all weather, the norm with two seat D models.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was with them in 1985-87, they were VMA(AW)-121, with A-6E Intruders (note the lack of fighter function?).
Designations change, as do capabilities, when aircraft types change.
Since NO ONE actually claimed that, this statement shows your bias against the aircraft very well.
VMFA-121 has been, and still is, an operational squadron... one that conducts combat deployments and missions... and not a developmental or training squadron. THAT is what has been said, and it is utterly true!
Yes, it will be ~3 years before the earliest that VMFA-121 could attain operational capability with the F-35B (and possibly longer), but that is the goal, and delivery of the first aircraft to this squadron is the first direct step in the process.
Designations change, as do capabilities, when aircraft types change.
Originally Posted by Squirrel41
However, it's so transparently absurd to claim that VFMA-121 is combat ready, or will be anytime soon,
VMFA-121 has been, and still is, an operational squadron... one that conducts combat deployments and missions... and not a developmental or training squadron. THAT is what has been said, and it is utterly true!
Yes, it will be ~3 years before the earliest that VMFA-121 could attain operational capability with the F-35B (and possibly longer), but that is the goal, and delivery of the first aircraft to this squadron is the first direct step in the process.
Indeed, I remember them in the A6. Wasn't 121 the squadron that bombed the departure end of 7R at NZJ?
Not sure if one can infer anything from the loss of the AW designation. Have to ask around.
Not sure if one can infer anything from the loss of the AW designation. Have to ask around.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't remember... I am pretty sure it was an A-6E squadron (I was there at the time), so it would be either -121 or -242 (Black Bats, with whom I spent 6 months of 1984 in Japan & the Philippines).
-242 is now renamed "Batsmen" to appease the political-correct brigade. This despite the name & mascot not possibly being mistaken for a racial slur... except by those who get paid for each "racially-insensitive" thing they "uncover", and who thus find offensive things that any half-intelligent or more person is able to recognize as absolutely non-racist.
The sticker I had on my USMC ID card in 1985-87:
-242 is now renamed "Batsmen" to appease the political-correct brigade. This despite the name & mascot not possibly being mistaken for a racial slur... except by those who get paid for each "racially-insensitive" thing they "uncover", and who thus find offensive things that any half-intelligent or more person is able to recognize as absolutely non-racist.
The sticker I had on my USMC ID card in 1985-87:
Green Knight did you star in Top Gun during filming?
Best of luck to the boys and girls of VMFA-121 with their new toy.
Slightly digressing here but Green Knight, I do recall the filming credits of Top Gun been allocated to USS Ranger as well as the other 2 carriers (can' remember) and prior to the films release, in 86, must have taken a year or two of preparation and filming so were you on board when Hollywoods finest came to film out of interest?
Back to the F-35 discussion so far the unit allocations been
33rd FW : VMFAT-501, 58th FS, VFA-101 'Gim Reapers'
and now front line VMFA-121 .
anyones guess what the next frontline VFA/VMFA/FS going to be? Anyone squadron with a rich heritage. Umm looking further ahead albeit minus the crystal ball, would it be safe to assume the F-16 USAFE units left in Germany and Italy be the next to receive the 35 following on from the Korean based units?
Cheers
Slightly digressing here but Green Knight, I do recall the filming credits of Top Gun been allocated to USS Ranger as well as the other 2 carriers (can' remember) and prior to the films release, in 86, must have taken a year or two of preparation and filming so were you on board when Hollywoods finest came to film out of interest?
Back to the F-35 discussion so far the unit allocations been
33rd FW : VMFAT-501, 58th FS, VFA-101 'Gim Reapers'
and now front line VMFA-121 .
anyones guess what the next frontline VFA/VMFA/FS going to be? Anyone squadron with a rich heritage. Umm looking further ahead albeit minus the crystal ball, would it be safe to assume the F-16 USAFE units left in Germany and Italy be the next to receive the 35 following on from the Korean based units?
Cheers
Interesting spin recovery chute config (for squippers, anyway)
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope ... the B is dumped .... Leaves us in the untreated sewage, but will force HMG to find the cash to convert CVF to CATOBAR and order Dave-C
I therefore hope F35B happens. Not because I am bowled over by it but because the alternative could easily be much, much worse.
I would have gone cat&trap with Super Hornets (on lease if feasible) pending greater certainty of both cost and performance of F35. But we are past that now. If it was £2bn to fit EMALS 3 months ago, it will be an even bigger number and more delay now.
LF