F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
Interesting points, although it does rather shaft the UK, which as a Level 1 Partner does not send a positive message to the rest, especially those who are already wavering.
It also shafts the Marines and Navy in a way that the USAF would probably love, but the politicos would not allow (given significant lobbying).The Marines do not want lots of shiny Rhinos, they want lots of shiny F-35s and the US Navy still see F-35 as future proofing.
A lot of people in the USN were not initially in favour of the Rhino, when comparing it against the much loved Tomcat it replaced in the Fleet Defence role. However, the wheel turns and the Rhino is now a mainstay of naval aviation.
My personal view is that whilst a slowing is likely, legacy aircraft will be sacrificed for F-35 in the US, in the same way the UK did. Elements of the USAF would love an all Stealth strike force with B-2, F-22 and F-35 operating together.
Interesting points, although it does rather shaft the UK, which as a Level 1 Partner does not send a positive message to the rest, especially those who are already wavering.
It also shafts the Marines and Navy in a way that the USAF would probably love, but the politicos would not allow (given significant lobbying).The Marines do not want lots of shiny Rhinos, they want lots of shiny F-35s and the US Navy still see F-35 as future proofing.
A lot of people in the USN were not initially in favour of the Rhino, when comparing it against the much loved Tomcat it replaced in the Fleet Defence role. However, the wheel turns and the Rhino is now a mainstay of naval aviation.
My personal view is that whilst a slowing is likely, legacy aircraft will be sacrificed for F-35 in the US, in the same way the UK did. Elements of the USAF would love an all Stealth strike force with B-2, F-22 and F-35 operating together.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering how we were stiffed over Skybolt and the A-Bomb in 1945 I'm amazed anyone would be surprised that the cousins would leave us high & dry
But we would have two of the worlds biggest "Helicopter carrying destroyers"
But we would have two of the worlds biggest "Helicopter carrying destroyers"
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would it be too late to revert back to the cats n' traps straight away on the PoW?...I think it would go down as the MoD's most shambolic procurement ever if that did ever happen!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Left high and dry as in being given Polaris and Trident on the cheap? As in them offering up training opportunities for our pilots and deck crews while we are taking a capability holiday? Yank bashing is just so much bull****.
Would it be too late to revert back to the cats n' traps straight away on the PoW?
However, given the current state of the F35 programme, there doesn't appear to be a need to go there atm.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"As in them offering up training opportunities for our pilots and deck crews"
as long as we're buying American.............
In 1962 the Americans offered Polaris because they suddenly realised that the British might walk off and join the French SSBN development - and then the Germans might be involved as well
as long as we're buying American.............
In 1962 the Americans offered Polaris because they suddenly realised that the British might walk off and join the French SSBN development - and then the Germans might be involved as well
What about them? They're in the poo. Even so - as we discussed earlier, pretty much all the think tanks suggest cutting numbers not versions. Almost all of them suggest that land-based Tacair is going to struggle in the WestPac arena, which if anything points at the A taking (proportionally) a larger hit. Of course they then blether on about retiring either the Bone fleet or some of the remaining Buffs which only goes to demonstrate that there isn't necessarily a surfeit of logic going on there.....
Until DoD and the US legislature sort out what they're going to do, there's no point anyone else blundering around trying to predict it. There is a viable plan B (or C for that matter) in the event of the F35B getting canned, it will just cost money, which we may or may not have.
Short version is that no-one (especially the Pte Frasers of this world) knows what will transpire. Until we do, there's very little value gained in running round exercising the International Sign for Panic!
Until DoD and the US legislature sort out what they're going to do, there's no point anyone else blundering around trying to predict it. There is a viable plan B (or C for that matter) in the event of the F35B getting canned, it will just cost money, which we may or may not have.
Short version is that no-one (especially the Pte Frasers of this world) knows what will transpire. Until we do, there's very little value gained in running round exercising the International Sign for Panic!
We're all dooooomed....
Problem is, Mr B, that the defense budgeteers have no good place to run. Congress spent the 00s competing to raise the pay and benefits of Our Warfighters and thereby landed the Pentagon with massive costs that will inevitably increase. The bills for operations here and there continue to fall due, and most of the combat equipment is old except for Reapers and MRAPs and suchlike that are as much use as a chocolate fireguard anywhere except OEF/OIF scenarios.
It's that, not poor logic, that takes out the B-1. It's too expensive for what it does. Might be nice to update it, but that money has to come from R-1 and P-1 and the JSF overruns have eaten all of that.
So the F-35 can and probably will be safe from termination, but nobody seriously imagines that the current, on-the-books plan - sustained deliveries of 120/year to the DoD - can be afforded at all. Anything close to that and there is no new bomber and other things go by the wayside as well. But significantly smaller quantities risk death-spiral territory - F-35Bs getting towards $200 m a pop in full production - unless some miracle-worker can achieve some major cost efficiencies, a task akin to redesigning and rebuilding a moving locomotive.
And read the tealeaves - it's not just Boeing doing new things to the Super Hornet, because the Navy is increasingly along for the ride.
Problem is, Mr B, that the defense budgeteers have no good place to run. Congress spent the 00s competing to raise the pay and benefits of Our Warfighters and thereby landed the Pentagon with massive costs that will inevitably increase. The bills for operations here and there continue to fall due, and most of the combat equipment is old except for Reapers and MRAPs and suchlike that are as much use as a chocolate fireguard anywhere except OEF/OIF scenarios.
It's that, not poor logic, that takes out the B-1. It's too expensive for what it does. Might be nice to update it, but that money has to come from R-1 and P-1 and the JSF overruns have eaten all of that.
So the F-35 can and probably will be safe from termination, but nobody seriously imagines that the current, on-the-books plan - sustained deliveries of 120/year to the DoD - can be afforded at all. Anything close to that and there is no new bomber and other things go by the wayside as well. But significantly smaller quantities risk death-spiral territory - F-35Bs getting towards $200 m a pop in full production - unless some miracle-worker can achieve some major cost efficiencies, a task akin to redesigning and rebuilding a moving locomotive.
And read the tealeaves - it's not just Boeing doing new things to the Super Hornet, because the Navy is increasingly along for the ride.
Congress spent the 00s competing to raise the pay and benefits of Our Warfighters and thereby landed the Pentagon with massive costs that will inevitably increase.
So the F-35 can and probably will be safe from termination, but nobody seriously imagines that the current, on-the-books plan - sustained deliveries of 120/year to the DoD - can be afforded at all. Anything close to that and there is no new bomber and other things go by the wayside as well. But significantly smaller quantities risk death-spiral territory - F-35Bs getting towards $200 m a pop in full production - unless some miracle-worker can achieve some major cost efficiencies
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what you're suggesting, is that the A-model is the least useful/relevant to Pacific Operations, but is required in production to keep the numbers up. I wonder whether that means there's a trade-off in variant numbers vs force structure. Up the B and C numbers (there's plenty of room on those CVN decks) at the expense of A-models, trim the USAF number of TFS/TFW, with the small number of As aimed at fwd deployed units in Korea / Japan. Concentrate on maintaining bomb wing numbers......
The USAF wants to build up a force of F-35As for dealing with AA/AD and targeting relocatable and transportable things wherever they might be. Longer-range things would be more relevant to Pacific, but are expensive and called bombers.
They are needed, the USAF knows they are needed, but two obstacles must be overcome: Reaching IOC and building a strong force takes a lot of time and money, and changing the bomber/fighter balance takes culture change. And nobody, but nobody, will advocate trading fighter wings today for bombers in 2025-and-later.
The A is not required just to keep the numbers up but to stop the USAF tacair force from falling into a hole (age and capability) from which it cannot be extracted in decades.
And you could up the B/C numbers, but even with optimistic assumptions about positive effects on unit cost, that is going to increase the annual bill for JSF procurement, and that's not a possibility.
The B itself would be in better shape if it was not the most expensive variant, if there was a stronger case for the value of deploying small numbers of aircraft on LHA/LHDs, if there was a stronger case for forward/dispersed basing, and if the Marines were going to replace the Harriers first.
They are needed, the USAF knows they are needed, but two obstacles must be overcome: Reaching IOC and building a strong force takes a lot of time and money, and changing the bomber/fighter balance takes culture change. And nobody, but nobody, will advocate trading fighter wings today for bombers in 2025-and-later.
The A is not required just to keep the numbers up but to stop the USAF tacair force from falling into a hole (age and capability) from which it cannot be extracted in decades.
And you could up the B/C numbers, but even with optimistic assumptions about positive effects on unit cost, that is going to increase the annual bill for JSF procurement, and that's not a possibility.
The B itself would be in better shape if it was not the most expensive variant, if there was a stronger case for the value of deploying small numbers of aircraft on LHA/LHDs, if there was a stronger case for forward/dispersed basing, and if the Marines were going to replace the Harriers first.
It's a pickle that is going to have to be worked out some point pretty soon!
Given the shenanigans in Turkey atm, pinning a 3-400 cab order in that direction is - I would suggest - somewhat ambitious.
The USAF wants to build up a force of F-35As for dealing with AA/AD and targeting relocatable and transportable things wherever they might be.
The A is not required just to keep the numbers up but to stop the USAF tacair force from falling into a hole (age and capability) from which it cannot be extracted in decades.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 9th Aug 2013 at 15:32.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the shenanigans in Turkey atm, pinning a 3-400 cab order in that direction is - I would suggest - somewhat ambitious.
You are assuming that there is a need for a large USAF tacair force which will struggle to play in WestPac.
Last edited by Bastardeux; 9th Aug 2013 at 16:21.
Not all the world is WestPac, and land-based TacAir can provide sortie rates and cover lots of targets. And if you rely mainly on CV, then your adversary has even more incentive to invest in keeping them nervous and at a distance.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Comments provided by the neutral Winslow Wheeler....
No mention that the the F-35 pilot doesn't need a huge canopy - DAS will fix any supposed blind spots and give better visibility than the A10 jockey.
Valid point on the ammo load - but in that theater in that scenario a Herc gunship could have provided equal suppression with a longer loiter time. The Marine conversions (Combat Talon?) are even armed with Hellfires aren't they?
No mention that the the F-35 pilot doesn't need a huge canopy - DAS will fix any supposed blind spots and give better visibility than the A10 jockey.
Valid point on the ammo load - but in that theater in that scenario a Herc gunship could have provided equal suppression with a longer loiter time. The Marine conversions (Combat Talon?) are even armed with Hellfires aren't they?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Valid point on the ammo load - but in that theater in that scenario a Herc gunship could have provided equal suppression with a longer loiter time.
I will take Wheeler's demonstrated prediction CEP over any LockMart xvp's...
As for DAS, even program people will admit that (if and when they get it and the HMD to work) it has lower acuity than the current night vision camera built into the helmet, which is itself not good enough for landing guidance. Not much of a Mk 1 eyeball replacement for CAS.
As for DAS, even program people will admit that (if and when they get it and the HMD to work) it has lower acuity than the current night vision camera built into the helmet, which is itself not good enough for landing guidance. Not much of a Mk 1 eyeball replacement for CAS.
Last edited by LowObservable; 11th Aug 2013 at 13:50.