F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Navy push to rename Dave as "Sea Lightning".
If it's to be flown by both services it don't see the point, except a political inter-service one. Not a a good way to start.....
If it's to be flown by both services it don't see the point, except a political inter-service one. Not a a good way to start.....
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In exactly the same way that the Phantom, Buccaneer, Wessex, Whirlwind and Gannet all had "Sea" prefixed to their service names - I can see the tradition. 
However, using the SHar abbreviation, could the Sea Lightning become the SLig or even with a tweak the "SLug" in service.
On a personal level, I am not dead against the 'Sea' bit if they were FAA assets - but IIRC they are going to be RAF creatures, operated jointly, and will use the best of JFH learnt doctrine to deliver effect.
NB: and I am not taking the P... with the last bit, because the Harrier force in Afghanistan, and prior to that, was doing a good job.
However, using the SHar abbreviation, could the Sea Lightning become the SLig or even with a tweak the "SLug" in service.
On a personal level, I am not dead against the 'Sea' bit if they were FAA assets - but IIRC they are going to be RAF creatures, operated jointly, and will use the best of JFH learnt doctrine to deliver effect.
NB: and I am not taking the P... with the last bit, because the Harrier force in Afghanistan, and prior to that, was doing a good job.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, for those who think SC6G is a replacement for F-15s: the planned replacement for the F-15 is the F-35. The USAF still nominally has a 1900-fighter goal, which nominally is covered by 1763 F-35s and 140-ish F-22s.
And if the SC6G is to follow the F-35 into production (well after 2035) it is ridiculously early in the game to be funding prototypes.
And if the SC6G is to follow the F-35 into production (well after 2035) it is ridiculously early in the game to be funding prototypes.
I wouldn't argue with the fiscally challenging nature of replacing multiple platforms though.
In exactly the same way that the Phantom, Buccaneer, Wessex, Whirlwind and Gannet all had "Sea" prefixed to their service names - I can see the tradition.
The "Sea" prefix was for aircraft adopted for RN use from an original land based ( usually RAF ) type or specification:
Hence: Sea Balliol, Sea Fury, Sea Gladiator, Sea Harrier, Sea Hornet, Sea Hurricane, Sea Mosquito, Sea Vampire , Sea Venom, Sea Prince,Sea Devon, Sea Heron and even Sea Typhoon ( although this came to nought), Sea Otter, Sea Hawk and Sea Vixen also originated with the Air Staff/Ministry. Seafire ( originally Sea Spitfire) and Seafang were close cousins to this philosophy.
This would have been a Sea Lightning...
Otherwise it should no more be Sea Lightning than the F-4K was the Sea Phantom. The prefix "Sea" in this context has a long history, indicating the kludging of a land-based design into a naval aircraft with greater or lesser success.
WW - According to the great book of SAR the Navy would have money to start buying a future fighter in 2030 once the F-35B/C fleet is done, and as Super Hs start to reach retirement age. Nobody has set a retirement age for the F-22 as yet but as there are only 140-some combat-capable airframes, that in itself is not a big requirement.
Otherwise it should no more be Sea Lightning than the F-4K was the Sea Phantom. The prefix "Sea" in this context has a long history, indicating the kludging of a land-based design into a naval aircraft with greater or lesser success.
WW - According to the great book of SAR the Navy would have money to start buying a future fighter in 2030 once the F-35B/C fleet is done, and as Super Hs start to reach retirement age. Nobody has set a retirement age for the F-22 as yet but as there are only 140-some combat-capable airframes, that in itself is not a big requirement.
Given the original design goals for sea use we should probably call the other compromised version the Land Lightning.
But then the RN (especially the Marines) never drove around in "Sea Rovers"!
F-35C Sea Lightning
F-35A Concrete Lightning
F-35B Dirt Lightning (or Smoking Concrete Lightning)
(As for the name Lightning, I recall posting the clip from To The Manor Born which explained that perfectly.)
F-35A Concrete Lightning
F-35B Dirt Lightning (or Smoking Concrete Lightning)
(As for the name Lightning, I recall posting the clip from To The Manor Born which explained that perfectly.)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
F-35Cs Cut Back As U.S. Navy Invests In Standoff Weapons
The U.S. Navy has reduced its planned buys of the Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter by almost one-third over the fiscal 2016-2020 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), while committing almost $800 million to new standoff weapon developments and canceling the only missile program that was primarily dedicated to the F-35C. All the new developments are part of the fiscal 2016 presidential budget proposal and constitute the first move by a U.S. service to slow down its JSF procurements.
This year’s budget buys four F-35Cs, including two added late in 2014 by the lame-duck Congress. The Navy now plans to buy another four aircraft each in FY2016 and 2017. The rate ramps up slowly in the final three years of the FYDP, peaking at 12 aircraft in FY2020 and buying 38 F-35Cs in the plan period. The FYDP includes 83 F-35Bs for the Marine Corps, unchanged from earlier years.
Under 2015 plans the Navy would have bought 54 F-35Cs in the FY16-20, with F-35C production reaching 20 per year in 2020. 19. The JSF Program Office states that “the Navy’s commitment to the program remains strong” and that it expects the Navy’s cutbacks to be offset by international JSF procurements.”..........
The Navy’s budget priorities reflect the views of Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert. In June 2012, shortly after he was appointed as CNO, Greenert published an article in the Naval Institute’s Proceedings magazine that downplayed the importance of advanced platforms, including stealth aircraft, in favor of “payloads” including standoff weapons. Speaking to a Navy technology conference in Washington on Feb. 4, Greenert reemphasized these points, saying that any future fighter will likely "not be so super-fast because you can't outrun missiles, and not so super-stealthy because you can't be invisible. Stealth may be overrated," he said. "If you move fast through the air...that puts out heat and you are going to be detected."
The U.S. Navy has reduced its planned buys of the Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter by almost one-third over the fiscal 2016-2020 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), while committing almost $800 million to new standoff weapon developments and canceling the only missile program that was primarily dedicated to the F-35C. All the new developments are part of the fiscal 2016 presidential budget proposal and constitute the first move by a U.S. service to slow down its JSF procurements.
This year’s budget buys four F-35Cs, including two added late in 2014 by the lame-duck Congress. The Navy now plans to buy another four aircraft each in FY2016 and 2017. The rate ramps up slowly in the final three years of the FYDP, peaking at 12 aircraft in FY2020 and buying 38 F-35Cs in the plan period. The FYDP includes 83 F-35Bs for the Marine Corps, unchanged from earlier years.
Under 2015 plans the Navy would have bought 54 F-35Cs in the FY16-20, with F-35C production reaching 20 per year in 2020. 19. The JSF Program Office states that “the Navy’s commitment to the program remains strong” and that it expects the Navy’s cutbacks to be offset by international JSF procurements.”..........
The Navy’s budget priorities reflect the views of Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert. In June 2012, shortly after he was appointed as CNO, Greenert published an article in the Naval Institute’s Proceedings magazine that downplayed the importance of advanced platforms, including stealth aircraft, in favor of “payloads” including standoff weapons. Speaking to a Navy technology conference in Washington on Feb. 4, Greenert reemphasized these points, saying that any future fighter will likely "not be so super-fast because you can't outrun missiles, and not so super-stealthy because you can't be invisible. Stealth may be overrated," he said. "If you move fast through the air...that puts out heat and you are going to be detected."
Gentleman Aviator
And why Sea Prince and not Sea Pembroke; for was that not what it was??
Alternatively, should the Pemmie have been a "Land Prince"??
Alternatively, should the Pemmie have been a "Land Prince"??
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC:
You could almost be forgiven for thinking the USN is taking F35Cs under duress rather than of choice... which I think is exactly what is happening. A year or so ago they took an option on another 50-odd (or about that, I can't remember the exact number) SuperHornets. This was quickly withdrawn as the notice had apparently been 'issued in error'. With a less urgent need to recapitalise its fixed wing fast jet fleet and Greenert clearly not a fan, and with development both sluggish and expensive, they appear more attracted to UCLASS to supplement/replace their Superbug fleet as it ages. But they will have to support the USMC's F35Cs and I guess the combined USN/USMC order is necessary to justify the aircraft in the first place. I can't recall that there are currently any other takers for this version.
LF
The U.S. Navy has reduced its planned buys of the Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter by almost one-third over the fiscal 2016-2020 Future Years Defense Program......
LF
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could almost be forgiven for thinking the USN is taking F35Cs under duress rather than of choice... which I think is exactly what is happening.
Now, the USAF will be left with trying to figure out how the F-35A actually fits into their overall mission, given the shortcomings identified so far, same as what happened with the F-111. The USAF F-35A replacement aircraft will follow the USN's replacement aircraft for the F-35C.
History repeats itself…
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Either people can't read or they are just living in their own world.
The article never says the USN is reducing their total buy, much less giving up on the aircraft. It simply says that, instead of getting 54 F-35Cs by 2020, the USN wants to get 38 by 2020. So they reduce the LRIP a little.
No mention is made of reducing buys after 2020, when full-rate production is to begin.
However, this is enough to trigger the "OH MY G@D THE SKY IS FALLING AND THE F-35C IS DOOMED FOREVER" brigade to hare off in full cry.
The article never says the USN is reducing their total buy, much less giving up on the aircraft. It simply says that, instead of getting 54 F-35Cs by 2020, the USN wants to get 38 by 2020. So they reduce the LRIP a little.
No mention is made of reducing buys after 2020, when full-rate production is to begin.
However, this is enough to trigger the "OH MY G@D THE SKY IS FALLING AND THE F-35C IS DOOMED FOREVER" brigade to hare off in full cry.