Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Old 4th Mar 2017, 17:04
  #10301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Once again the old reverse ad hominem comes out.

I think you're very brave to be accusing pilots of being liars in this forum.

Nobody's accusing anyone of anything. Buster just said it was part of their job to say nice things about the jet, as indeed it is, see this:

http://cdn.warisboring.com/images/F-...s-Guidance.pdf

And since everyone's into appeal-to-authority mode here, do you mind if I pull rank?

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS...J-20170216.pdf

On page 6, Harris is urging Congress not to authorize more than 48 F-35As per year through FY22 (2024 delivery year) - previous plans have called for the rate to rise to 60 or 80 jets. If you read the whole thing, the message is that "we'd like to hold back from getting every F-35A LM can build until we have the fixes and improvements in Block 4".

Which is pretty logical, even though it doesn't exactly mesh with the fans' view of the current capability. With some improvements to datalinks, sensors and memory, and some artificial intelligence to process sensor data onboard in real time, the F-35 should get close to Deptula's E/R/A/F-35 ideal and will be quite useful for many missions. Now, how many of those will take advantage of supersonic speed and a 9g airframe is another story...
George K Lee is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2017, 00:52
  #10302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
Tupolev Tu-144 performed its maiden flight earlier than Concorde, had higher cruise speed (only about 50-100 km/hr, but still..), flew higher and had higher passsenger capacity. However, it also represented a much greater commercial failure than Concorde, and its regular flights lasted for about two years only as its costs ineffectiveness was enormous.
For which it got the Golden Raspberry.


but the Russian one is quite comparable. It is not in the serial production, but being developed and tested, indeed.
Aah the PAK-FA T50. You jest. Do give a heads up when it goes into production, the initial order is ...er 12. Engine to follow some years later.
Russia's New PAK-FA Stealth Fighter Might Have a Fatal Flaw (or Two) | The National Interest Blog

The one partner the Russians did manage to persuade to join the project, India, has been most unhappy with it.

Comparable...possibly not.
Brat is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2017, 01:19
  #10303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,150
Brat,
Indeed, according to Russian sources, there is a lively debate within the Russian military as to whether or not stealth aircraft like the T-50 are worth the money.
Something the US Department of Defense ought to be looking at in a lively debate as well, example F-35.
So the POTUS is currently proposing a $50B increase in the US Defense spending budget. Hopefully, if this proposal comes about (doubtful), the majority of whatever it turns out to be won't be consumed by the F-35 program, both procurement, ongoing maintenance and whatever upgrades are required to keep up with the times...

BTW, never underestimate the capability of the adversary, what you read in a magazine article might not be what you think, that is, unless you are a standing member of one or more government technology intelligence agencies and in the know.

Last edited by Turbine D; 5th Mar 2017 at 01:25. Reason: Word correction
Turbine D is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2017, 12:32
  #10304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
Aah yes about ‘fanboys’... how about the pilots who will be sitting in F-35 seats, or, the commanders who will be sending their young men into battle in F-35’s. How do they feel about the new weapon system.
Marine Corps: F-35 is the best thing on the block

And when do they want them...
Top Marine Corps aviator wants F-35Bs faster than planned.

What I am reading is what the people who are using the system say, not what the armchair critics like A Van and Rhino say.

Far from underestimating the enemy...hard to estimate the ‘equivalent' enemy machine A Van touts, it simply isn’t there to be estimated, the lively debate in the US military seems to be, not about whether the F-35’s are worth the money, but why can’t we get these weapons quicker.
Brat is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2017, 14:03
  #10305 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: key biscayne
Age: 57
Posts: 110
Sure are a lot of pages for a "what if" title.
IcePaq is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2017, 14:53
  #10306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
The lively debate in the US military seems to be, not about whether the F-35’s are worth the money, but why can’t we get these weapons quicker.

I suggest that you study MG Jerry Harris' testimony (linked in my previous post) and the evolution of the Navy's procurement plans in the last three years. After all, in the US military, these are the largest aviation services, the services that have the deep-strike mission, and those principally charged with providing air power to COCOMs.

We all know what the Marines think, but as the man said "where you stand depends on where you sit". Having planned very little in life-extensions or upgrades for Hornets and Harriers, and not having bought a single new fighter in decades, the Marines have a fleet of old and not-very-technically-current airplanes.

Moreover, their airplanes come from the Navy budget. At no point do Marine procurement and operations costs converge in a single Marine top-line where the Commandant and a (theoretical) Marine Corps Secretary have to trade F-35s against amphibs or new barracks or V-22s.

So it's hardly surprising that the Marine leaders want more F-35s, is it?
George K Lee is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2017, 16:23
  #10307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
The links in your previous posts seem nothing but enthusiastic, with little evidence of ‘holding back’.

As for your ‘we all know what the Marines think’ is perfectly appropriate since as their role is, front line, first use, expeditionary force, and, the ground force projection unit of the US Navy, they are likely to be early to any conflict. And where else would their budget come from as a part of the US Navy?

As for the USMC 'not having planned any life-extensions for their Harriers' you seem to have picked on the only Harrier operator that has extended the life of that system well beyond any other Nation or Air Force/Navy that operated the type, and, will continue to use them until at least 2025. The Hornets are planned to go on till 2029.

So much for your
Having planned very little in life-extensions or upgrades for Hornets and Harriers, and not having bought a single new fighter in decades, the Marines have a fleet of old and not-very-technically-current airplanes.
https://news.usni.org/2014/11/03/u-s...d-life-hornets
https://news.usni.org/2014/11/03/doc...-aviation-plan

At present the USMC is the largest unit with the most modern warplane on active service in the air today.

More study George, would indeed seem very appropriate, your isolation in S Skerry is doing you no good.
Brat is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2017, 18:13
  #10308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
The keyword is "planned". A planned life extension is not the same as "keeping them airborne because the replacement is late and expensive".

Marines Are Flying Only 60% of F-18 Hornets They Need « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

As for your ‘we all know what the Marines think’ is perfectly appropriate since as their role is, front line, first use, expeditionary force, and, the ground force projection unit of the US Navy, they are likely to be early to any conflict.

Ah, yes, the amphibious landing on a defended coastline, last actually done... well, quite a few years ago. And if you were to do that, an F-35B would be useful as part of a balanced force that could defend itself against the probable threats.
George K Lee is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2017, 20:48
  #10309 (permalink)  
FOG
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wherever sent
Posts: 63
Mr. Lee,

You do not know how Marines think nor the actual history the Hornets in Naval aviation.

The Marine Corps looked at the E/F and decided to keep updating our Hornets, to include aggressive SDLM cycles. The stupidity of “growing” the Hornet in size to do the mission of the Tomcat (big engine variant) seemed evident. Actually we wanted a legacy variant that had VG intakes, two D nozzles, and over 22K of thrust a side but…

The navy let their legacy Hornets de-grade, lack of updates and SDLM cycles, putting the money into E/F/G issues.

Starting 10-12 years ago the navy complained that couldn’t make their deployments. They were the 1st service to de-establish reserve squadrons and give the jets to the AD component. Then all but one Marine reserve was ordered de-established to give the AD navy newer more capable jets with more upgrades than any of the AD navy jets. Next it was whole squadrons of jets swapped, Marines getting clapped out, non-upgraded jets numbers not even flyable while the navy rec’d FMC jets.

The navy won in keeping their squadrons deploying vice the Marine solution of sending additional Marine squadrons. The navy won in papering over problems in the E/F/G program. Not nearly the first time and probably not the last time that navy aviation has covered up screw-ups at the expense of the Marine Corps and in my opinion the USA as a whole.

Actual historical facts are the USMC planned for, and executed, life extension programs. The upgraded A-D (22.5K per side thrust, VG intakes, two d nozzles, electronics) was seen as a threat to the E-F and told NFW and STFU.

The error in your procurement is that congress appropriates money to Marine aviation but is managed by DON. NAVAIR re-programs Hornet money at will with little oversight.

S/F, FOG

Last edited by FOG; 5th Mar 2017 at 21:01.
FOG is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2017, 21:19
  #10310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,150
Brat,
the lively debate in the US military seems to be, not about whether the F-35’s are worth the money, but why can’t we get these weapons quicker.
If you were really astute about the interworking of the Washington, DC scene, you might fill in the background for your comment besides what you have read, written by the Marine aviation head. For openers, keep in mind the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, presently, is a Marine Four Star General, Joseph Dunford, appointed by then President Obama. The new Secretary of Defense, Jame Mattis is a retired Marine Four Star General,appointed by Trump, a very good choice. The head of Marine aviation isn't naive about Washington politics. He wants the F-35B quicker as he has a direct line to the top at the moment that rarely happens. Also, the sooner he gets them, the sooner he can accurately figure out how much more money will be required to fix them and/or upgrade them and the number of personnel required for the whole works. Even if he got more, quicker, they aren't ready for deployment in the field, yet. The best laid plans of mice and men often go astray. The Navy has much sway about F-35Bs how many go to the Marines, when and at what cost. They are battling for funding as well, remember F-35Cs, 3 new aircraft carriers, new subs, etc., etc.? Besides that, the USAF and US Army hold sway as well. Congress may give money to the Marines, but the US Navy decides.

I'd suggest you pay more attention to the politics of Washington before believing everything that's gloriously written about the F-35Bs. You should keep in mind the B model is the most expensive of the three models by far and may be the least capable of the three. I judge from your writings you aren't interested in what things cost and how many you can buy with the least monetary expenditure. But, believe it or not, there are people in power in Congress that control the check book who are interested in costs and they are knowledgable about the F-35s and they in the end will be the financial deciders.

Last edited by Turbine D; 5th Mar 2017 at 21:22. Reason: word correction
Turbine D is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2017, 23:53
  #10311 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
The upgraded A-D (22.5K per side thrust, VG intakes, two d nozzles, electronics....

That sounds like a very impressive proposal, FOG. When was the configuration defined? It's hard to see how the weight of 2D nozzles and inlets, and presumably heavier engines (unless they achieved some ungodly high T/W) would have affected an airplane that already had bring-back issues. More detail on timing, project number &c would be welcome.

It's a bit of a puzzle since in my experience the Marines' aviation thinkers were focused on ASTOVL, which begat CALF, which begat JAST, which begat JSF very early on, before even the various Advanced Hornet proposals that led to E/F saw the light of day. Pray enlighten us.

I'm also intrigued by your comment on budgets. AFAIK the only PB/NDAA does not have a line item anywhere for "Marine Aviation", procurement, O&S and R&D being handled through the relevant DoN P-1, O-1 and R-1 books and the detail thereof. F-35C and F-35B are adjacent to one another in all the DoN budget docs.

Last edited by George K Lee; 6th Mar 2017 at 00:45.
George K Lee is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2017, 01:14
  #10312 (permalink)  
FOG
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wherever sent
Posts: 63
Mr. Lee,

97-98 time frame at Pax river. I was doing fleet support (flying in support of) the F. The C with the mods was on the flightline. Supposedly the weight increase was less than 1k Lbs. The PROJECTED numbers for range, on station, etc. were impressive (figures given were in the 20-30 % range). I never saw any projected bring back figures but with the increased thrust and altitude it would have been impressive.

The proposal was to replace USMC A/s then C’s and finally D’s. The USN was adamantly opposed to the project as it was a threat to their Tomcat replacement, the E/F.

As far as what happens on capitol hill on the budgeting side all are approved with considerations of where and to whom the assets go to, i.e. a form of congressional pork barrel where individual congressional members give their buy-in with the caveat to their districts, etc. Once the assets are in place the services play inter-service politics and move the assets.

Take a look at the history of the Harrier with the kluged together APG-65 installation vice installing APG-68.

I have never flown the JSF, only a couple of sim hops. The B/C mix is also a political issue. I am biased in my opinion. I would hope that the USMC receives more Cs and they go to Hornet squadrons due primarily to the cultural differences between the Harrier and Hornet communities.

The fact of the matter is that the senior aviators currently flying X (fill your favorite legacy acft) will not get the most of the JSF. I remember the 90s with pilots wearing t-shirts the said “I don’t give a Phuck how you did it in a Phantom”. Basically aviators brought up in legacy platforms trying to use the Hornet as an improved Phantom.

There is a lot of learning to be done. Integrating the JSF into the CAS/BI fight with UAVs and artillery on the good guy’s side along with ongoing IADS plus electronics is going to be difficult (read expensive). Not doing the work ASAP is going to hurt (meaning far more expensive).

S/F, FOG
FOG is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2017, 01:34
  #10313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Cool story. Why on earth were the high sheriffs at 8th and Eye behind it in 1997-98? By then, everything I heard from anyone at USMC air was all-JSF, all the time. That was the PoR.
George K Lee is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2017, 02:49
  #10314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
If you were really astute...
No Turbine, just have my head out of my posterior.

Even if he got more, quicker, they aren't ready for deployment in the field, yet.
Turbine D, like George... you really must get the facts straight. USMC F-35’s have already deployed to Japan.
Brat is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2017, 05:56
  #10315 (permalink)  
FOG
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wherever sent
Posts: 63
Mr. Lee,

That was the Harrier mafia that was all JSF, along the lines of the Phrog mafia in USMC rotary wing. Building the MEUs around the -46 centric composite squadron with the embarked Harrier bubbas gave both communities more pull/influence etc. than either should have. That is not only my opinion but others who were “Super MEU” augments, Herk, Hornets, and Queers.

The other factor was abortion of the APG-65 installation into the Harrier and the Harrier community getting an inferiority complex after telling 1st USMC Hornet drivers, then USN Hornet and Tomcat drivers and finally USAF Eagle drivers what they had to teach them on using a radar wasn’t applicable to them as the Harriers could drop a notch or two of nozzle.

At the time frame DCS(A) was doing a traveling road show on how great the JSF was going to be. The promises undersold the sensor/electronic ability to a large degree (just from memory it was to be evolutionary improvements) and really oversold the airframe performance (6g level turns at max weight at any altitude from SL-40K’).

The JSF is what we have. Was it extremely stupid to get “one” aircraft to fly three very different profiles? Is it smarter (and cheaper) to design for a task then modify to other tasks as technology and knowledge increase?

S/F, FOG
FOG is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2017, 12:06
  #10316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
No Turbine, just have my head out of my posterior.

That's a well-reasoned argument. It even includes a polysyllabic word!

FOG:

Was it extremely stupid to get “one” aircraft to fly three very different profiles?

RAND has one answer. I don't believe that a possible alternative - which was to develop a family of "cousin" airplanes sharing avionics, propulsion, LO and other technologies and components - was ever studied.

However, the story about the Short Stirling bomber of WW2 was that the bosses had decreed that the fuselage be designed to accommodate standard RAF packing crates and the wingspan constrained to fit RAF hangars. This was good for a wry laugh, but now the plan is that in 2040 the USAF will still be buying fighters that were length-limited by the Invincibles' elevators.
George K Lee is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2017, 13:01
  #10317 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,197
but now the plan is that in 2040 the USAF will still be buying fighters that were length-limited by the Invincibles' elevators.
And NASA will still be launching solid fuel rockets width limited by Roman chariot wheelspan.......
ORAC is online now  
Old 6th Mar 2017, 13:29
  #10318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
That's a well-reasoned argument. It even includes a polysyllabic word!
And George, that’s a pretty poor response to my pointing out some of the more glaring errors in your arguments.

It does however seem that the discussion/thread may well have concluded that the F-35 is an ongoing weapon system that looks increasingly unlikely to be cancelled, despite the valiant efforts of the nay-sayers.
Brat is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2017, 14:48
  #10319 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,633
Originally Posted by Brat View Post
No Turbine, just have my head out of my posterior.



Turbine D, like George... you really must get the facts straight. USMC F-35’s have already deployed to Japan.
Indeed perhaps they are going after the factory, not the pickups, this time....touché
glad rag is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2017, 14:52
  #10320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,150
Brat,
Turbine D, like George... you really must get the facts straight. USMC F-35’s have already deployed to Japan.
Do tell the entire story.

Step one - A squadron of Marine F-35Bs have been relocated to Japan.

Step two - Will operationally deploy at sea onboard an amphibious assault ship in 2018.

I know you would like to believe that they are good to go today at a moment's notice, but...
Turbine D is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.