I realize this video is making the rounds, but there’s some context to it worth discussing.
The F-35B STOVL test plane down at Pax has been busy since the new year, spooling up its lift fan and thrusting its nozzle in near-hover tests that engage the one of the most complex propulsion systems since the Yak-38.
We wish Lockheed Martin the best of luck in its tests, but as they go on, Defense Tech and it’s sister sites are starting to wonder if all this effort will be worth it. In a brilliant stroke, the Marine Corps maneuvered to get the B-version of the Lightning tested before the C model. In their quest for an “all STOVL force,” the Corps insists it needs the jump jet F-35. We understand the rational in the abstract, but practically, it makes no sense and sucks resources away from other efforts that could pay off much bigger.
And, ironically, the Navy was smart to shoe horn in their Super Hornet as a hedge against delays in the JSF program back in 1999. And now, as our boys over at DoD Buzz report, the Navy is getting soft on the carrier Lightning as the technical delays mount and the costs soar.
“I’m growing more and more convinced that the Navy variant of the F-35 might not be worth buying. The program is sliding further and further to the right, as costs increase. When we have an 80 percent solution in active production, and significantly cheaper, the F-35C looks like a great candidate for cancellation,” said one congressional aide. “Gates has talked about choosing 75 percent solutions over expensive ‘exquisite’ systems and this is a perfect candidate.”
As big a fan as we are of the MV-22, the analogy of an expensive, technically complex experiment being used for run-of-the mill operations has merit and can be transferred to the JSF as well. Why not replace Harriers with Super Hornets? Really, the Corps rarely operates its jets in true STOVL mode except for flights off an amphib. But that lack of jet capability can be worked around for ARGs (or whatever they’re called now).
Anyway, as the F-35B program progresses and the money people start to take notice of its complexity and cost, there’s going to be a fierce debate over whether giving the Corps its hovering toy is worth it. The Navy might have to abandon its F-35C ambitions (to the extent that they actually wantedthat version of the Lightning) and go straight to the UCAS…?
PS– Defense Tech and Military.com are closely following the terrible events surrounding the 7.0 Mag earth quake in Haiti. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the people of that impoverished neighbor. If you would like to help, officials are recommending contacting the Red Cross for donations.
– Christian
{ 57 comments… read them below or add one }
A few quibbles. The USN bought the F/A-18E/F to replace the F-14, not as a hedge against F-35 delays, although that may turn out to be the case. The F-35B test schedule was not a tactical coup but merely reflected the USMC's greater urgency to replace its oldest F/A-18A/Bs, which are even older than the USN's C/Ds that also need replacing.
Great new look for DefenseTech by the way.
Steve, those are the service's arguments, but in the smokey back rooms, you know that's what they were thinking…
You're both right.
The Navy was pressing for a Tomcat replacement and but they could never sell a new fighter program until the JSF (then JAST) came along. After Desert Storm, the Navy was a little uncomfortable with observations made on the relatively small % of sorites flown from decks that were actually projecting force and came up with Bombcat and other ideas, like getting a system that could fly CAP and strike as needed – anything to get more 'offense' on the decks. When the JAST became more likely to happen, the Navy then SOLD the E/F to Congress as a 'Just-In-Case' the JSF didn't happen. Dig up your old Av Leaks, and I suspect more than a few congressional testimonies – the story is in there. Personally, I followed the F-18 E/F story closely: in awe of the Navy spin machine. The most amazing thing was how they got Congress to buy the E/F as an F-18 derivitive when there is far more differences between the two than there was between the F-102 and F-102B… a difference that caused the Congress at that time to demand changes, and the B became the F-106.
We're talking 'Politics' boy'os
The USN was forced to buy the F/A-18E/F as a 'low cost/risk' replacement for the A-6, NOT the F-14. It has taken over the role of fleet defense with the F-14's retirement (with no replacement in sight).
Anyway what is the rationale behind having an A and C version.Past planes the F4 and F18 show that a multirole carrier plane can be used by AF with great succes.
The C is optomised for carrier ops: longer wings and (most important) beefed-up landing gear.
That's no reason why it couldn't be used a basis for an Air Force version, this was done with both the F-4 and the A-7 but I don't know if there were any significant differences between the Navy & Air Force versions of those planes. At the very least they could use the basic airframe of the C and simply put in lighter landing gear and delete the folding wings for the Air Force A version instead of making it practically an entirely different aircraft.
Requirements drive the design differences and there is a high degree of commonality between the variants to the experienced observer.
At the major subassembly level there is about 28%-40% commonality betweem variants, 30-40% closely related subsystems (not 'same' but close enough to have a positive impact on reducing costs- some of it comes down basically to where the holes are drilled) Even the unique major subassemblies use a lot of the same piece parts and hardware. In the 'high dollar' electronics area I'd guess there is about 80-90% commonality. Some people disagree (ELP is one).
It would be very nice to have a anphib transport turn into a airstrip in times of great need.
So we just upd the carrier force by x # based on a plane having STOVL.
Now would I have choose this over the f-22 no!
Very nice point. No need for as much deckspace for takeoffs anymore.
IMHO, I think the stealth aspect shouldn't necessarily be ubiquitous among all of our fighters, but should be part of our fighter force. It seems cost prohibitive to make it a ubiquitous aspect of our fighter force. Perhaps we could extend the life of our current fighters (like upgrading the A-10A to the A-10C), or upgrade them (much like the Navy upgraded from the F-18 C/D to the E/F models, the USAF could upgrade the F-16 C/D to E/F Super Falcons).
I'm in favor of the F-35, but not the extent they're hyping. I'm willing to bet we'll see the same dwindling numbers for the F-35 as we saw in buying the F-22.
And the only problem I have with where these UAV's are taking us is they have the potential to make airshows in the future really boring.
Good Morning Folks,
The F-35, gobble…gobble, another DoD turkey. Thirty years in development and Lockheed Martin still can’t get it right. President Obama will save a whole lot of money by just out right pulling the plug on the F-35. The F-35 adds zero to the defense of the United States.
Canceling the largest defense boondoggle in the history of the world won’t hurt President Obama at the polls in 2012. This programs cost is anywhere from $300 Billion to a Trillion dollars, that money could go into social programs or be used to retire Treasury Bonds held by China.
The F-35 does nothing for the current wars even if it was operational and at it current rate of development it will be another 20 years before it’s available for service. That would make it a 50 year old design.
As for all this stealth stuff, I don’t see any Taliban or al Qaeda radar turned on lately, has anybody else?
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Like it or not, 2 services need the B-model. The Marine Corp, just to replace the Harriers, which are aging quickly, and the Navy, which tailor made the new America class LHAs around the B model and Osprey by eliminating the well decks and adding a larger deck in the design. Also the Amphibs are a force projection much like their bigger big deck cousins, and the B model is integral to that projection. Remember, we still have to think about potential high-tech advesaries such as China, Iraq, or a South American henchman with a big ego. You have to think beyond the current conflicts to the next ones.
The F-35 is meant to fight 'current wars'.
F-35A IOC: 2013
F-35B IOC: 2012
F-35C IOC: 2014
And the program is 'just' 4-6 months behind schedule.
But we all know better than to expect such intellectual honesty from the likes of Byron Skinner…
The F-35C must really suck if it makes the F-18E/F look good. Talk about a loser. Take a small airplane that sucked, the F-18C/D, and make it into a bigger airplane that still sucks. Their best option would be to have Grumman restart the F-14 line. Hell, an F-14 with a couple of F-119 engines would rock and roll with the best.
What are you smoking? The F-35C makes the F/A-18E/F look like an obsolete 20th century aircraft.
I don't mind the F-35B as a plausible replacement to the Harrier.
I just don't buy the notion of the F-35A replacing the F-16 and A-10, or the F-35C eventually replacing the F-18 E/F. It all just sounds too ambitious.
I've been concerned for a while that the F-35 might not be as maneuverable as it should be, and possibly putting future pilots in the same dogfighting disadvantages we had during the Vietnam war with the F-4.
Well, the F-35 will never perform the A-10's mission; you just don't fly a $100M aircraft in AK47 range. That's what the Tucanos are for. F-35 should do the F-16's job fine though.
Whether the F-35 does Super Hornet's job will primarily come down to range. I understand that is by far the biggest shortcoming of the E/F. I know dogfighting is always a concern, but the difference between now and Vietnam (40 years ago) is that now, missiles work. F-35 probably shouldn't be dogfighting anyway; that plays into the hands of its adversary.
This is the 21st century. Air combat as progressed. Even CAS, which is now commonly done using guided munitions launched from the relative safety of 20,000+' with the launch platform just as likely being a B-52 as an A-10.
The F-35 is as or more maneuverable as a Block 50 F-16C.
Interesting point: the USAF doesn't have a real backup plan, especially since they closed the F-22 line and the J-UCAS road. The USN has its F/A-18 E/F's, and the X-47B is comming along nicely.
Chances of the F-35B being canned seem smaller, since aside from the UK, navies like Spain and Italy really need this one to replace their Harriers.
You should mention that the F-35 and MV-22 warp the amphib decks with their exhaust heat, 400F in idle.
The recent brouhaha about that was over changes that would need ot be made to smaller amphibs that had been assumed to be affected the same as the larger amphibs that qual testing had been conducted on. In any case, changes to aircraft carried on ships have always come with new capabilities.
Hmmm…. how to pay for all those ships too…… A big consideration since the Super Hornet is right there available for more gap filling.
Loving the F-22 fanboyism. Considering that we can buy two F-35s for the cost of one F-22 and that two F-35s will kill a single F-22 in an air-to-air fight I fail to see exactly what leg the fan club for an out-of-production aircraft is standing on. Aesthetics, maybe? I think the F-35 has some cute charm, but let's all be honest – the F-22 looks badass and the US Air Force need to intimidate its enemies into submission first and foremost.
All sarcasm aside, considering that the F-22 was, what, ten years delayed I don't think two or three years on the F-35 schedule means a whole lot. Big, complicated aerospace programs experience cost overruns and delays as a general rule.
But the F-35's "cost overruns and delays" are getting quite over the top, and it's costs is getting closer to the F-22 everytime those "cost overruns and delays" happens.
And take a look at this plane, see how bureaucratic and uninspired it looks, a small and chubby F-22, one can easily tell there was no passion by the F-35 desginers, not the same passion that the F-15 and F-16 had. It's like the F-35 lacks a soul. But maybe that just me…
Quite over the top? Compared to what? When every big-budget program since Reagan has had comparable overruns? Come on. Saying the F-35 will ever cost anything close to an F-22 is ridiculous on its face – scaling F-22 costs into 2015 gets an aircraft that will cost two to three times as much as an F-35, end of story.
While we're disagreeing about aesthetics, the F-15 is only slightly less ugly than the F-4 – and the F-4 was at least scary ugly instead of just boring-looking. I think the F-35 harkens back to the cute-yet-deadly look of the Phantom quite nicely.
I also note you didn't dispute we're getting more bang for our buck, even air-to-air, out of F-35s…
The only reason the F-22 is costing as much as it is now is because of the low production numbers; if we were to have kept the line open and produced the full numbers we would have gotten a break on the price because of economy of scale. It could be argued that had we kept the F-22 production lines open and gotten the price break it would make the F-35 with its cost overruns much less of a deal.
Not only do most MEUs deploy with a det of Harriers, there have been numerous occasions where the amphibs have been used as mini carriers, with up to 20 Harriers embarked. The B version is also the one with the most interest from other nations (ie UK), because there is no other viable replacement for their aging Harriers, and no carrier outside the US can fly anything but a STOL fighter.
mmm, no. the french can also use normal jets off their nuclear powered carrier.
The F-35 will always be more capable, more advanced and always better than the f-22, because it will be flown by Marines.
"We understand the rational in the abstract, but practically, it makes no sense and sucks resources away from other efforts that could pay off much bigger."
Wow, and this guy writes for a defense site? Er, did somebody forget about 11 flight decks the USMC operates STOVL aircraft off of that a Super Hornet can't? Sheesh.
Be interesting to know the factual or other basis for the statement: "two F-35s will kill a single F-22 in an air-to-air fight"
The more they cut the F-35 Project, the better imho. Poor range, poor stealth, poor weapons load, questionable maneuverability, great sensors, woeful pricetag.
This site makes some great analyses on the JSF project, once you read this why there are so many people scratching their head when looking at the F-35…
http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html
If there is a major cost overrum on a firm-fixed price contract, that is a failure to deliver. If there is a major cost overrun on a cost-plus contract it just means the estimate was incorrect in hindsight. These contracts begin with an estimate because the cost is not knowable beforehand. There is no failure, other than the 'crystal ball' one. Caviling weasels in Congress or their enablers play on the ignorance of the public (surprise). As private citizens, we tend to not think in these terms because we rarely buy something that hasn't already been designed, tested and built before we seek to satisfy a need.
An Aside: Carlo Kopp has a bug up his a** on the F-35, and citing him is just asking for criticism: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/200…
Like I've said many a time: At least Bill Sweetman admits it when he's guessing.
The F-22 "price break" people talk about never existed. Taking even optimistic, largely stabilized flyaway costs from 2009 of $108 million per plane at face value (very debatable) and drag those into 2015 (when all JSF costs are calculated at) and you're looking at a $140 million airplane again. F-35 costs have been quoted from $60-$80 million dollars in 2015, half of that – I note existing cost overruns are related to testing rather than production and will not affect flyaway cost. I also note that F-35 numbers reflect price at the beginning of production, when the F-22 was a $200 million airplane in 2002 dollars.
That two F-35s will kill one F-22 is pretty obvious – they are stealty enough to avoid detection if the F-22 lights its radar (revealing its position) and their IR sensors will spot a much larger F-22 at a longer range than they will in turn be spotted if nobody is emitting. Once they have that informational advantage the F-22 is as good as dead. In an actual fight it's obvious that two planes even of somewhat lesser performance (it is debatable whether the F-35 really has a lesser degree of performance in a subsonic dogfight) have a substantial advantage over a single enemy – incidentally a weighty argument to buy large numbers of F-35s rather than a few "silver bullet" F-22s.
Unfortunately, the F-35 will only carry 2 AMRAAMs each, and no AIM-9Xs (Unless they are carried outside, where they kill the stealth advantage. The IRST probably does not work well in cloudy weather… guess that's a big bummer in this scenario. The F-22 fires first, as they launch at faster speeds and higher altitudes gaining better range. The F-22 also breaks enemy missile locks using its supermaneuverability. As the F-22 is stealthier than the F-35, they will have a distinct advantage by attacking from a side or rear position. F-22 wins with its six AIM-120s and two AIM-9s
Inaccurate back to front. The F-35 has internal space for six AMRAAMs or four AMRAAMs and two AIM-9Xs (and studies are underway on stealthy external carriage of the latter) – quite comparable to the much larger F-22. Bringing up weather is nonsensical – F-22s are not going to fly CAP down in the dirt, they are going to be flying in the cold, thin upper atmosphere. Can't fire first if you don't see first, no fighter on earth is maneuverable enough to "break missile lock" (they call it a "no escape zone" for a reason y'know), F-22 is not stealthier to IR sensors, etc etc etc…
Ah, the old pulling it out of your ass sourcing.
What, angry because I pointed out (using publicly available information and a tiny bit of armchair analysis) that the F-22 isn't the magical, invincible airplane it's been cracked up to be by fanboys?
Gates put the F-22 on the chopping block for a reason. We are getting more bang for our buck – AIR TO AIR – with F-35s. The F-22 will fill a niche role for operations that require its high speed and high altitude capabilities but it seems to me that in most operations the choice between sending F-22s or twice as many F-35s will overwhelmingly favor the smaller, cheaper fighter.
The F-35B will survive there is nothing else in the works to replace the Harrier, and both American amphibs and every allied foreign aircraft carrier in the world needs them. The F-22 is a sublime behind the lines strike fighter and air space dominance fighter, but behind the line strikes are necessary for a few days per war. Air to air combat is exceedingly rare. And, our limited supply of F-22s can be moved from one theater to another in a matter of days. But, the very small bomb payload of the F-22 makes it a poor medium capacity bomber, which is mostly what the USAF needs, e.g. in Iraq.
The Air Force needs the F-35A much more badly than the Navy needs the F-35C, because the F-16 fleet is much closer to the end of its useful life than the F-18 fleet in the Navy. I haven't seen anyone seriously question that an F-35A is a preferred alternative to an F-16 and certainly, it is a preferred alternative to an F-16 that is stuck in the shop because it is 30 years old and is hard to keep flying.
A strategy based on stealth doesn't work as well tethered to a 100,000 ton ship moving around at 10 knots. The main purpose of a carrier is to make a show of force. At sea, you hail the other ship and tell it to back off before you blow it to smithereans with an aircraft. Against land targets, the Navy carrier group instinct is the buzz the bad guys to scare them and secure a surrender, rather than sneak attacking. A carrier is most important when the U.S. is on the defensive reacting to someone else and backup is far away; if the U.S. is going to do a first strike it can plan ahead and use USAF resources like the F-22 and B-2.
Also, the Navy has more time to wait and see if the F-35C will soon be eclipsed by a drone aircraft, and, the F-35C would involve the smallest number of units of any of the F-35 models, the Navy has to carry more startup cost per unit delivered than the F-35A or the F-35B.
Well those are certainly Interesting opinions.
I couldn't agree more. Ohwilleke is correct, Carriers are great shows of force, but I think there is a failure is understanding the carriers capability. For example if they where not very useful in the attack why do we park them off the cost of every major operation we have had in 50+ years? The 73+ airframes that a US carrier brings to the fight at upwards of 30+ knots is no joke, and long range quick strikes are not outside of it's aircrafts capabilities (Let alone the other ships in the carrier group)
I of course meant interesting in a sort of "so that's what someone with no real background (education or experience) in military theory, strategy, operations, history or acquisition might say" sort of way. The only thing that was close was the bombers getting there first. It is naval air that gets there at least second, and if they already happen to be nearby, then they might even get there first. What the carriers need are airplanes with 'legs', and while the E/F's are longer range than the C/D's they aren't long enough, and the combat legs of the F35C is about 25% greater than the E/F.
"Reach out, reach out and touch someone"
Stealth (at least if you exclude the F-117 and B-2) isn't about surprise as much as not getting shot down by SAMs. Just because you're flying from a carrier doesn't mean you have to carry around a giant billboard saying "FIRE AT SAM AT ME!" which is essentially what a non-stealth fighter does.
Christian,
The only service that can make reasonable justification for this aircraft is the USMC. Unfortunately that would make three very expensive programs they are currently developing or purchasing (AAV, MV-22, and F-35B).
The Navy would love to have more LARGE ships and F-18E/Fs than a smaller fleet . The E/F in their latest block is THE most capable Gen 4.5 aircraft in the air today. What you can't kill with the E/F you can kill with a SM-3 or Tomahawk.
The Air Force needs to get a grip and realize the scope of this recapitalization. We already spend a huge sum of money maintaining the existing fleet of stealth aircraft. Now we add 1,200 more aircraft that need be inspected and repaired, requiring a great manpower load. We have our stealth figher, which is the most capable in the world. There is nothing that compares yet we only build 183? Upgrade the F-22s and buy 183 more, F-15SE, F-16 Block 60. This will free up the money to completely recapitalize both the active duty and reserve fleets. Don't forget there is a stealthy UAV now flying the friendly skies over Afghanistan.
DC2
I think this aircraft would have been a better solution for all the services and the airforce should have just upgraded the f-15s instead of the F-22s. I realize that it's to late for that, but doesn't it feel like we could have gotten more out of these airframes than we can out of the few F-22s we could afford? At least the StealthEagle and the F-35 have external wing loads for them not running in stealth and having them all flight the same airframe should save money in the long run.
The F-22 has external hardpoints as well. My point is this: we don't need expensive stealth aircraft doing CAS in Afghanistan. That is what they would be doing right now.
It's hard for me to not the see the flexability advantages of the VSOL model for the Marines, and if the airforce is going to buy them, having the Navy operate them would add huge cost savings in the long run, but I think the real question is how much more is it going to cost? If they are 80% ready (And if we are test flying two models now we have to be close to that) it would be hard for me to say throw it all away, when we know we are going to have to modernize the aircraft at some point. We can't just use the current airframes forever because it's expensive and time consuming to create new ones.
Its official: this thread has descended into utter silliness.
We have the 'anti-stealthers', we have the 'antiquarians and preservationists', and we have the 'grass is always greener on the UAV side of the fence', and even some 'give peace a chance/no bucks for bombs' types prattling merrily: all of them thinking they got a better answer than a dozen nations' defense establishments. Hybris.
been a while MAC. hope you are doing well.
I know you love the F-35. But you are going to loose a lot of airframes for the sake of having this thing. I hope it is worth it to you.
Well Hello again y'self
Of course I would have preferred ~800 fewer F-35s, ~200 Fewer F-18E/Fs, ~30 more B-2Cs and ~400 more F-22s, all for about the same $ as the current 'plan', but these things did not come to pass. As long as we pay attention to Lanchester's Square law and can start tearing down the Government-Entitlement Complex in 2010, things will work out.
Working killer hours on multiple programs. Doing the DAU non-resident program at the moment, and a bunch of other things. Not enough time to post regularly at my place, so I drop in here and there from time to time.
Regards
The non-U.S. nations involved in the F-35 deal are making a pretty wise choice. They need a small number of F-35Bs each, which would be extraordinarily expenseive to build solely for themselves. They chip in their share and escape having to either design their own Harrier replacements or scrap their carriers.
It is less obvious that producing two additional versions of the F-35 (the A and the C) for purely domestic consumption, in the numbers currently budgeted, is the best alternative for using scarce defense spending dollars.
One reason to be skeptical of the quality of DOD bureaucracy decision making in this (besides the fact that DOD managed major contracts are routinely grossly behind schedule and overbudget), is the bureaucracies almost always deal poorly with the concept of sunk cost (i.e. trying to figure out what makes the most sense going forward without regard to what has been done and can't be changed). Bureaucracies have an inherent tendency to hang onto programs with high sunk costs even if they still don't make sense going forward.
I seriously doubt much of the rhetoric espoused by some of these posters, esp. in the face of the potential threats the US faces in the foreseeable future. The F-35 A/B/C versions have been languishing in developement for YEARS because of the intra-service bickering over the ever-changing needs of each branch of the service, and their "own" needs to have the latest tech.
The program has been a constant source of trouble, as the technology to adapt the models to those needs does not exist. This program will languish for even more time, as the face of our enemies has changed. We cannot retro-fit the F-35 to adjust for these shifting needs, as we cannot predict the future. To state that 2 F35's are a match for one F-22, is bordering on the absurd, as the PILOTS of those 3 planes could/would attest to. The program should be junked, as the costs asscociated with it have spiraled into the stratosphere, and we have only a small group of working models. How stealthy is a S/VSTOL after all anyways? It sounds like a childs fantasy, and the services do not want to believe that the future of Air Combat lies in cheaper UCAV's, which can be ready made for any future threat, and require less logistics then any piloted aircraft.