Home » Air » Navy Under Secretary not worried about F-35B grounding

Navy Under Secretary not worried about F-35B grounding

by Mike Hoffman on January 30, 2013

Navy Under Secretary Bob Work didn’t seem concerned Tuesday about the recent grounding of the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter when he discussed its future.

The Marine version of the F-35 was grounded after a pilot aborted a take off on Jan. 18 because of problems with the propulsion system. It has remained grounded since.

Pratt & Whitney built the propulsion system. Their engineers have diagnosed the problem as a crimp in one of the fluid lines of the fuedralic system, which is a system that uses jet fuel rather than hydraulic fluid to lubricate mechanical parts.

Work said he was not concerned with the grounding and pointed to the vendor, Pratt & Whitney, as the source of the problem. He made sure to point out that the F-35B is also off probation.

“The F-35B is off probation. It’s doing well. Probably heard about a recent grounding. It’s going to be an issue with the vendor, it was a vendor issue, a problem. The plane is doing well,” Work said Tuesday.

Both Navy and Pratt &Whitney officials expect the crimp in the lines to be fixed soon and the F-35B to continue its testing regimen.

“The team continues to work diligently toward completing the investigation and implementing corrective actions with the supplier,” Partt & Whitney spokesman Matthew Bates said in a statement. “We anticipate a return to flight” soon.

As for the F-35B’s place in the Navy. Work said the service remains committed to the massive fleet planned for the F-35B to go along with the doubling the number of aircraft carriers in the U.S. Navy.

“Because of [the F-35B] we’re going from 11 aircraft carriers to 22,” Work said.

Share |

{ 87 comments… read them below or add one }

blight_ January 30, 2013 at 12:58 pm

The -A and -C march on…surprised they weren't checked either, unless it was a component unique to the LiftSystem?


chad January 30, 2013 at 1:34 pm

I'm still unclear about the justification for the b-model. Now that the plane is essentially complete, we obviously can't go back, but it seems likely that integrating the short takeoff/vertical landing capability put pretty severe constraints on the already ambitious F-35 requirements. I imagine we could have had a cheaper F-16/18 replacement and just let the harrier and its unique capabilities go away. So why is the B model important?

1) Forward basing – logistically complicated and risky for an aircraft of the complexity of the F-35, probably not going to happen.

2) Organic fixed wing air support for MEU – It seems if we're going to do anything serious we're likely to have a CVBG or the air force around to provide fixed wing air support, and the addition of 6 or so F-35's will provide a marginal contribution.

3) 11 to 22 carriers. I gather this means that the flat deck amphibs can now take on a more substantial air wing of a dozen (or more) F-35's and behave like miniature CV's, with a cost in their ability to deploy Marines. Might be useful for small wars, like Libya, although our lack of involvement in that campaign was more a matter of politics than capability. Given that we have more CV's than anyone else in the world (or any combination of anyone elses in the world), this doesn't really seem necessary.

Other reasons? Obviously our allies with small carriers require the F-35B if they are going to have fixed wing naval aviation, but this doesn't speak to our needs. It seems like we've increased the cost and compromised the performance of our F-16/F-18 replacement to preserve a capability of only marginal utility to our forces.


chad January 30, 2013 at 1:36 pm

Ack. Meant to post the above as comment instead of reply. Apologies. Not sure how to delete this.


dennisbuller January 30, 2013 at 7:45 pm

Good reasoning.
I think #3 is the most important though. Having worked on the carriers I understand that the biggest problem the Navy faces is the limit to how many aircraft they can cram on a carrier.
Throw the F-35B on the Gator Freighters and you have made those ships a big force multiplier. The Harriers are just antiques.
Those ships can now could be taken seriously in the role of air superiority in theater. Even with shorter legs than the carrier versions will be able to secure the skies around the fleet. And of course support the troops as they go ashore.
I think the F-35B is more important as a force multiplier than the F-35C. The Navy has a decent aircraft now, the Super Hornet. The Harrier has served faithfully, but even with the newer versions I think the F-35B is a order of magnitude better.


tiger January 30, 2013 at 8:10 pm

The Other Harrier users have planes to replace as well. Italy, Spain, Thailand have Harriers to replace. Japan's Hyūga-class helicopter destroyers are big enough to handle the B model as well.


chad January 31, 2013 at 11:12 am

We have more carriers than any other nation (or combination of nations) and each of these is far superior to any single aviation ship that any other navy in the world can float. The degree of overmatch is almost ridiculous already, and we are spending a ton of money on the B model so the Marines can have their own private carriers. So now our B-team carrier fleet will be better than any other navy in the world. Why is a second STOVL carrier fleet necessary when we already have overmatch with our giant normal carrier fleet?


whatever February 3, 2013 at 8:47 pm

As "good" and expensive as the carriers are, a dozen good and inexpensive anti-ship missiles can waste the best US carrier, whatever that is. They may be useful in bullying small countries, but are sitting ducks for countries like Russia and China.

Phillip January 31, 2013 at 3:45 pm

The problem with #3 is the F-35B is going to be a USMC only aircraft. With the mantra of dont break up the MAGTAF, the rest of DOD is going to have to ask nicely to use a LHA/D loaded with JSF as a non-Marine Strike asset. There was a brief period (before costs went through the roof) about the airforce looking at getting a couple of Bs. I just dont see the Marines having enought F35Bs availabe for "fleet tasking" and that the "JSF carrier" concept is only a talking point to get funding. Also remember one of the key assets on a carrier is the AEW (E2-C) and a LHA/D cant handle them. The British Falkland's operations shows why AEW is vitial.


Guest January 30, 2013 at 6:46 pm

From what i've read the sub-standard crimp was in a section of the fueldraulics system which i believe only services the swivel module actuators, hence not an issue for the -A or -C.


chad January 30, 2013 at 1:35 pm

I'm still unclear about the justification for the b-model. Now that the plane is essentially complete, we obviously can't go back, but it seems likely that integrating the short takeoff/vertical landing capability put pretty severe constraints on the already ambitious F-35 requirements. I imagine we could have had a cheaper F-16/18 replacement and just let the harrier and its unique capabilities go away. So why is the B model important?

1) Forward basing – logistically complicated and risky for an aircraft of the complexity of the F-35, probably not going to happen.

2) Organic fixed wing air support for MEU – It seems if we're going to do anything serious we're likely to have a CVBG or the air force around to provide fixed wing air support, and the addition of 6 or so F-35's will provide a marginal contribution.

3) 11 to 22 carriers. I gather this means that the flat deck amphibs can now take on a more substantial air wing of a dozen (or more) F-35's and behave like miniature CV's, with a cost in their ability to deploy Marines. Might be useful for small wars, like Libya, although our lack of involvement in that campaign was more a matter of politics than capability. Given that we have more CV's than anyone else in the world (or any combination of anyone elses in the world), this doesn't really seem necessary.

Other reasons? Obviously our allies with small carriers require the F-35B if they are going to have fixed wing naval aviation, but this doesn't speak to our needs. It seems like we've increased the cost and compromised the performance of our F-16/F-18 replacement to preserve a capability of only marginal utility to our forces.


6113 January 31, 2013 at 7:59 am

I may be wrong, but I don't remember hearing about a CVBG off the coast of Libya during their civil war. I know there was one or two MEUs there, and most of the time MEUs sail on their own and are not part of a larger force.


tiger February 1, 2013 at 4:16 am

The French CVN Charles De Gaulle & The 26th MEU on the LHD-3 USS Kearsarge launched air strikes on Libya.


Lance January 30, 2013 at 1:57 pm

More of the line the planes isn't working at all. But some General in the USMC wants it SOOOOO bad he looking the other way and so Marines get a inferior plane. It will take years longer and pilots lives to makes this piece of junk at least fly (who knows abut fight) and so we see why the USMC will not get any new toys soon when they stick to a failed design like the B.

The solution is to buy Cs like the Navy and go back to the drawing board for a new STOVL attack plane.


David January 30, 2013 at 2:51 pm

yeah, and MAYBE get the new jet in 2030…..

Those Harries will be rusted husks in the desert by then.


chad January 30, 2013 at 3:27 pm

Why do we NEED a STOVL attack plane?


Charley A January 30, 2013 at 6:37 pm

The US does not NEED them – the USMC WANTS them (and will hold their breath and stomp their feet until they get them.)


chad January 31, 2013 at 1:15 am

Why do they want them so badly then? What crucial capability does STOVL bring (that is worth the cost?)

tiger January 30, 2013 at 3:36 pm

What budget universe are you in? We have a backlog of Carriers to scrap. We have At least 5 CG47's That can not deploy due to lack of maintenance & failure to decommission. We have a minesweeper still stuck on reef in the P.I. Last but not least a budget axe is about fall in Washington as there is still no budget or credit limit increase. Drawing board???? You have got to joking?


Weaponhead January 30, 2013 at 2:35 pm

The loss of 6 AV-8Bs in Afghanistan in 1 raid showed the risk of forward basing. Even ignoring that, you still need to get massive amounts of fuel, ordnance, and spare parts to these areas severely limiting exactly where you can do this.

Then there is the issue about why I need a $150+M aircraft for the CAS mission? If you go all internal carriage all you can carry is 2 Mk-83 JDAM or LGB with 2 AMRAAM. Hope you have 2 targets or less, and you can use that weapon for the target you have. Maybe you have your gun pod maybe you don't. If you carry external weapons then you didn't need an F-35 anyway. Oh yeh, if you get hit flying the CAS mission, you are less likely to get home in your F-35 than a Hornet.

Any wonder why we are going broke as a nation?


David January 30, 2013 at 2:52 pm

the F-35B, is, as of right now, 135 million dollars. The A model is 108 million, and the C is 121 million. As seen here http://www.aei.org/files/2013/01/24/-mass-and-sup


tiger January 30, 2013 at 3:28 pm

Cutting a model only raises the price of the others as you cut production scale & decrease shared costs.


@E_L_P January 30, 2013 at 3:42 pm

LOL. Pure propaganda. You do want a motor with that and working mission systems don't you? We are no where near having a working-to-war jet. AEI, that was easily shot down as a marketing piece. One of the authors of that effort was a former LM guy. Any of this getting through McFly?


tiger January 30, 2013 at 3:26 pm

Sorry, but the lesson is one of crappy base defense. Not The aircraft. Your going to Fight in places without 10,000 feet of friendly concrete to play with. You going to fight in places outside of carrier range. Your still need fuel & parts for ground or Chopper units. They all have to be hauled via Pakistan. Your basing argument is not valid.


chad January 30, 2013 at 3:40 pm

You might. But wouldn't a lower tech turboprop CAS aircraft and attack helicopters be better for this than a 100M stealth fighter? Where are we going to fight where the enemy has sophisticated air defense and we have no access to airfields?


Barry January 30, 2013 at 4:04 pm

You're making too much sense. Using a turboprop, or a Harrier V3.0, or a drone, or Apaches, or C130 gunships, or anything sensible like that, that simply would not put enough $$$ into LM's pockets, and all the other pork barrels that need to be filled.


tiger January 30, 2013 at 8:23 pm

Most of Africa, Iran ( We keep two CVN's in the Gulf because We can not fly from the Gulf States), The Americas ( Southern Command no longer has a base In Panama. Even Pakistan one day. In Asia, you may not always get permission to use bases in South Korea, Japan, or Australia in a hypothetical China conflict. They may play Neutral rather than take sides.


chad January 31, 2013 at 1:13 am

When are we going to fight China without any of those countries providing basing? What would the conflict be about? Seems most of the scenarios involving war with China would involve us entering because Japan, SK, or Taiwan were being attacked. And we're not going to have enought STOVL F-35's to beat down the Chinese air force.

Gen 5 seems like overkill in Africa and the Americas for the near future (who are we going to fight in the Americas?)

Probably we have pretty different views about what sort of wars we should be prepared to fight, which colors the importance of this capability. Are there really plausible scenarios for war with China where we don't have any bases for fixed wing aircraft so STOVL is necessary and we have some chance of winning?

I do think the F-35 is necessary; the teen series need to be replaced eventually and the low observable/integrated avionics capabilities of the F-35 will be very valuable. I'd like to know more about the decision making that led to the B model, since I think the STOVL capability is only marginally useful and probably led to a more costly program and at least some sacrifice in the capability of the aircraft.

HeavyArrow January 30, 2013 at 3:36 pm

Personally I think the companies need to stop pointing fingers at each other and actually fix the problem without making such a huge deal about it.


The Anti-ELP January 30, 2013 at 6:03 pm

1. You need to haul fuel, and massive amounts of Ammo to a FOB if you have a fleet of helos any way! Do you think helos don't need fuel and weapons trucked or flown in?

2. If you need to fly CAS mission over the strait of Formosa, you certainly want SOMETHING stealthy. Are you going to use drones? can you plink tanks and landing ships with cruise missiles? Once agian ELP and the anti-F-35 crowd assume that non of these questions have been asked. They assume that they are smarter than 10+ air forces combined.

3. The customer wants a stovl aircraft. Do you think for a second that if we refused to build one all of the other majors aviation players in the world would also refuse to build one? So then why is the customer incompetent for wanting the only stovl 5th generation fighter on the market? Why is the company incompetent for trying to give the customer what they ask for? Again please stop pretending your smarter than all of the worlds air forces.

4. please stop saying the plane doesn't work. that's a gross misrepresentation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssD9crDcoYg


Barry January 30, 2013 at 7:45 pm

Let's assume an F-35 costs $150M. I assume that's the sticker price, and doesn't include the full lifetime cost of one particular aircraft. I can understand spending that amount of cash on a stealthy strategic asset that has a reasonable chance to survive. But $150M for a glorified stone-chucking guntruck with wings, that can barely fly without a full orchestra to sustain it? The B is ostensibly supposed to provide CAS, yet it has no protection whatsoever, doesn't even carry a real gun? LOL! Given these facts, it's pretty darn easy to be smarter than whichever clients are still left. The only reason this program is still around is because Eisenhower was right and the tail is now wagging the dog.


tiger January 30, 2013 at 8:29 pm

I could say the same thing about $1 billion dollar DDG 1000's. How survivable do you think they are?


Barry January 30, 2013 at 9:28 pm

The breakdown of the Pentagon's development/procurement system is pandemic.


JohnB January 31, 2013 at 1:22 am

Sadly, the F-35 isn't very stealthy. And it's too bad the horizontal tail surfaces catch fire whenever the afterburner is used. The airframe needs 60 seconds to accelerate through the transsonic range, consuming a significant percentage of its total fuel. In practice, the F-35 is a subsonic aircraft.

"Can't turn, can't climb, can't run." It better have some pretty impressive electronics, because it's flight envelope is barely comparable to that of an F-4 Phantom II. It's better in terms of AoA, but worse in terms of speed, climb and sustained turn. For all intents and purposes, it is a pure attack aircraft, not a fighter. The similarities between this program and the Aardvark II are so many that it's eerie.


chad January 31, 2013 at 10:35 am

Where did these performance specs you discuss come from? I thought the initial requirement was for kinematic performance equal to the F-16 or something similar to this. Has this not been achieved. I think given contemporary missiles, this might not be as important as it once was, especially compared to the sensor/weapons systems in the plane, but has the performance of the plane really been discussed openly.


JohnB January 31, 2013 at 2:56 pm

Yes, the initial requirement was for kinematic performance comparable to an F-16. Sadly, the requirements have been lowered repeatedly as the F-35 has demonstrated inability to meet those requirements. This has been very much discussed openly. See, for example, http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/reduced-f-35-p... or australianaviation.com.au/2013/01/f-35-performance-specs-lowered/

The ATF program (F-22) had many problems, such as runaway cost and maintenence issues, but at least it produced an airframe we all can be proud of. For this low observable, slow turning, basically subsonic attack aircraft to be operationally relevant in the years 2020 through 2040, it better have some darn impressive electronics. Let's also pray that the UCLASS program goes well.


blight_ February 1, 2013 at 12:01 pm

Then there's a problem of going Hail Mary with electronics: that electronics can be ported to legacy platforms in some shape or form. Sure, the functionality will be different if it's not bespoke to the aircraft, but it guarantees that the electronics subcontractors can keep production open while the aircraft program sorts itself out.

If you dither and a vital subcontractor goes under, well…

chad January 31, 2013 at 1:28 am

1. Obviously helos and anything else would need fuel/ammo/parts/food for mechanics, etc. The question is how much and to what end.

2. Right, if we get into a big war with China we will need 5th gen fighters. But if we want to win a big war with China I assume we'll need air bases since even if we get all the B models the Marines want that probably won't be enough to beat up on China. Why not just get more A/C models for the Marines.

3. I'm trying to understand why the customer wants STOVL aircraft so badly that the whole program has been put in jeopardy due to engineering issues with the B (I don't deny that it is working fairly well now, but the program has been at risk for awhile and the B model was responsible for much of that). Who else is planning on building 5th gen STOVL or is trying to design them? What do they want them for? They only make much sense if you have no big CV so you need them if you are to have naval aviation at all.

4. I don't doubt the plane works. I think that it is more expensive than necessary and lots of engineering risk and probably compromises in performance were introduced because of the B model, and this for a capability that doesn't seem very important.

Again, I'm really just wondering if anyone can point me towards justifications for the B model other than the Marines want it bad. I hope somebody writes a big book someday about the JSF decision making process and explains how everybody thought it was a great idea to include STOVL in the basic requirements. Or maybe just a medium sized book.


tee January 30, 2013 at 8:30 pm

$150 Million, the last price with engine and the available software block was $295 Million a copy. It would only see $150 Million if EVERY ORIGINALLY PLANNED AIRCRAFT was built. And we all know that is already not going to happen because of canceled orders from the UK & Italy alone.


chad January 31, 2013 at 10:32 am

Does this include R&D or is this flyaway costs? We shouldn't consider sunk costs when making a procurement decision.


tiger January 30, 2013 at 8:31 pm

"Fuedralics?" Has this been used before?


Menzie January 31, 2013 at 2:59 pm

I had to google it, and apparently it has been used since the 70's maybe earlier. Though I had never heard the term.


Hunter76 January 30, 2013 at 8:39 pm

The death bells are tolling for the Flying Maginot Line (F35).


Barry January 30, 2013 at 9:25 pm

Oops. One of our FOBs was just attacked. Some of our planes got shot down or failed to return. Normal, it's war. We lost 6 F-35B. Each one cost $295+ million. A capital write-down of $1.8 billion.

Going to go do the job of an A-10 in a F-35B. Really?

When is one of those smart air force customers going to persuasively explain the logic here?


The Anti-ELP January 31, 2013 at 1:18 am

Applying the Logic used here, a B-17 cost 200K a B-2 costs 2 billion
since we can buy 10K B-17s the B-17 is a better weapons system.


Menzie January 31, 2013 at 3:01 pm

Current in-use weapons systems, sheesh. Some peoples children these days.


William_C1 February 1, 2013 at 4:29 am

Because comparing the price tag of an attack aircraft with simple avionics built in the '70s with a multi-role supersonic STOVL fighter with state-of-the-art avionics that is in LRIP in 2013 and has unfortunately suffered from a troubled development is a lot more valid?


retired 462 January 31, 2013 at 9:56 am

He's probably not worried about he cost of them either.


johnvarry January 31, 2013 at 11:45 am

Lots of disinformation being posted here.

Comments that the F-35 flies like a F-4 Phantom II is absurd. The pilots who fly it compare it to the F-18 Super Hornet in performance.

The F-35B will also give the USMC a ELINT/ECM/ECCM capability that they do not currently have on the Gators

USMC does fly F-18's but not from the Gator carriers which is the whole point of having the B model. The AV-8B received much praise for its performance in both Iraq actions and in Afghanistan. There's a reason Gators were loaded almost wholly with AV-8B's and used as Attack carriers during Gulf War I.

Many aircraft in Gulf War had to fly back to base after mission. USMC AV-8's were able to land right behind front lines on highways and rearm and refuel and be back on station within minutes.

The ability to forward base close air support 10 min away rather than at a airbase or carrier 45min away makes all the difference in the world to the boots on the ground.

While the USMC praises the F-35B for is stealth that is not their primary concern. The USMC desperately needs a aircraft capable of replacing the aging AV-8B Harriers in the combat air patrol, close air support, escort, and recon roles while flying from the Gators.

The Gator fleets don't usually operate with the CVN fleets. That is why Gators with AV-8B Harriers were the assets on hand for the Libya mission and is why AV-8B's were used for SAR missions into Libya.

When a A-10 can land and take off from a Gator then maybe it will be relevant to compare the A-10 to the capabilities of a F-35B.

Last I heard the UK had decided to go back to F-35B's due to cost to refit Queen Elizabeth as a CATOBAR carrier were much higher than predicted originally.

Comments the USMC should drop the F-35B in place of F-35C's are spoken by people who have no comprehension of the aviation needs of the USMC.


tee January 31, 2013 at 1:41 pm

You are WRONG, the "Junk Strike Fighter" will the same flying abilities as a F-4.''
Just released on "Flight Global" and Experienced Pilots are saying that it will be "Inferior to All 4th Gen Fighters" with it's Reduced Flight Characteristics. Read it for your self below.


chad January 31, 2013 at 5:38 pm

The picture painted here is fairly complicated. Sustained turn and acceleration performance have been substantially relaxed. High AOA and instantaneous turn performance are similar to a Hornet, and the clean configuration allows high performance at high altitude.


tee January 31, 2013 at 1:55 pm

We need to Cancel the "Junk Strike Fighter" program, I thought that the F-35A could be Salvaged but after reading "Reduced F-35 performance specifications may have significant operational impact" on "Flight Global" I don't think so. Here is a Quote from an Experienced Pilot ( . "What an embarrassment, and there will be obvious tactical implications. Having a maximum sustained turn performance of less than 5g is the equivalent of an [McDonnell Douglas] F-4 or an [Northrop] F-5," another highly experienced fighter pilot says. "[It's] certainly not anywhere near the performance of most fourth and fifth-generation aircraft.") Read the rest your self, Not Looking Good.


The Anti-ELP January 31, 2013 at 4:08 pm

So are we comparing fully loaded F-35 performance to fully loaded F-16/F-18 performance? or a fully loaded F-35 to a clean F-16? Lets put both loads on the respective planes. How much would you like to bet that a F-16 with 8x SDB and 2X AMRAAMs, or 2X 2k LB jdam and 2 AMRAAM is very F-4 like? Even better, load the F-16
Up for a 600 NM CR 2X jdam and 2 AMRAAMs.

The spin on the internet against the F-35 is making me dizzy.


PAW January 31, 2013 at 3:03 pm

Fueldraulics was used on the SR-71. It saves weight but drives complexity in the hydraulic components.


Menzie January 31, 2013 at 3:05 pm

“Because of [the F-35B] we’re going from 11 aircraft carriers to 22,” Work said.

Wait what? Is he referring to Marine VTOL harrier/helo platforms added to the 11 current carriers? If so then we are not going from 11 to 22 we are going from 22 to 22. You mean current use of a harrier makes a marine vtol platform not a carrier until F35's are embarked on it?
Or does he mean we are building 11 more carriers to supplement the 11 currently in use/planned? I hope not. Where are we getting the money? MAking a few trillion dollar platinum coins are we?
So we would go bankrupt just to increase our platforms form 11 to 22? I am leaving while the leaving is good.


chad January 31, 2013 at 5:40 pm

The point is that with AV-8B's the capability of those carriers is rather marginal, but with (up to 20, I think, on the new America) F-35B's, they would be far more useful.


tiger February 1, 2013 at 3:52 am

Actually we have 10 CVN's in service & 1 building (Gerald Ford ). CVN 71 is IN the yards for refuel & overhaul till mid 2013.


Barry February 1, 2013 at 10:19 am

Why are we surrounded by so many wimps. It's time to face the fact: the emperor has no clothes. The program is a failure. Throwing good money after bad will not recover or justify the sunk cost. Time to kiss those $50 billion good-bye and start fresh on new programs. Tweak existing systems to the max. If you want an STOVL, design one from the ground up. If you want an F-16 replacement, or a carrier plane, ditto. Reset the procurement system. Beginning with firing a hell of a lot of useless brass at the Pentagon.


eaglemmoomin February 2, 2013 at 10:37 am
Barry February 2, 2013 at 2:43 pm

Precisely my point. The F-35 is a poster boy (girl?) for our dysfunctional procurement culture. What you outline as the alternative is unacceptable. Ten or 20 years to turn this mess around? What are you, a fatalist or a proponent of big government? We need more accountability and more productivity from our government; we must demand it. But, if you're just going to smugly shrug, like the rest of the trolls on this thread, then you, too, are part of the problem, not part of the solution. We can do better, and we must do better. Cancel the F-35!


Tribulationtime February 1, 2013 at 10:38 am

The Under secretary knows things we don´t ( I hope). Stealth is the Sin and the Gift of Lighting II so if in the next war stealth don´t give a full advantage they are chunk. No further discussion is relevant. And I´m not qualified to tell if is more a sin than a gift .


Will Leach February 1, 2013 at 5:33 pm

Just an observation in regards to FOBs, it seems like much of the discussion revolves around a false dichotomy between VTOL and long perfectly paved runways. What ever happened to conventional STOL? As many have noted, FOB are going to be getting supplies somehow, either by way of road, rough airfield, or helicopter. In any case, the size of the logistical footprint will probably be related inversely to how forward the base is, otherwise how is it an FOB? And if the base has a road or rough airfield, couldnt an easy to repair and maintain plane like the A-10 land on such a surface? If the base is supplied only by air drop of helo wouldnt the footprint, loiter time and sortie rate of a helocopter be better than an advanced VTOL jet? Granted the helo wont help much in terms of air superiority, but will a few F-35 with the limited resources available in BFE be able to provide round the clock air superiority anyways?

There is a similar issue with the Gators. Will the F-35s on a Gator or similar craft be able to independently provide air superiority as well as suffecient CAS? If not, then why not go with helos? In any case, is turning an amphibius craft into a carrier good for taking pot shots at easy targets? Doesnt going this route really lower the amphibius potential of such ships?

On a broader note, we have spent what, 50 to 100 billion dollars on this thing right? There is plenty of reason to expect the lifetime cost of the F-35 to be upwards of a trillion dollars. Knowing more about the likely performance and cost of the Lightning II than we ever had, and being only 5 -10 percent of the way into our planned investment, isnt this exactly the time to bail out if this is isnt the right plane? Can someone please explain fo me why we shouldnt think long and hard about continuing this program, and without reliance on buzzwords?

Defend the plane all you want, thats fine, its part of a discussion thats important to civilian oversight and national defense. But please dont pretend the conversation is over, or not worth having. After all, do you really want to defend a plane on the basis of not wasting investment? Wouldnt all that investment, if worthwhile, have given us technology and lessons for the future?


Will Leach February 1, 2013 at 6:13 pm
The Anti-ELP February 1, 2013 at 9:25 pm

Will I have the same issue here frequently. My thinking is that opinions that are not shared by the host are usually blocked/banned/ deleted. Thats why it seems like there is no pro F-35 crowd. the descent is blocked. If you can see this say something.


JohnB February 2, 2013 at 12:13 am

I can read your comments, Anti-ELP.


Will Leach February 2, 2013 at 3:31 am
JohnB February 2, 2013 at 12:38 am

In terms of national security, the best thing by far would be to terminate the program and consider the lost money as R&D investments. The most likely outcome is that the services will buy a few hundred units, and then terminate the program. I believe that one of the reasons the DoD-LM relationship is so bad, and every negotiation takes an eternity, is that they all know that there will never be any 2,500-something orders – one thousand at most, probably way less.

With the F-22, next-gen bomber and UCLASS, there's no critical need for an F-35 low observable light bomb truck. The program can be terminated pretty much without consequences, like when the Army cancelled FCS. USAF har already decided on teen-series life-extension and upgrade, and if necessary they could manufacture a few hundred F-22 as a stop-gap measure. The USAF tactical stragegists should develop a future integrated swarm concept; getting themselves on top of the curve.


Roy Smith February 2, 2013 at 10:25 pm
Kevin February 3, 2013 at 9:41 am

I have a question. Its my impression that the -35 is designed to replace the f-15 e model and the -22 is designed to replace the f-15 c model. What if we just built entirely new f-15's and -16 and a-10's? Slowly build new ones and slowly replace the current ones we have. I guess it would be way too expensive but if you did it over time it wouldn't be that bad. I don't much about this kind of stuff though.


Will Leach February 4, 2013 at 12:24 am
Will Leach February 4, 2013 at 12:55 am
blight_ February 4, 2013 at 10:46 am

The -A was slated to replace old -16's, and it's role may bleed between -15 and -16 as required, since new block F-16's aren't going anywhere. The -15E's are newer and the -A will probably not bleed into their roles. The A-10 will stay in inventory, so the JSF is unlikely to completely replace the A-10, but it will be used in CAS just like any other bomb truck aircraft.

The -B will replace the Harrier, and if theoretically successful might lead the MC to replace some Hornet wings with more -B's.

The -C was/is aimed at the legacy Hornet segment of the Navy. There are promises of sophisticated jamming capability presumably aimed at the Growler as well to either complement/replace.


jack February 3, 2013 at 3:51 pm

Why is he worried it's only more of the taxpayer dollars being spent on this endless money pit of a program.


blight_ January 30, 2013 at 4:06 pm

Skunk did develop the F-22 and the F-35, but once you're out of prototype stage you move things to main plant, throw in the next gen electronics (since prototypes are usually done with off-the-shelf) and realize that everything that works in a boutique assembly line like the Skunk Works isn't always true when you are manufacturing things in an assembly line and ordering equipment that also comes off the assembly line after prototyping.


6113 January 31, 2013 at 7:50 am

It's for the MEUs. If the Marines have to go somewhere where they won't be close enough to a CV with the support they might need, then they'd like to have their own fixed wing element with them on the LHD.


chad January 31, 2013 at 10:26 am

Sure, but how often is this supposed to happen and is it worth the extra program risk and cost introduced by the complicated engineering of the B model. What sort of conflict are the Marines going to deploy to where there is no potential basing for fixed wing or CVBG support and the half dozen or so F-35's organic to the MEU are going to make a difference? This seems like a pretty rare circumstance.


chad January 31, 2013 at 10:30 am

I'm more concerned that requiring a high degree of commonality compromised the A/C versions and increased the cost of a program. STOVL has historically been a tall order for a high performance design; the fact that the only aircraft to every really do it (sort of) is the Harrier is witness to this fact. All this for a capability that will only be of use if all our CVBG are tied down and we need to invade some beach with no other air cover options. One might call that a foreign policy failure.


eaglemmoomin February 2, 2013 at 11:10 am
6113 January 31, 2013 at 11:00 am

The Marine Corps can be sent where the President needs them to be at any given time to do all sorts of missions. It has nothing to do with "leading from behind". When he does, it's always a pretty serious situation to warrant boat full of Marines off of your coast. Granted, that's probably only going to happen with third world countries 9 times out of 10, but Marines like to be as self reliant as possible. That includes having their own air assets right there when they need them. It's a Marine thing, if you're not one, then it's hard to understand.


tiger February 1, 2013 at 4:07 am

Wrong. You had a French CVBG off Libya.


chad January 31, 2013 at 11:42 am

The point was that in Libya we deliberately limited our involvement to some initial strikes to knock out IADS and other high value targets and then flew support missions. This wasn't a situation where our options were limited by a lock of available bases or assets.

Presidents are fully capable of sending armed forces to places for dumb reasons that have nothing to do with our national interest or security.

Large and risky procurement decisions need better justification than this; can the Marine's make indefinite demands on the military budget without better justification than this.


6113 January 31, 2013 at 3:46 pm

The Marines really don't get that much money from the total DOD budget. My understanding from what I was told when I was in, was that the USMC gets a (relatively small) percentage of the Department of the Navy budget. A large chunk of the funding for joint programs like the F-35 and V-22 come from the Air Force and Navy.

The whole Libya thing is a typical situation where a MEU is sent to be on station first directly by the President, if to do nothing more than establish a presence in the area, and to respond quickly to the situation if necessary.


6113 January 31, 2013 at 3:49 pm

It happens almost everytime a MEU sets sail.


Papi1960R January 31, 2013 at 9:44 pm

Since there are really no final cut operational JSF or JSF squadrons/wings, you are only saying"less capabilty" in theory. I myself am looking at Rafale deploying on a 3200 mile strike missions(France to Mali then onto Chad) at night with the result of stopping the Islamic advance in Mali cold on the road to the capital with 18 Hammers. Until the JSF can actually be counted on to perform such missions, everything you put is just speculation.


William_C1 February 1, 2013 at 4:23 am

You cannot just pull a cheap "Harrier III" out of nowhere. The production line is long dead and gone. The design had reached its full growth potential and would never be nearly as capable as the F-35B.

You've heard the talk of cutting our number of carriers. This would be a very foolish decision, but if it were to occur those F-35Bs which can operate from our LHDs and LHAs would be all the more important.

As for the F-35C, upgraded Super Hornets alone will not cut it against the next generation of Russian and Chinese fighters and air defense systems. Some even think we the Navy needs more capability than the F-35C provides. Yet I fear the chances the Navy gets the funding for their ideal next-gen fighter (in the event the F-35C is cancelled) as very low.

The Super Hornet was not intended to become the backbone of naval aviation for 20+ years if that is what you hope for. While thus-far it has done the job admirably, we need something that is a real leap ahead. That is not to say that the Super Hornet won't be around. Like the F-4 Phantom II, it will have a long Navy career even well after its eventual replacement (the original F/A-18 in the case of the F-4) is introduced.


chad February 1, 2013 at 11:33 am

I was referring to US assets used. Sorry if that wasn't clear. The point is that letting the European nations bear the brunt of the bombing work was a deliberate policy.


chad February 4, 2013 at 2:42 pm

Well, this would seem to apply equally to the smaller carriers, if true. So why multiply the number of sitting ducks? If destroying them is as easy as you suggest, then adding another few with quite a bit less capability sounds like a bad idea.


whatever February 5, 2013 at 2:38 am

It applies to carriers, cruisers and destroyers. But then we are not talking about sensible decisions in procurement of defense systems. This is about business and profits for shipbuilders and subsystem suppliers.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: