Why am I not reading about a new generation fighter for the Navy?

I apologise, I apologise… But… Couldn’t rather a lot of Rii’s last be equally applied to the F35 as it stands today (I’m not disputing the original concept of a LO strike platform, relatively affordable and actually being in service!)? ;0

(I’m ignoring the OP’s posts as he is, ahem, rather illogical.)

Rii I agree with you !!!!!!!!!

What is some VG stealthjet going to do to keep the US safe? Nothing.

Far better to pay attention to your allies.

Granted there are several ways in which logical‘s suggestions and criticisms make no sense, but I keep coming back to this notion of a heretofore unforeseen threat some 5-7yrs distant. Of what use would a clean sheet next-generation fighter program actually be in addressing such a threat? This isn’t Macross, where a half-functional first prototype can take off and win the war all by itself. Even if the United States were to embark today on a fully resourced crash program to develop a next-generation fighter aircraft, where exactly do you think that program would be in 5-7 years time when Armageddon descends upon the Home of the Brave and Land of the Free? A far more useful course of action would be to increase production rates of existing platforms and munitions.

US ‘bases’ in 130 countries? That’s a very broad definition of bases. Once one eliminates the large number of spurious ones (the USA does not have bases in 130 countries! Apply a reality check), & starts looking at real ‘bases’, one finds that most of them aren’t bases at all, but lesser installations, e.g. shooting ranges, storage depots, housing, training areas (IIRC not necessarily manned when not in use) etc. They also include a lot of radars, satellite ground stations, & so on, places with a few staff, rather low running costs, & a significant negative impact if they were closed.

You’re not being very logical.

Why havent we heard plans for a new generation fighter for the Navy??

Coz its a secret. Shhhh

When you google the number of military bases in foreign countries, it says we are in 130 countries with 900 bases. Closing at least half of them would yield tens of Billions of dollars the Navy could use for a new modern fighter, and used to build more carriers.

Fixed bases cant go anywhere, and many are subject to the countries they are in.

True – but that doesn’t affect the validity of anything that’s been written so far.

The current USN carrier fleet can not be used as a substitute for the current set of US land bases overseas, or even half of them. To replace those bases would require the construction of a larger fleet of carriers, escorts for them, & a large fleet of support ships. I doubt it would save any money at all. I think it would probably cost a lot more.

Fixed bases cant go anywhere, and many are subject to the countries they are in.

Fixed basing does, however, address the one key problem that aircraft carriers generally have. Space. Room for logistics storage, extensive workshop and maintenance facilities, entire blocks for personnel housing, hospital facilities….including access to those of the host country in some cases etc, leisure and sports facilities etc, etc. All things that support deployed forces and would be a significant limitation where they removed.

A fixed base can do many things that an aircraft carrier can’t, & an aircraft carrier can only be in one place at a time. Closing bases would necessitate more aircraft carriers. How much would they cost, with all their supporting ships?

Fixed bases cant go anywhere, and many are subject to the countries they are in.

Well, since we have a number of aircraft carriers that can sail to a trouble spot, how about closing at least half of the foreign bases, that cost billions. That would more than cover the cost of a new ultra modern fighter.

The logistics support for the deployed carriers channels through many of those overseas bases you want to close. What you’re, in effect, saying it that you want to place greater empasis on afloat assets whilst chopping their support out from under them. All to get a fighter which, from the slow pace of 5th gen fighter development in general, is not a response to any direct threat.

A fixed base can do many things that an aircraft carrier can’t, & an aircraft carrier can only be in one place at a time. Closing bases would necessitate more aircraft carriers. How much would they cost, with all their supporting ships?

As is your position…

All defence budgets are a matter of compromise and yet you’ve failed to identify which programs that are needed now, you’d cancel, to pay for a new aircraft to counter a threat which doesn’t exist…

Well, since we have a number of aircraft carriers that can sail to a trouble spot, how about closing at least half of the foreign bases, that cost billions. That would more than cover the cost of a new ultra modern fighter.

I still say your position is a fail. You say that the “threat doesnt exist” but there is no way in the world you can know what threats the country will have in 5 to 7 years.

As is your position…

All defence budgets are a matter of compromise and yet you’ve failed to identify which programs that are needed now, you’d cancel, to pay for a new aircraft to counter a threat which doesn’t exist…

No our two positions can be better summed up like this. You want to spend money your Navy doesnt have on a threat that doesnt exist in any real timeframe because you watched Top Gun too many times as a kid. Against this I dont want your Navy to do this as I know they have vastly more important stuff to spend the money on and, generally, you dont like to see your major allies doing stuff that is hurtlingly stupid….it would shake ones faith in the wisdom of your allies where they to act as you suggest.

Whats more here is that you know your Navy has vastly more important stuff to spend the money on too as you’ve been carefully avoiding anything like an answer to a real question put to you. You’re doing this because you are trying very hard to hold on to the blissful daydream that all you need is a few bars of ‘Danger Zone’ and the bad guys are packed back in their boxes until you need another enemy to give a good beating to.

Its my business as, last time I looked, your country was a NATO member state. My country is also a NATO member state….coincidence hey?. That means I’m interested in what your services do in capability terms….just as I am what the Germans do….just as I am what the Italians do….all for the same reason.

I’m sure Logical there are forums where fantasists post their wishlists. Its not done so much here….too many here know the wider realities for ‘playtime with Maverick and Goose’ to go unremarked on.

I still say your position is a fail. You say that the “threat doesnt exist” but there is no way in the world you can know what threats the country will have in 5 to 7 years.

Can we then sum up our two positions like this—————-I want our Navy pilots to be the the best fighter possible that technology can provide, and you want to do nothing.

BTW I wonder why what our Navy does to develop a new fighter is any business of someone in the UK?

No our two positions can be better summed up like this. You want to spend money your Navy doesnt have on a threat that doesnt exist in any real timeframe because you watched Top Gun too many times as a kid. Against this I dont want your Navy to do this as I know they have vastly more important stuff to spend the money on and, generally, you dont like to see your major allies doing stuff that is hurtlingly stupid….it would shake ones faith in the wisdom of your allies where they to act as you suggest.

Whats more here is that you know your Navy has vastly more important stuff to spend the money on too as you’ve been carefully avoiding anything like an answer to a real question put to you. You’re doing this because you are trying very hard to hold on to the blissful daydream that all you need is a few bars of ‘Danger Zone’ and the bad guys are packed back in their boxes until you need another enemy to give a good beating to.

Its my business as, last time I looked, your country was a NATO member state. My country is also a NATO member state….coincidence hey?. That means I’m interested in what your services do in capability terms….just as I am what the Germans do….just as I am what the Italians do….all for the same reason.

I’m sure Logical there are forums where fantasists post their wishlists. Its not done so much here….too many here know the wider realities for ‘playtime with Maverick and Goose’ to go unremarked on.

Errr . . . you raised the matter, on a UK-based forum. What did you expect? That nobody from the UK would respond, because it isn’t a UK-specific topic? It doesn’t work like that.

Great. Save for the fact that in 7yrs time its difficult to identify the 5th gen threat that is in service, in sufficient strength, to present an F-35C/E-2D CAW team with an unassailable Fleet Air Defence threat. Its hard to see any of the Chinese or Russian designs being in service, fully trained-up, and at regiment-level establishment levels in that timeframe from what I see of the status quo today.

To be fair though it would be brave stating that -35C would be fully spun up at that point as well. Any determination that a US naval pilot will be at any more of a disadvantage going forwards, than he has been in the recent past, is entirely spurious and a matter of conjecture.

Rii,

Mwah!

Can we then sum up our two positions like this—————-I want our Navy pilots to be the the best fighter possible that technology can provide, and you want to do nothing.

BTW I wonder why what our Navy does to develop a new fighter is any business of someone in the UK?

I guess the bottom line question is maybe in 7 years would you want to be a Naval Aviator going into a battle or dog fight in an inferior fighter?

Great. Save for the fact that in 7yrs time its difficult to identify the 5th gen threat that is in service, in sufficient strength, to present an F-35C/E-2D CAW team with an unassailable Fleet Air Defence threat. Its hard to see any of the Chinese or Russian designs being in service, fully trained-up, and at regiment-level establishment levels in that timeframe from what I see of the status quo today.

To be fair though it would be brave stating that -35C would be fully spun up at that point as well. Any determination that a US naval pilot will be at any more of a disadvantage going forwards, than he has been in the recent past, is entirely spurious and a matter of conjecture.

Rii,

Mwah!

F/A-XX last I read (below) is gone and NGAD has appeared in its place. Something that is so nebulous and open-ended that it could throw up almost anything!

https://news.usni.org/2016/04/21/navy-seeking-family-of-systems-to-replace-super-hornets-growlers-sheds-fa-xx-title

Sounds like an unmanned affair. The robots are coming.

Yes because the only important task of a Navy is to transport Tom Cruises’ mates round for them to go off and naval aviate. Rii put this so superbly subtly that I fear it was lost on you old boy. Me and him dont always see eye-to-eye but respect goes where it is due and I find I cant put it any better than he did.

Aww… I wuv you too Jonesy.