FBWGood Lord, Oblig, you did that while I was writing the post. Great minds think alike – it’s just a pity that tiny minds think alike too, and that there are so many more of them.
I think you need to mind your mind, the conversation was about acquisition costs. Changing the topic does not make your point.
FBWhttp://www.statista.com/statistics/270409/national-debt-of-greece/
(and don’t forget, USA prints its own money….. 😉 )
It gets embarrassing when members start treading into economics. U.S. public debt is not even at it’s highest historic level when compared to GDP, nor is it out of step with most other western nations. The problem comes when GDP growth stagnates compared to debt growth. Overall, the U.S. economy is growing at a healthy, sustainable rate currently (though that growth is uneven). The issue is largely political, the F-35 and overall U.S. defense spending would be impacted most by whims of congress, not by some imagined debt crisis.
there is no evidence yet that the price is going to drop to realistic levels. The whole logic is flawed. It relies on USA buying more than 2000 of these to drive the prices down. What if approval is never given and say the US only buys 600.. what then?
Uhh, the APUC will drop based on full rate production. If the services buy the full number of over 2,400 that will lower the PAUC. What customers will pay would be impacted by the U.S. lowering yearly production.
what then? F-35 crowd will explain to us that it’s all normal and if anyone believed that the US would have bought 2000 of these, he could only blame himself
What is this West Side Story? There are two crowds? The F-35 crowd and the NOT F-35 crowd? First off, the U.S. will most likely end up with roughly 2,000 across the services. What is in question is the 1,763 total planned for the Air Force. That number will probably come down. Do you have any evidence that the production numbers will be substantially less? Not one U.S. official has backed off from the overall commitment as of yet.
FBWLukos, the problem ain’t that the F35 is stealthy, the problem is that it flies like a brick because it had to fit on a LHD.
Nic
Except that is a gross misrepresentation of the flight qualities of said aircraft. One that has been forwarded and refuted repeatedly on this thread. Certainly there is controversy over the performance of the F-35, the problem is, most of the negative publicity has come from usual suspects in the media.
FBWYou are probably right. Too touchy. I don’t know how it will work on F-35, Tyhoon P1Eb has rover capability through sniper pod, it is embedded on Rafale. This is not really a criticism on F-35 plane, but about its management. I won’t go further on that topic, poor personal experience.
Rover is encrypted (poorly, but who really needs encrypted coms in those situations? We have seen up to 8 airplanes (including drones) over a single zone in A’stan. And the Jtac had to manage that under fire… In the end everything ended up well, but there was a near miss due to JTAC stress between a plane and a reaper, and one 250 Kgs bomb was released on wrong coordinates due to faulty heitgh coordinates.Several reasons to want to avoid probs.If F-35 2B has rover capability through a pod, nice to me.
Warranted criticism at that point. My 2c is that the software team didn’t consider the fact that a “stealth” aircraft with secure comms would need to communicate with FAC’s over existing video feeds. And yes, the management of the program, particularly in the development of the software needed for full mission capability has been mishandled to put it gently.
FBWWOW, a bit of over reaction here. First off, the IOC for the Marines mandates basic CAS capability. Second, last I heard when this issue came up there was talk of a podded ROVER solution for the F-35B. The open architecture for the F-35 software does not clear up the current backlog of software to be developed and fight tested. What was the last time a fighter entered service with full mission capability and software developed? ( Rafale-no, Typhoon-no and still no, F-22- no and still no, Gripen-no, and NG? we shall see, F-18E/F?- first versions were not really an advance over F-18C) There is warranted criticism of the F-35, and then there is unrealistic expectations that no western fighter program in recent memory has met. Let’s look at baseline before calling in the torchlit hanging mob.
Edit- Halloweene, how secure are the transmissions from the downlink video?
FBWFirst of all you can’t apply the 35s as a cure to all ailments, any LHA will have a huge signature on radar and no matter how many 35’s you have covering it, you will be seen. So the P-700s do not need the Su-33s or anything else to come closer, they will find you.
I think that part of his argument is in targeting. The problem with long range AShM has been targeting solutions from long range and target discrimination. If you use a fixed or rotary wing asset to provide the following, it becomes a fat target for the aircraft and ships defending the task force. P-700 is supposed to have some cooperative targeting ability via datalink, but you still need a solution. Anywhooo, there is a whole anti-ship missile debate going on in another thread…
FBWQuestions that i note you can’t actually answer so you resort to insults. :-).
Typical of the F35 gang.
As i said previously repeating something over and over doesn’t make it right.
Sorry there is actually a constructive conversation happening, waste someone else’s time with your bather, if you can find someone else to respond. (I’m still kicking myself from taking the time writing a response that you apparently can’t fathom) Good luck to you, but I’m not biting anymore.
FBWWeelll . . . Ocean was built when we had two LPDs & several LSTs without hangars, & we replaced the rest of our amphibious fleet with LPDs & LSDs without hangars, so that argument would fail pretty damn fast.
Agreed about the lunacy of the USA having multiple services each of which seems to want to be a complete set of armed forces. The USN has its own soldiers separate from the marines now, for jobs that marines used to do until they got too independent. Doh!
Swerve, you are aware that the LHA’s will operate with at least two other ships with well decks, yes? As the Marines are wedded to the MV-22 after a long and torturous development, there was no question that any new assault ships would be tailored to their operation.
FBWEssentially you are giving a different reason for the back track, i.e. it is not an F-35 mess up, it is a Marines in general mess up. Fair enough mate, the point is, there is a mess up, and a mess up that further complicates things when you start looking at them. I don’t care if the validity of my argument is sound in this case, I am just happy that I am not crazy thinking there is something fishy here…
Yeah, been following U.S. defense policy and procurement as of late? The about face of the Marine Corps back toward amphib operations is nothing. As one commentator has remarked on inter service competition for defense dollars, “You can take their wives, but don’t take their budget”.
FBWI tried to stay out of this, I’ve pointed out the launch of the latest LHA ship, the USS America as an indication of how crazy the F-35 is in whole. So let me elaborate.
The latest and biggest the USS America doesn’t have a well deck which means it can’t launch amphibian operations on its own. It would need to be escorted by other LHDs/As to do that. Fair enough.
Why do you need it then? Simply provide aircover the way the marines need it. Fine, but then why not base a squadron of marine F-18s/35s on a CNV and use them the way the marines need?
Second, the deck on the USS America is rumoured to not be able to withstand repeated use by the high temperature blast of the F-35’s nozzle. It can cope somewhat better than the wasp class but still … (!)
The third and fourth ships in this class are rumoured to have a well deck (!?) …again what? why?
So what the hell? What is going on ? How much craziness are proponents of the F-35 going to turn into some mysterious organized thought and strategy that we the plebs can’t fathom ?
There are two separate issue here, 1 the quality of the final product, (i.e. F-35) and the quality of the program. Even if the quality of the final product comes out decent (or even superb) no one can deny that the overall program has been a disaster, mismanaged, disorganised, with short-sighted goals that keep changing and a somewhat crazy miscommunication between branches of the US military. There wouldn’t have been so much debate if it wasn’t.
Think you are reading too much into this, it is not an F-35B story per se. The design of the America reflected two realizations by the Navy. First, there was a realistic appraisal of amphibious landings. They wanted over the horizon landings to put the big amphibs further out to sea to avoid shore threats and small boats. The original LHA-6 design was based on the idea that the MV-22 and CH-53K would ferry troops to the LZ after it was secured by a landing party (faster, less hazardous to the ships). The need for hangar space was driven more by the MV-22 than the 6 or so F-35B each is expected to carry, though both are larger than their predecessors. The second realization reflected the LHD usage during the previous conflicts. They were used more for basing and staging of the Marines aviation assets than landing ships.
The backtracking to a well deck has more to do with the Marines defending their raison d’ etre in an era of defense cuts. If they are not doing amphibious landings, then they are just a second land army. They positioning themselves as “look at us, we are perfect for Air-Sea battle”. The interesting thing is: if the Marines don’t start pushing the SSC forward and get a replacement for the AAV-7 there’s not going to be anything to put in those new well decks as the LCAC’s are reaching retirement.
P.S. The whole argument is flawed, would we be arguing that the HMS Ocean lacks a well deck due to the Royal Navy’s preoccupation with helo’s? The America’s are not the first small deck amphibs to lack a well deck. But I would agree that there is something rotten in Denmark over the rationale for the Marines, Navy, Air force all having separate assets these days.
FBWThe LHD that is standing n close to the littoal or standing off to avoid threats? If it is standing in close to the littoral the threat can’t be that high. So why is stealth and supersonic capability required? Quoting doctrine, which is exactly what i’m challenging, doesn’t provide an answer to these points.
The CVN air wing will be able to provide adequate support to the marine land element, so again why the F35? Why the stealth and supersonic capability on a cas jet?
More questions to display your ignorance? Why do you not understand the difference between an air defense threat to the F-35 and a threat to a LHD at sea? Do you realize that ships float and aircraft fly? Do you think it might, just might be possible for a threat nation to have bought or smuggled advanced air defense systems and not have a sophisticated navy, or large numbers of ASM’s needed to target a amphib group? Why do you insist on calling the F-35B a CAS jet? Is it because you don’t know the all missions the Marines will use them for?
Ah the old appealing to the emotional and compassionate line. BS. If you need stealth and supersonic capability design and build a platform that focuses on those two aspects. Once again, if the threat level is so high do you really envisage the F35 sitting anywhere near the front lines? Why is STOVL so important if the platfomr cannot be operated on austere bases close to the front lines due to the threat level?
Would you feel it was the old appealing and emotional line after a relative of yours was shot down by a Manpad in a Harrier over ISIS territory? DO you realize that aircraft designers have to balance the design requirements for supersonic performance, subsonic performance, maneuverability, and range which have conflicting optimal designs? Why do you think that STOVL is not important when operating in an area with few bases? Have you read the comments about the usefulness of the Harrier operating from FOB in Afghanistan?
Again you have not got or choose to ignore the real point. Stealth is not high on the list of requirements for cas missions. Why employ costly kit with attributes un-necessary for the mission to do it?
Just because some fool some decades ago thought that all desirable capabilities could be jammed into one airframe does not mean that the stupidity of that thought cannot be pointed out.
Again, are you aware that CAS is just one mission for the “B”? Do you realize that your points about all capabilities being “jammed” into one airframe is in contradiction to what every service getting the F-35 has said ON RECORD? yes, sure your right.
Oh dear a question that you don’t like the answer to so you attempt to dismiss it. The CVN is massively more capable than any LHA/LHD as you well know.
How are those LHA/LHD fighters going to fare with the lack of AEW and ASW for the ship they are based on? If there is no threat requiring AEW or ASW why is there a requirement for a high end fighter in the first place?
Are you aware that you ignored the point I was making? Do you realize that LHD do not operate in place of carriers? But do you also think that inherent capability of the LHA should be exploited fully?
Ignoring the point re independent action when it suits you i see. With a low threat level the same power projection can be achieved with a STOVL platform that either doesn’t have full vlo characteristics or doesn’t have supersonic capability or both. Again why is the F35B the only answer?
Sure, we can just throw together a new aircraft that will be relevant for few missions, all at a time where every airforce is looking to squeeze maximum capability from as few airframes as possible. That might be the dumbest thing I’ve read from you yet. With the costs of training, fuel, maintenance, there is no point in spending billions to develop an aircraft to fill one role.
P.S. isn’t reading the above post annoying with just rhetorical questions? Perhaps you could amend your posting style to add some information rather than opinion?
FBWSo in this environment, the Marines would not get any support from the CVN? Because… just because.
They would, if needed. One of the reasons the Marines have their own air wings can be traced back to differing opinions over the use of airpower from Marines and Naval officers. Think this difference in the tactical application of airpower is a thing of the past? Look back at GW1- cooperation between Navy and Airforce was poor over bombing strategy, and the Marines pulled their aircraft out of the air campaign to use them exclusively in support of Marine operations.
Semantics. Which seem to have defined a multi-billion dollar program. Beggars belief really.
If the USMC are in a high threat environment where they need the bells and whistles which cost $$$, then there will be CVN standing to in direct support which would have been able to provide the bells and whistles support for $$.
No, the Marine air wings do not exclusively operate from sea, in lieu of the F-35 program, you still would need to replace the F-18’s (which also operate from carriers) You would have had a program for the F-18 replacement (super hornet?- far from ideal post 2020), and a dozen underutilized LHD (A) with no organic air support less the AH-1. The navy with a ten (possibly 9) carrier fleet barring the end of sequestration.
Every time a pilot steps into a jet there is risk.
Just to note, the scenario would require an F-35B operating off an LHD?
Can you name any instances of USMC operating off LHD in similar environments in the past?
Does that mean we should continue to produce F-18’s or Harriers when they will be at increased vulnerability against threats now and into the future? Examples? Harriers launched attacks against Iraq from two Tarawa class LHA, during Operation allied force, attacks were launched from LHA based Harriers. The sortie rate is higher for LHA based Marine fighters. The F-35 is supposed to have a higher sortie rate than the other two versions as well.
EXACTLY!
Yet, for the F-35B, in reality the high threat environment will not exist!
Perhaps you can loan that crystal ball to the RN and USN. They seem to think it will and that even if the LO capabilities are not needed for all missions, it should be the basis for all future aircraft. Some of this goes back to those who want to say that LO is of diminishing utility or a “trick”, instead of the new baseline that aircraft designers need to balance with all other considerations.
The same money would have bought power projection over a longer reach from a CTOL based group
– according to the RN, not the same money. Other than that I agree with you, the RN carriers being outfitted as CTOL would have allowed for a more capable mix of aircraft (AEW, EW, Etc.). The capper seems to be that the RN and RAF may be sharing assets. It is much easier to add a surge capability of RAF pilots aboard the carriers with the “B” than having to relearn the perishing skills of CTOL operation and limiting cooperation with the RAF.
FBWThere are a number of specific points sitting on the thread you have not addressed.
Attempting to bypass them is not addressing them.
I did answer the only parts which were actually a question. BUT I will oblige AGAIN:
1) If the CVN is there why do you need a few F35 on an additional smaller vunerable target?
The F-35b aboard the LHA are tasked with supporting the marines ashore, that could mean CAS, interdiction, recon. The CVW from a carrier has to provide an umbrella over a task force, AEW, anti-submarine, strike, refueling, etc. with 70 odd aircraft. Simply put, if it is a Marine operation, the F-35B are in operation with the Osprey’s, AH-1 to support the Marines
For your question, your going to need an LHA to provide the Aviation assets for a MEU. CVN not the same as LHA different mission, answered that at least twice now.
2) If it’s a low medium intensity conflict why are top of the line, costly features such as stealth and supersonic capability necessary?
Let’s answer that with a question, how many lives of Marine pilots are you willing to risk against any opposition armed with even rudimentary air defenses? You may not NEED to use TLAMs against a force like the ISIS either, but you tailor armed forces for expectation of future threats. In case you missed it, there has been a proliferation of air defense systems sold to nations with dubious stability. Syria is the perfect example, a collapse of the state would lead to fairly advanced AD systems falling into the wrong hands. The Harrier has difficultly operating hot and high, has a high accident rate, limited payload in STOVL operations, and is vulnerable to SAMs.
3) Do you really think that a conflict where stealth and supersonic capabilities are necessary is going to allow the close support aircraft to be based on the front lines? A strike mission is not a cas mission btw, what exactly are you looking for the aircraft to do? If you need strike you use the aircraft on the CVN you are clearly going to have just off the coast.
This is a strawman, what, should they “unstealth” the aircraft operating from a FOB? The aircraft is designed to operate in a high threat environment where “stealth” is needed. CAS is just one of the missions Marine “B”‘s will perform. None of these are what “I” want the aircraft to do. The aircraft was designed to meet the needs of Marines, Air Force, Navy. Last time I checked there are less than 48 fighters aboard a CVN, the addition of the 6 F-35B with a higher sortie rate from close proximity is a significant addition.
4) Do you realise the capability a CVN has? The few aircraft on the LHD / LHA are going to be unnoticable.
Is this even a question? This is the type of poor, vague question that does not need an answer. See above on CVN/ LHA differences. BTW, do you even know how many carriers are typically available? At sea at any given time? Doubt it or you wouldn’t even be questioning the value of the LHA based fighters.
5) Which brings me to the Royal Navy point.
Earller in this very thread we had proponents of the F35 arguing that no nation should dare to attempt operations without the support of the mighty US, so what exactly is the point of the Royal Navy having a handful of costly fully loaded stealth and supersonic STOVL aircraft which aren’t going to be used unless the US is along for the ride anyway?
Lets get away from the hypothetical and look a what the RN actually has done with STOVL fighters. They were able to engage in expeditionary warfare against a comparatively well equipped force. That was with, what 20 odd Harriers operational at any given time during the war. We have seen the HMS Ocean operate off Libya with AH-64. What the RN is buying is power projection. Even a dozen F-35B aboard a carrier will give a RN task force freedom of action against all but first tier opponents. How does it differ from the Harrier, well it doesn’t differ, from what the Harrier provided 30 years ago. Times and threats change, and aircraft do become obsolete.
FBWEdit:
So as per usual with the F35 zealots when they can’t answer the simple questions they revert to the norm of abuse. At least you are consistent.
I’d be happy to answer specific points. What I’m not going to debate with you is the operational doctrine of the Marines, the Navy, etc. It is a pointless waste of posting space. You don’t want to grasp why the Navy has LHD(A), why they need to be protected by CVN. Your “Questions” are not questions, they represent your vague ideas about what you feel about the F-35. You are entitled to your opinions, I’m just not going to debate your personal opinions with you.
FBWNone of which addresses or answers the comments or questions i posed.
Repeating and repeating the same thing doesn’t make it true or valid.
Actually, I did answer the questions. You fail to grasp the differences between how different platforms are operated, the role of the Marine air wings, and insistence on the hypothetical over the real world examples. Your posting style of asking vague questions without stating examples or providing any real analysis does not make your argument true or valid.
Sigh.
1) If the CVN is there why do you need a few F35 on an additional smaller vunerable target?
2) If it’s a low medium intensity conflict why are top of the line, costly features such as stealth and supersonic capability necessary?
3) Do you really think that a conflict where stealth and supersonic capabilities are necessary is going to allow the close support aircraft to be based on the front lines? A strike mission is not a cas mission btw, what exactly are you looking for the aircraft to do? If you need strike you use the aircraft on the CVN you are clearly going to have just off the coast.
4) Do you realise the capability a CVN has? The few aircraft on the LHD / LHA are going to be unnoticable
.
Again, more pointless questions that show a lack of understanding of the difference in role between the CVW and MAW. The USN, RN, would disagree with everything you have to say about the value of a half dozen strike aircraft operating from a offshore platform. As for the rest, it’s simply noise, a lot of words without substance or context.
Bored with this….
Sign In
