ELP has an article up in which he talks about the F-35C and comes to the conclusion that the F-35C might get cancelled. I don't know if that's entirely true and you can read the article for yourself...but wouldn't that be ironic?
Several months ago, everyone and their mothers were talking about the B model being cancelled. I always disagreed with that thinking and always thought that the C model was in the danger zone.
What makes me say that?
*the US Navy basically shoved the F-35C down the throats of Marine Air...
*even if full production was done the only customers for the C would be the USN, USMC and RN...
*and lastly, the USN doesn't and never has appeared enthusiastic about the F-35C...to be honest they appear fired up about growth variants of the Super Hornet and they're not even warm about the X-47B.
Having said all that the B should have a longer production run than the C and as much as me and ELP disagree (he has a hard on for the Corps that I'll never understand) he MIGHT...just MIGHT...have a point.
Several months ago, everyone and their mothers were talking about the B model being cancelled. I always disagreed with that thinking and always thought that the C model was in the danger zone.
What makes me say that?
*the US Navy basically shoved the F-35C down the throats of Marine Air...
*even if full production was done the only customers for the C would be the USN, USMC and RN...
*and lastly, the USN doesn't and never has appeared enthusiastic about the F-35C...to be honest they appear fired up about growth variants of the Super Hornet and they're not even warm about the X-47B.
Having said all that the B should have a longer production run than the C and as much as me and ELP disagree (he has a hard on for the Corps that I'll never understand) he MIGHT...just MIGHT...have a point.
well and what would happen if the nimitz classes just used B models, no need for catapults, no need for arrester wires, etc.
ReplyDeletei don't think that works. you can generate more sorties with catapults i just don't think carrier navy has gotten over the A-12 debacle...but the real deal reason why carrier navy would opt out of the F-35C is to help save a carrier. oh and airwings.
ReplyDeletei guess the real issue lies with the RN. they have to get these airplanes onto their carriers quick. if the program continues as advertised then i can see them buying Super Hornets...now that would make the UK blogosphere go crazy!
Sol, one thing i've seen being discussed a lot on forums recently (since Hammond warned the US about not letting the schedules slip last week) was that if the F35C gets pushed back (the more likely option I think than cancellation - a 5 year slip wouldn't exactly be completely infeasible and wouldn't leave the USN using Superbugs against next-gen Chinese aircraft in 10 to 15 years time) then the UK could do as Australia did and lease some SH's until the F35C is finally ready.
ReplyDeleteAs it stands the UK can't tolerate any slippage as it's already going to have a carrier in the water for years without an airgroup as it is, any more and the media will have a field day and ruin any chances of the UK ever getting its strike force back. If the program is delayed or cancelled without a lease deal I think it's more likely that the UK will turn towards the French for the Carrier needs.
yeah but the deal about buying Rafales has a couple of big no-go's attached...first the airplane is twice as expensive as the Super hornet and then second it doesn't have any more advanced avionics and lastly its upgrade path is truncated due to an extremely low numbers.
ReplyDeletei'm sticking to the RN ultimately buying Super Hornets and then going with the F-35C (if it makes it...) interoperability with the USN or French Navy....a no brainer.
The C's not going to get cancelled. ELP's a fvckin' nutjob. I thought everybody knew that by now. If the USN cancels the C they'll be in a world of hurt if they ever actually have to fight a competent opponant in the next 40 years, because they'll be stuck with Super Hornets. Ain't gonna happen.
ReplyDeletewell nut job or not he was right about the tail hook thing. i said in my article that we don't agree but i'm tired of the special olympics fights over the F-35. either it gets built or it doesn't ... if it doesn't then the USMC ain't going away just like we didn't evaporate when the EFV got cancelled.
ReplyDeleteits about people not hardware...that's why the real tragedy in the defense budget is the number of combat vets .... those grunts that some don't care about....that are going to get laid off thats the real concern.
thats real life experience that will give us an edge in any future conflict.
top gun showed one thing. if you're flying a superior airplane and don't know how to get the most out of it then you're going to get killed.
vietnam showed that survival rates for grunts went up if you survived your first 3 patrols.
its the people and their experience thats the war winner.
Eric thinks it's going to be cancelled?
ReplyDeleteWell in that case it couldn't have a more assured future.
Go back and look at his "calls" on JASSM. That was definitely being cancelled in his insightful opinion...
He was right about the tailhook? What did he get right? That it hasn't worked yet and the engineers who have built it thinks it needs only 2 small modifications to make it work?
Eric lives in a fantasy land where if it something doesn't work perfectly first go then it's a complete failure.
Unless the Russians or Chinese are building it. Then it's absolutely perfect no matter what and completely outclasses anything built anywhere else in the world.
He is a joke.
ya know. unless you can lay hands on an individual, then what good is an internet fight? unless you can beat someone senseless or they you then what does the name calling get ya?
ReplyDeletei mean seriously.
no one looks good, that's why i've withdrawn from that...or at least i'm trying to.
but one thing is certain. i've been the biggest booster of this program but it hasn't met expectations. i do think its going to get fixed but even if it does, it doesn't change the fact that the Navy isn't enthusiastic about the airplane.
compare the number of articles in professional journals of the Navy vs. Marines and you can see that the USMC thinks the plane is the second coming and the Navy views it as .... well i don't know but they're certainly not behind it.
They're not going to cancel the C but it's possible the current configuration won't be able to be modified to get it to trap on a carrier so it's possible they might need a significant redesign. Obviously it would be better to fix it sooner rather than later.
ReplyDeleteThat said the USN could live without the C. It's the USAF that needs the C to help keep overall costs down. The USN only plans on 2 squadrons of 10 each to replace the F/A-18C sqdn's. The F/A-18E/F's are to replaced with NGAD which was supposed to go too technology demonstration in 2013 and they haven't said so far that this is being delayed.
Besides NGAD the X-47B follow on (UCAS-D) is supposed to enter service in 2018 and could very well beat the C into service. So between continued buys of F/A-18E/F, UCAS-D, and eventually NGAD the USN would survive very nicely without the F-35C and in fact cutting it would save a lot of money short and mid term. It's still not going to happen however. The USAF bet the farm on the F-35A and everyone else will be dragged along to help pay for it, leaving aside the fact the F-35 will be game changing strike fighter.
As an aside in my view ELP isn't nuts. He just tends to use facts to support his position against the F-35 instead of clearly looking at the information. In other words he's got an axe to grind. Many people do one side or the other, especially regarding the F-35.
When Adm Venlet was at NAVAIR they leaked a study indicating the F-35 was going to have significantly higher operating costs than the Super Hornet (and AV-8B). The USN spent a lot of time, and grief, pairing down the carrier wing to be something they could afford to operate. The medium attack and fixed wing patrol/asw communities and the aircraft are gone as well as the KA-6's and ES-3's and of course the F-14.
ReplyDeleteThe USN is simply concerned that the higher life cycle costs are going to impact force structure and frankly they should be concerned. The F-35 might be a revolutionary game changing strike fighter but how much it ends up costing is still a key metric in it's overall success. Bottom line they'd rather have 10 carriers than say 8.
"its about people not hardware..."
ReplyDeleteTrue- unless you take away the hardware they need to do their jobs, which would be the case in this instance. Kinda difficult to fly missions with no airplanes.
. . .and while some might say, "well they'll still have Super Hornets" if the USN has to rely on that for the next 40 years it may as well retire it's carriers. The Super Hornet in not even in the class of a Flanker, let alone a J-20 or T-50.
ReplyDeleteInteresting
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I can the C being cancelled, its larger size makes me wonder why the airforce doesnt want it, but all B's for the flat decks sounds, well, not ideal, but possible.
"you can generate more sorties with catapults"
How so?
A "B" flying off a Nimitz doesnt have any obvious problems?
The difference between the B and C is night and day. The C has about 6000lbs more internal fuel, a much bigger wing, is rated for more G's, can lift off with a FAR higher payload than a B can STOL with. Some head will roll, but they'll get the tailhook issue resolved and move on. No way is the USN going to settle with the SH for the next 40 years.
ReplyDeletethe deal with generating more sorties lies with the catapult system...specifically with EMALs coming online you don't have to clear one side of the deck so that you can get a running start to launch your STOVL airplane. you simply stack the planes behind the jet blast deflector, launch, lower the deflector and repeat. much shorter cycle in practice. additionally you can recover and launch simultaneously (at least i think you can) which you can't do with STOVL.
ReplyDeletedoes the C have a higher g rating than the B? not sure...time to check.
C will be limited at 7.5G, the B will be limited to 7.0G.
ReplyDeletewhere are you getting that? everything i'm looking at says that the B and C will have identical g ratings...7.5
ReplyDeleteI think it depends on the timeframe. I think with the B it's currently 7 and will eventually be back up to 7.5.
ReplyDeleteFrom Lockheed Martin:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35b-stovl-variant.html