Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Dewline: Bipartisan Conspiracy Against F-35 & V-22  
User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2752 posts, RR: 4
Posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5876 times:

According to blogger the DEW Line at Flightglobal.com several think tanks are suggesting killing the V-22 and Cut F-35A/C by 1/2 and to terminate F-35B. Are these options likely? It will be interesting to see what the bipartisan group will suggest to cut as the U.S needs to decrease their dept. Will the V-22 and F-35B be victims?

As an aviation nut, I am sad to see the prospect of the F-35B and V-22 cut as those planes are really amazing in terms of engineering effort. Just recently the V-22 produciton cost was reduced severly, and the cost of the F-35 program is also maturing.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...he-vast-bipartisan-conspiracy.html

Pictures from Wikipedia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/US_Navy_080220-N-5180F-015_A_Marine_Corps_MV-22_Osprey_prepares_to_land_aboard_the_amphibious_assault_ship_USS_Nassau_%28LHA_4%29.jpg/799px-US_Navy_080220-N-5180F-015_A_Marine_Corps_MV-22_Osprey_prepares_to_land_aboard_the_amphibious_assault_ship_USS_Nassau_%28LHA_4%29.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/F-35B_Joint_Strike_Fighter_%28thrust_vectoring_nozzle_and_lift_fan%29.PNG/800px-F-35B_Joint_Strike_Fighter_%28thrust_vectoring_nozzle_and_lift_fan%29.PNG


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15745 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5813 times:

Quoting oykie (Thread starter):
and the cost of the F-35 program is also maturing.

The F-35 was an unrealistic order from the start. Cutting that program would be nothing more than politicians and bureaucrats correcting their own error. Of course, they will need something better to fill the gap, just like the F-14 doing what the F-111 was originally intended to do.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5682 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
The F-35 was an unrealistic order from the start. Cutting that program would be nothing more than politicians and bureaucrats correcting their own error. Of course, they will need something better to fill the gap, just like the F-14 doing what the F-111 was originally intended to do.

The problem is that there is no other option. The USAF and USN has essentially bet the barn on F-35, the USAF more so because they haven't ordered a new fighter since 2001.

And cutting F-35 will become a self-fulfilling prophecy; when you build fewer planes, the costs for each aircraft goes up because much of the fixed costs become amortized over fewer airframes.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5652 times:

There is no conspiracy, it's common sense. I wrote about this in the other thread on DoD cuts. The F-35B is a great replacement for the AV-8B Harrier, but it's overkill and the wrong replacement for the Marine legacy Hornets. Arguably, the Harrier isn't even worth replacing, as thee who invented it have already pulled the plug on it themselves.

The V-22 has perhaps proven that it can work, but one thing that it has not and will never be able to do, is justify itself fiscally. It's extra speed is just not worth the price, not in what we now face in an economic standpoint. As a nitch, it can be useful, but to try and make it the bulk of the Marine Air Wing, it's not only a waste of money initially and particularly in operating costs, (compared to modern rotary winged helo alternatives,) it arguably will not afford the Wing some of the same things that it used to enjoy from it's Medium lift fleet. The Marines could spend half as much as they want to buy one last lot of V-22's, and get very respectable and capable MH-60S or better yet, EH-101's.

Considering we have invested so much money into the Gator Navy, I would try and keep the F-35B on track, but only as a replacement for the Harriers. I would replace legacy Hornets with F/A-18F's and EA-6B's with EA-18G's, simple as that. The Marines can have first strike stealh capability with the F-35B's and then from there, where their mission primarily calls for, they can act as precision guided bomb trucks playing FAC(A) from two-seat Fox Hornets off full sized carriers, where when they would be slinging ordinance off their wings Stealth would be useless anyways. With 11 hardpoints and the ability to carry nearly anything in the arsenal, combined with AESA radar, the Fox Hornets are exactly what the Marines need, in particularly in this bleak, economic/DoD budget forecast.

In my opinion, that Marines have already spent their allotted allowance keeping the V-22's alive as long as it took to get them to this point, and they shouldn't be able to afford to continue to go out and spend vicariously on an all F-35B fleet, and still think they have money left over to make a NGJ version. The Marines desperately need the CH-53K as soon as they can get it, and they simply cannot afford to unnecessarily buy more V-22's at the expense of the Kilo Sea Stallion.

The Marines have to ante up and get real, as they hopefully will realize that if they make some intelligent cuts first they will be far better off than letting some mind-numb noob of a politician take a weed-wacker to their air wing.


User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2752 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5606 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
The F-35 was an unrealistic order from the start.

A step too far, so to speak?  
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 2):
The problem is that there is no other option.

I agree with this in general, but I wonder how much of the F-35 operations can be easily done by the F-15 Silent Eagle or F-18 with similar updates?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 2):
When you build fewer planes, the costs for each aircraft goes up because much of the fixed costs become amortized over fewer airframes.

That is true. But if they choose to only build the F-35A and C they will probably buy more of those, so those variants will probably benefit from the axing of the C variant.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 3):
Considering we have invested so much money into the Gator Navy, I would try and keep the F-35B on track, but only as a replacement for the Harriers. I would replace legacy Hornets with F/A-18F's and EA-6B's with EA-18G's, simple as that.

Would they even need the F-35B? Do they need that capability at all? Or could the navy do the first strike?



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlinen901wa From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 463 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5555 times:

I think the problem with the USMC loosing the F-35B, is it would have to rethink how to provide CAS on the LHD Class Assault Ships. Not having the fixed wing support on the LHD's would be a drag on the task group.
Just my humble thought.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15745 posts, RR: 27
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5231 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 2):
The problem is that there is no other option. The USAF and USN has essentially bet the barn on F-35, the USAF more so because they haven't ordered a new fighter since 2001.

They need to cut the F-35 back to being a fighter for the USAF and perhaps Navy. Then see what it can be developed into.

Frankly, that seems to be a recurring patter when it comes to great airframes, especially military ones. Design an airframe to excel at a particular well defined mission and then see what else it can be. The "not a pound for air to ground" F-15, the B-52, etc. are all aircraft that have been designed to do a specific job and that yielded a design that was more than capable of expanding roles and evolving with technology.

Quoting oykie (Reply 4):
A step too far, so to speak?

It was an unrealistic vision. Politicians wanted a plane that would dogfight like an F-16, take over the close air support role of the A-10, strike like an F-117, and do STOVL like a Harrier. And had to do it all with the latest electronics and at a cost far cheaper than the F-22. It was largely a bureaucrats' fantasy from the start.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2752 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5065 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
It was an unrealistic vision. Politicians wanted a plane that would dogfight like an F-16, take over the close air support role of the A-10, strike like an F-117, and do STOVL like a Harrier. And had to do it all with the latest electronics and at a cost far cheaper than the F-22. It was largely a bureaucrats' fantasy from the start.

But boy, what a fantasy   I enjoy the F-35, but as you say those leaps are not a low cost option. That is something even politicians should know, or at least do know now  

Here are more information about the possibility of axing the V-22 and cutting the F-35.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ooks-nervously-at-budget-cuts.html

Quote:
Moodys Investors Service has warned in a new report that the Lockheed Martin F-35 joint strike fighter and Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey are among the most vulnerable budget-cutting targets.
Quote:
The V-22 may be in a particularly vulnerable position. A five-year production contract expires in January 2013, allowing the Department of Defense the option of signing a new multi-year deal, converting the contract to annualised awards or even cancelling the programme.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5060 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 3):
The F-35B is a great replacement for the AV-8B Harrier, but it's overkill and the wrong replacement for the Marine legacy Hornets. Arguably, the Harrier isn't even worth replacing, as thee who invented it have already pulled the plug on it themselves.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
I would replace legacy Hornets with F/A-18F's and EA-6B's with EA-18G's, simple as that. The Marines can have first strike stealh capability with the F-35B's and then from there, where their mission primarily calls for, they can act as precision guided bomb trucks playing FAC(A) from two-seat Fox Hornets off full sized carriers, where when they would be slinging ordinance off their wings Stealth would be useless anyways. With 11 hardpoints and the ability to carry nearly anything in the arsenal, combined with AESA radar, the Fox Hornets are exactly what the Marines need, in particularly in this bleak, economic/DoD budget forecast.

I'm a bit confused, you say the Harrier is not even worth replacing. But then add the F-35B should take it's place anf the Super Hornet that of the legacy Hornets.

to do so would raise the unit cost of the F-35 program even more. IMHO the F-35B should be killed since it seems to be the main cause of delays and overruns with the JSF. Give the USMC the choice between the F-35C and the Super Hornet. Choosing the Super Hornet would lower it's unit cost but would not raise it if the F-35C were picked. On the other hand picking the E/F would raise the unit cost on the F-35. So picking the F-35C would be the better option from a money standpoint.


User currently offlineChrisba777er From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4984 times:

So if the F35 get shitcanned - where does this leave our new RN carriers? Rafale or F18 super bug?


What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlinewvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4932 times:

Quoting Chrisba777er (Reply 9):
So if the F35 get shitcanned - where does this leave our new RN carriers? Rafale or F18 super bug?

No worries the F-35 wont get totally canned just the number the US orders will be reduced Just for the record other than in stealth there isnt too much a difference between the F-35 and the superbugs and rafale's. Other than the F-35 being way overpriced.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4883 times:

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 10):
No worries the F-35 wont get totally canned just the number the US orders will be reduced Just for the record other than in stealth there isnt too much a difference between the F-35 and the superbugs and rafale's. Other than the F-35 being way overpriced.

Umm... have you actually had a look at the technology being implemented in the F-35?

F-35's major advancement is in the avionics and sensor technology. The specific combination of stealth, multisensor situational awareness, advanced pilot-machine interface and basic aeromechanical performance means that F-35 will outperform any existing fighter in existence, save for the F-22 in certain areas. The advancement in situational awareness through multisensor integration, and avionics means that for the first time, a pilot has 360 degree situational awareness 100% of the time, in all weather conditions. No longer will anyone be able to sneak up on a F-35 before being detected well before they can even shoot. No longer will a SAM launch occur, without the pilot not being aware and be able to constantly track the missile. No longer in a swirling dogfight will a F-35 pilot loose track of his wingmen and can't identify friend from foe.

It's always frustrating to see growing pains, delays, and cost increases in any project, but there are more than enough success stories, to maintain a positive outlook on the program. Most of the cost complaints, are due to a different metric being used, than for legacy aircraft (maintenance over 50yrs vs. 30yrs for example). When you compare legacy aircraft apples to apples, then the value becomes more apparent. The revolutionary capabilities offered by F-35 are game changing, and the synergy that they bring is far better than just slightly improved over current aircraft. Maneuverability on par with existing fighters, superior combat speed (the Mach 1.6 quoted for F-35 is a realistic combat speed with a full load of weapons and fuel compared to other fighters), superior electronic warfare systems, and first look/shoot/kill and situational awareness advantages.

Not to mention that maintenance crews are going to love working on F-35's; there is a common configuration for avionics and mission systems across the fleet. Rather than having to train and supply maintainers for the dozens of different of F-16 configurations in use, training and supply can focus on the common F-35A configuration. Not to mention how how the mission systems are to be upgraded. Rather than a piece by piece upgrade and much time spent on aircraft reconfiguration, the missions systems architecture permits rapid swap out of new sensors and systems. This is true of the other variants of the F-35 as well.

F-35 will also provide real time operational data, which will allow maintenance to need rather than maintenance, based on paper determined schedules. The real time operational data can be used as well to determine parts reliability, which in turn can lead to improved design and production of parts, which is another cost reducer.

Finally, the global sustainment partnership for the F-35 means system ownership of parts rather than local ownership. A USAF F-35A in Australia will no longer need to have parts flown in from the US; they can use parts that are in stock in Australia. A Norwegian F-35A on exercise in Canada doesn't need to have parts flown in from Norway like we do today. This leads to reduce time to replace parts, which is another cost saving.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4856 times:

Ready to piss off some people? Okay. Here I go.

V-22 and F-32B. Marines.

Asorb the best aspects of the USMC into the Army and Navy, be rid of the gator navy. Yes, Marines have a proud history, they can perform tasks the other branches cant... but a 4th branch of military is not needed.

Okay, take a breath.


What is the chances a mass invasion by sea will ever be needed again? Maybe on a smaller scale, but not with 9 carriers, supersonic stealth fighters, tanks and 10 000 troops. The USMC alone sucks up $29B a year... the entire Canadian military, with its highest military budget since WWII, paying for nearly a complete replacement of its hardware after being left to rot in the 90s, is spending $22B a year.

More breaths.


The USMC will still exist, but as a branch of the Army, like the Green Berets, a speciality force.

Cue rage.


User currently offlinejohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 923 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4713 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 12):
The USMC alone sucks up $29B a year... the entire Canadian military, with its highest military budget since WWII, paying for nearly a complete replacement of its hardware after being left to rot in the 90s, is spending $22B a year.

That's because the USMC is much, much larger than the entire CF.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Dewline: Bipartisan Conspiracy Against F-35 & V-22
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
F-22 Now Grounded For Fourth Month posted Mon Aug 8 2011 19:15:42 by kanban
F-35 Tests Suspended Over System Failure posted Wed Aug 3 2011 17:23:19 by kanban
LM May Offer F-35 To India On Fighter Deal posted Mon Jun 20 2011 13:53:14 by comorin
Israel Considers V-22 Osprey Buy posted Sat Jun 18 2011 16:51:54 by LAXintl
F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots posted Tue May 17 2011 21:06:40 by ThePointblank
More Bad F-35 News Range Minimum Not Met posted Fri May 13 2011 17:02:50 by kanban
More F-35 Cost Problems posted Thu Apr 21 2011 18:19:10 by kanban
U.S. Not Happy With F-35 Engine Cost Overruns posted Thu Apr 14 2011 17:55:57 by AirRyan
Norway Buy's 4 F-35 For Training posted Thu Apr 7 2011 12:53:11 by OyKIE
More F-35 Problems posted Fri Mar 25 2011 15:35:45 by kanban
MV-22 Osprey Crash In Morocco posted Thu Apr 12 2012 12:47:42 by HercPPMX
F-35 Survivability Testing posted Wed Apr 11 2012 17:34:50 by ThePointblank
Latest F-35 Total Cost Estimate = US$ 1.5 Trillion posted Thu Mar 29 2012 01:07:25 by faro
F-35 Lrip Costs Per Aircraft - Over $200 Million posted Mon Mar 12 2012 14:53:01 by tommytoyz
Japan May Cancel F-35 Order posted Wed Feb 29 2012 17:40:17 by francoflier
F-22 Won't Be Allowed To Perform At TBirds Shows? posted Mon Feb 6 2012 17:40:33 by HaveBlue
Chinese Cyber Spying Driving F-35 Costs? posted Mon Feb 6 2012 01:46:04 by connies4ever
F-35 IOC Date, 2020 posted Sat Feb 4 2012 13:59:55 by tommytoyz

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format