SecDef Hagel is looking at the possibility (no matter how unlikely he feels it is) of the F-35 going to the scrapheap so is it any wonder that other governments are doing the same behind the scenes (if they're not they're idiots)?
Naval Requirements takes a look at British options in case the "best interests of the Marine Corps" actually takes place. Read it here.
If the F35 is cancelled, and it will not happen, the QE class will never see a fixed wing airplane on its deck, and the US will go through a crisis with aging airplanes, just like the cancellation of the Comanche left the army scrambling for a new scout solution that, after all these years, still isn't even on the horizon. With a difference: it will be worse than with the Comanche. And it will leave a lot of allies deep in shit up to their necks, something that, understandably, will not make them very happy.
ReplyDeleteSuggesting that scrapping the F35 at this point, with the money already expended, with the many nations already onboard, is anything short of a catastrophe is simply dreaming.
I'll speak very frankly: i would like to know what makes you so confident that "scrapping the F35" and building another airplane (or three?) is
A) Possible
B) Beneficial
C) Going to work
How much more money and time will be needed to drop out of the F35 and go back all the way to the drawing board? It is a jump in the dark, to say the least.
i contend that we're already seeing the great death spiral that has been predicted. the USAF is going to have to cut squadrons. cutting squadrons is going to cut the number of F-35's bought by the programs biggest customer (especially since they also need to fund the Tanker replacement and a next gen bomber---both of which are more important to a Pacific strategy than the F-35).
Deleteif the USAF buys fewer F-35's then they will cost more for foreign buyers.
the dirty little secret of this program is that all of these allies are really banking more on the jobs that come from production offsets than they are the F-35.
the only service is that as wedded to the F-35 as the USMC might be the British Navy but they've taken a look at E-Mals and its a possibility (although an expensive refit) to their carriers. additionally as Sharky Ward pointed out the return to cats and traps would allow the Brits to field a fully functional naval air wing, not just an optimized amphib. AEW, Cargo planes etc would fly off the deck in addition to F-35s. that sounds like a win.
especially if they buy Super Hornets. as for the Marine Corps, we have your harriers. we're good till 2030 at the earliest. and could probably stretch it past that point.
Unfortunately Sharky is about as influential as me. There is no way in Hell that the MOD will be given the money to put catapults of any sort on the QE class. They tried that, but it didn't work.
DeleteF35 will happen. Numbers may be cut but I see this as a must. Issues of the airsystem not being ready and concurrency are frustrating but it has to work. Indeed it is in the Interest of the USN now to make the F35B work...
ReplyDeleteWhy.
UK is a stable and reliable ally to US. With the latest cuts we are all seeing and to many eyes are correct, we need to pool together with our allies. Today we see a possible scenario of a correctly fitted out carrier pool of 8-9 US carriers able to deploy with 2 UK and 1 French.
What I find myself saying is US needs to apply pressure to the allies to pick up the baton. As a UK citizen I feel we need to ensure we have the capability to allow US swing to the Pacific and UK/France & Europe (NATO), take a larger responsibilty to European theatre operations.
Additionally we in UK have a responsibility to assist Australia and New Zealand indeed India as required. Therefore again we need capable carrier vessels and F35B.
The long and short of this is, US needs to cut some numbers, yet modernise her equipments. She needs to know in cutting that "Delegation of responsibility" has taken place and been acted on.
To allow this to happen F35B is a requirement, and a cheaper alternative (Bronco)along with a number of F35B for the USMC would be an obvious route.
Indeed looking to the future the F35B will be sought after by Japan and Singapore.
where exactly do you see this pooling of carriers taking place? the US is turning to the Pacific. Europe is looking at the Mediteranian, the Atlantic and the Arabian sea.
Deletea future conflict in Africa will not require a carrier pool and everyone wants out of the Middle East. future partners are going to be in the Pacific and despite a love for naval aviation the reality is that land based air power will be just as important and when talking about the distances involved, long range bombers will probably come back into their prime.
as far as requirements, the engine is built. the avionics (to a large degree) are already in place. we just need an airframe.
it won't take long to build one to fit the F-35's engine and get a cheaper better plane to our allies that need one.
But come on, Sol, how could it even work! Now you want a new airframe but keep the same avionics and engine. Be realistic, with these premises you'd just build F35 again, tweaking it here and there perhaps, but wasting ungodly amounts of time and money. You are not going to be able to solve the problems with magic, and have a new airframe tomorrow that works perfectly and costs a peanut. Do you really think it is so simple and straightforward???
DeleteAs for wanting out of the Middle East, well, you can't and won't be pulling out of the Middle East. It will be for many more decades a vital chokepoint for the world's economy.
As for bombers, they might or might not be important, but they cannot replace naval aviation. It is not a matter of liking naval aviation or not, it is realism that speaks. Nor can bombers eliminate the need for tactical aircrafts. They might say that fighter pilots make movies and bomber pilots make history, but it is a pure and simple lie. There is not a single conflict that the big bomber aircraft can claim to have won or even decisively influenced. Bombers are precious, but they are an asset among many others, and not at all the most badly needed.
The low point in the story of bombers has been in the Falklands, which in some ways can be linked to Pacific oceans scenarios due to being a naval operation with immense distances involved. And the Vulcan raids, impressive as they were, can't realistically claim to have achieved much.
well we can argue in circles but what can't be denied is the fact that the SecDef has raised the possibility and even if it was trial balloon the reaction to the news was remarkably muted.
Deletenot one ally came out and said that the f-35 is indispensable. not even the Brits came out with a statement of support.
add to it that the cuts that are being proposed follow Simpson Bowles debt reduction plan and its ing to happen.
the only real bad news is that we were promised gear in return for cuts already done and we won't even get that because the f-35 ate up too much money. lastly look at lockheed. they suddenly are acting with urgency? why? because the threat to the f-35 is finally real. before it was all politics and part of playing the game but now? 15% of lockheed profits are tied up in the f-35 and its about to go away.
As stated by Gariele we can not start a new production.
DeleteStatements from Britain do not need to be made as the program is not going to be cancelled.
As stated above agreements of policy with Allies will cover US shortfalls. Additionally a broken economy is far more deadly than any threat to US currently.
F35B even adds to Italian Carrier capabilty by giving a plane that is so much more capable than Harrier thus multiplying the capability of Cavour.
F35B is crucial to the Cavour.
DeleteQE can (in theory) be adapted for CATOBAR, and thus for other planes. But the Cavour will be a very expensive (at least 1.5 billion euro) LPH for sure if the F35B fails.
Plus, Italy spent 800 million euro on building the FACO factory at Cameri, too, and contributed well over a billion for development.
MEADS was not nice to the allies, but bearable. Italy and Germany hope to at least complete development of the radar and integrate it afterwars in other SAM systems, such as SAMP-T and the normal Patriot batteries.
But a cancellation of the F35 would not go down well. Not at all. It would leave a lot of people deep in shit, with long-term plans in tatters, very expensive ships made suddenly useless, two allied naval aviations dead and many allies angry at an expense of several billions which will have bought them nothing.
I think anyone with a bit of loyalty and common sense will think pretty much a million times over the idea of cancelling the F35, at this point.
Exactly, US is turning to Pacific, which it can therefore do by diverting resources in Atlantic / Med to Pacific.
ReplyDeleteWith UK carriers coming on line the immediate requirement for "mobile air platform" is covered in this area by UK / France.
US now has more carrier in areas required, namely Gulf / Pacific. Thereby allowing reduction of 1 or 2 carriers (Cost saving)
Like it or not US will need to make cost savings. We are all spending over the top on Government budgets, in UK it is caused by Welfare and NHS. In US a major contributor is Defence.
So working together as allies with emphasis on "pulling weight" is actually not an unreasonable suggestion.
Finally your comments of long range bombers are subject to "cost analysis" as well.
UK found that Tornado strikes in Libya were on face value much more expensive than Carrier Strikes from locally deployed carrier. But the issue we have here is we have to build the carrier. So that one is not as clear cut...
But it all comes down to requirement. I would have thought that US should concentrate in Pacific. To do that Carrier Wing and USMC is probably the key with Airpower including land based assets the priority F35 is therefore a priority.