Thanks for the heads up Andrew.
via Flight Global.
The big news? Mabus is onboard with the Navy plan.
The F-35 cabal is fracturing. Additionally it appears that Greenert's position is hardening. He is saying plainly now that he is seeking foreign sales to keep the line open.
I read that to mean that additional buys of Super Hornets are being considered and he wants partners in the program to make that possible. All of this is a direct attack on the F-35 program.
The real question now is this.
If the Navy is successful and I believe budget reality will see more Super Hornets and the cancellation of the C model, then what does the USMC do? The B will not get cheaper, its obvious that the SecNav is "evolving" on the reality that is the F-35 so what is the future of the plane in the Dept of Navy?
via Flight Global.
The US Navy has confirmed it wants to buy additional Boeing E/A-18G Growler aircraft – a move the service says will protect the nation’s industrial base and provide it with the electronic warfare capability it will need in the coming decades.Read the article here.
“I see a growing Growler need,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm Jonathan Greenert told lawmakers during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on 12 March. “We are at the minimum requirement as we know it.”
“Today we have the minimum numbers [of Growlers] in each squadron,” adds USN secretary Ray Mabus.
The navy, which did not immediately respond to a request for additional information, currently has five Growlers per squadron, Mabus says. “Looking in the future, we don’t think electronic attack is going to get any smaller,” he adds.
The comments come days after news that the USN is seeking to include 22 additional Growlers in its “unfunded” requirements request for fiscal year 2015. That document, which must be approved by military leaders, includes items that were not in the military’s FY2015 budget request, released earlier this month.
In his committee testimony, Greenert calls the request a “hedge and risk-reduction” effort, adding that the navy is “very mindful of the industrial base”.
The US government is also “working on things like foreign military sales to keep that [Boeing] line in business”, Greenert adds.
The big news? Mabus is onboard with the Navy plan.
The F-35 cabal is fracturing. Additionally it appears that Greenert's position is hardening. He is saying plainly now that he is seeking foreign sales to keep the line open.
I read that to mean that additional buys of Super Hornets are being considered and he wants partners in the program to make that possible. All of this is a direct attack on the F-35 program.
The real question now is this.
If the Navy is successful and I believe budget reality will see more Super Hornets and the cancellation of the C model, then what does the USMC do? The B will not get cheaper, its obvious that the SecNav is "evolving" on the reality that is the F-35 so what is the future of the plane in the Dept of Navy?
The Marines might be forced to buy Super Hornets seeing has how it looks like the line will be opened a little bit longer. Should they refuse and keep charging their budget funding hard into the F-35B it looks like Marine Air will... oh what was that phrase Amos used again? "Die in ditch?"
ReplyDeletei've been thinking about this a bit further. what do you think about this scenario.
Deletethe Dept of the Navy is under pressure from all sides. it needs more ships, needs to protect the ones it already has in service, and NAVAIR has done research which indicates that the Super Hornet will be viable until the F/A-XX comes online.
what does that mean for Marine AIr? well the only reason why the Marines were buying the C model was for the carrier mission. if the Navy doesn't buy the C then the Marines WILL be forced to buy Super Hornets or else you have 2 unique aircraft in Marine Corps service. that will be a budget buster and Amos is almost done as commandant so that won't fly.
additionally you have to look at the requirement for the B model in that light. how many do you actually need if you have Super Hornets?
death spiral is here. no one wants to say it out loud but it is.
"The navy, ..., currently has five Growlers per squadron"
DeleteCan anyone tell me how does that works out? Operational-wise? Deployment-wise? Did anyone ever say if the Growlers are wired to do other things besides electronic warfare?
and you my friend have hit on the other dirty little secret that F-35 supporters don't like to talk about.
Deletethe Growler was able to do what few other have. get kills on the F-22. and that's what they let into the open. i do know that electronic warfare is considered the future and electronic attack is considered the holy grail. additionally another thing that no one talks about is the fact that even against Iraqi anti-air defenses you still had EA-6Bs providing protection.
last but not least the USAF has gotten out of the electronic jamming business so they will find it difficult to argue the point of needing more Growlers.
Greenert is brilliant. he has crafted this argument in such a way as to make it a MUST have...despite the pressure to back the F-35 program.
Why do you seem to take everything these days as a sign of the immediate demise of the F-35 program? You sound like one of the fools screaming that the sky has been falling for over six years now if not earlier.
DeleteThe USMC has much invested in the F-35B and are going to fight for that STOVL capability the F/A-18 cannot provide. It also represents a greater number of airframes than the F-35C, and a unique capability not matched by any fighter currently in production across the world. Besides for the obvious customers like the UK there are a lot of other countries with small helicopter carriers that will probably take a hard look at the F-35B.
The Navy has never liked the F-35C because it isn't want they really wanted. Their requirements were shoehorned into the JSF program when the A/F-X program was cancelled. They'd gladly dump the F-35C thinking it will help their prospects for their next fighter program. Of course everybody else is going to insist they stay involved just for the program's greater health.
The only way the Navy is not getting the F-35C would be if:
- A few years from now the F-35A, F-35B, and JSF program as a whole is going better than anybody could hope and enough new orders of those variants have been made to counter the loss of F-35C production.
- Congress is willing to fund further upgrades for the F/A-18E and F/A-18F as well the Navy's program for a new fighter that will succeed that aircraft.
As for more EA-18Gs, I can't argue against more electronic warfare aircraft. Yet their long term usefulness relies on them getting the Next Generation Jammer.
are you really that simplistic in your view of defense matters? you can spout about capability and need but i could do the same thing with the EFV that was summarily canceled. the same could have been said about the FCS, Commanche, Crusader etc...and in my mind those were all much more needed, programs with much more promise than the F-35 with much less cost.
Deletebut forgetting that part of your INSANE response lets move to the political and budget environment as IT IS, not as YOU WANT it to be.
1. The Republicans look set to retake the Senate. Expect sequestration to continue. that means F-35 cuts.
2. the F-35s costs as they now stand. have you not noticed that the repair bill to get the planes that have already been built isn't factored into price? neither is maintenance. when you toss in all the chips then its anything but affordable.
3. Allies are already cutting. Italy is not the first to cut orders. The Netherlands was the first. I expect even more nations to follow. Japan and S. korea? linked with China and China's economy is limping along.
3. the American people. most are already leery of defense spending and democrats are going to want to pay for their favorite social projects. how do you pay for that? defense cuts.
quite honestly the F-35 program is following the track record of everyother stealth project. much promise at the beginning, much gnashing of teeth and fighting to keep in production, then in the end major cuts in the number procured.
the death spiral might be the best you can hope for and not a complete program stop.
Also, I've thought about what would happen to the Marine buy of F-35C's if the Navy is finally able to pull out myself.
DeleteI used to think that maybe the USMC F-35C buys would be converted into Super Hornets, but now I'm starting to think that the Marine Corps will just scrap their F-35C orders and use whatever money that frees up to throw into the F-35B. Even then, it's highly questionable how the USMC will respond if the C is cancelled and the B becomes the next target for cuts to the program.
Right now the F-35C is the target for cuts because it is only being purchased by us. If the cuts finally kill the F-35C, then the F-35B will obviously be the next target.
@Solomon
DeleteSimplistic in my views? I merely understand the REALITY that the F-35 isn't going to be cancelled. It has the full support of the USAF and much of the USMC brass. Components for it are being built in most states and several allied nations. There are tens of thousands of jobs linked directly or indirectly to the program. There are several hundred international orders planned making this the center of future American combat aircraft exports.
And the truth is that despite the flaws the F-35 does some things right and those operating it will make the most of those capabilities. Cost now in early production lots are not final in any form. There is no excuse for Lockheed to not bring the price down and our federal government ought to be hounding them until they do. From a materials standpoint it isn't as complicated as the F-22 and will certainly cost less to operate than one or a late model F-15.
As with most combat aircraft there are many different prices somebody can calculate varying with factors are included. When a country makes an order they are often also buying all sorts of support equipment, simulators, spares, etc. Maintenance and operational costs are not factored into the "flyaway" pricetag. IIRC money has already been set aside for retrofitting early production aircraft with fixes incorporated for structural issues discovered in testing which primarily is an F-35B exclusive issue due to the lightened bulkhead design.
And remember that structural issues are not exclusive to the F-35. The F-22, F/A-18, F-15 and dozens of other fights in the past decades have encountered unforeseen structural problems in their lifetimes which have been corrected.
Most of the European cuts that have occurred are due to the European trend of cutting defense spending and their current economic conditions. The political scene in Italy is, as usual, a complete mess. Maybe Putin's aggression will wake some of Europe up, maybe not. China is suffering economically like many nations but despite past predictions of economic collapse they have held together thus-far. They are still flexing their muscles in the region. If Japan really plans to go ahead with this overhaul of their military they aren't going to cut their F-35 order. If anything they might be interested in the F-35B for their Hyūga class "helicopter destroyers". South Korea has a similar ship in service with another in construction.
First you say, the Republicans are going to cut the F-35 then you say the Democrats will for their favorite pet social programs?The American people should be educated about the matter by sources other than media types screaming about a "TRILLION DOLLAR PRICE TAG!!!" and similar sensationalist headlines. They should expect the government to negotiate a better contract and hold Lockheed accountable rather than just cutting everything and repeating a historical mistake the United States has made far too often! The F-35 is such a huge priority in part because of the false "peace dividend" of the '90s and later the extensive cuts to the F-22 program.
In the unlikely event the F-35C fails carrier qualifications this year, things could change, but that is as unlikely as those other two scenarios occurring.
ReplyDeleteWith the way our country is going I have my doubts we'll see new fighter programs after the F-35, so of course I think the Navy would be better off with both the F/A-18 and F-35C as opposed to just the F/A-18.
Seriously what reality do you live in? The F-35C unlikely to fail carrier qualifications? That's the best joke I've heard all month!
DeleteWhat the F-35C would really need to pass carrier qualifications is a stretching of the air frame to put more distance between the hook and the rear landing gear. LM can't do that without destroying commonality with the sister variants so instead they made a sharper hook point and increased the force holding the hook down. They did land based hook trials around Christmas and they apparently went so well that LM refused to disclose the full results. Don't you think if things went well they would have bragged more about it? My guess is that the F-35C is no where near being ready for carrier trials and they are going to argue to push the tests further out again as they have always done in the past.
In any case, the Navy would be far better off with a full force of only F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs. The Super Hornet/Growler combination can defeat anything, simple as that. The commonality of one air frame for the entire service means that they will have ease of training and maintenance across the entire board. If the Navy needs stealthy strike capability they can use stealthy cruise missiles fired from Super Hornets or develop a drone at costs far cheaper than the F-35C and probably even cheaper than F/A-18s.
I am far from an expert, but I think its been said here before, but I will reiterate,stealth is an endstate, not a method. If we can insert item X into an area without an enemy able to effectively engage it then I would argue you have achieved stealth. There are multiple ways to attack this problem. Plus in order for the F-35 to maximize its payload it needs to utilize external hard-points, which make it decidedly un-stealthy. Just a dumb 0402 thoughts.
Deleteno such thing as a dumb 0402...or at least not for long! i've been to the course and cubing up ships is a pain in the ass!
Delete@Andrew Robertson
DeleteLockheed won't bring the F-35C to a real carrier deck until they have done dozens of successful simulated landings on land. They know it will be a PR disaster of it goes for carrier trials and fails. As of now carrier trails are still scheduled for later this year.
There are a lot of self-proclaimed experts who keep saying how the F-35C will never be able to land on a carrier, I don't put much faith in them. We'll see this year.
Far better off with only Super Hornets? If the F-35 in all forms doesn't cut it how could you possibly think the Super Hornet does? The next-gen aircraft from China and Russia will quite simply outclass it. The Navy needs something better. I'd argue something even better than the F-35C. You need more than cruise missiles. To defeat a fully modern integrated air defense system we need all sorts of capabilities, standoff weapons like you said, aircraft with a high degree of stealth, EW and ECM support, decoys, etc. A fighter is expected to do more than just serve as some sort of cruise missile carrier like the B-52 would in a nuclear war.
Another way to save the day is to modify the F-35B to be fueled onbthe air. You can scrap the F-35C, the USNavy could buy some F-35B with that capacity acting as sensors for the fleet as they described and to built more Super Hornets, Growlers and UCLAS. That way even the allies with small carriers will have a chance.
ReplyDeletethe F-35B can be aerial refueled. i didn't mention it cause it was covered pretty much everywhere else but the US Navy is looking at an IOC of 2020 for the first UCLASS (X-47). it will have much better stealth, as good sensors and will be able to remain on station longer...not to mention it'll be able to enter hostile airspace without worry of recovering a downed pilot.
DeleteNo way the -B is going on a CVN. The decks are not designed for the heat stress introduced by the engine in STOVL mode, plus the STOVL mode interferes with normal launch and recovery cycles. Which brings up the complications of regularly operating F-35Bs from ships not designed for them. A new aviation centric LHA (the first two without a well deck...) was designed for the Marines' requirement to operate the F-35-B, yet the deck has to be retrofitted because of thermal issues discovered late in its construction (later America class vessels are not affected, but Wasp class will need deck mods.) Other countries vessels are going to need similar mods if they want to operate the -B.
DeleteTo adapt the deck for the F-35B on the recovery area will be as impossible as to put new shingles to my roof. The F-35B can take off and landing in that crossing deck and the Super Hornets can continue taking of at he front of the carrier ant to landing at the same area as the F-35B. That's way more easy than make the F-35C functional.
DeleteYou must have some house - mods will cost 10's of millions of dollars per vessel. It's not a question of if it can be done, but is it worth the cost just to operate a few F-35Bs. Unless a vessel has the capacity for a full squadron (or more,) embarking a few F-35Bs serves - for the most part - as a status symbol for small navies. As far as the CVN goes, I have a suspicion that you do not have a good understanding of flight operations.
DeleteYou can land all these airplanes in a carrier and you say there is no way to landing a F-35B?
DeleteWww.youtube.com/watch?v=cOr5dbq916s&feature=youtube_gdata_player
To have only 2 models, the A and B would save time and money in research and software development. To increase the number of B models will be beneficial not only for the Marines but also for the allies interested to operate them from their carriers. As I said the USNAVY could use them as forward sensors and rely in the Growlers and Advanced Super Hornets to launch missiles, bombs, Electronic attacks and dogfights. The Marines could buy some Advanced Super Hornets to do other jobs like CAS or stand off attacks with Jsow or malds from carriers.
Www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBI7uiDQA6Y&feature=youtube_gdata_player www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_s5KGUvH9c&feature=youtube_gdata_player www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Pu_PKpEhqU&feature=youtube_gdata_player www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4m4li6wwNw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Other countries like Australia or Canada could have a combined force of a lot of Super Hornets and Growlers and some F-35B to operate in the same way, from small carriers or short runways in the artic. Even Japan, Korea, UK, Italy, could use them combined with their F-15 and Typhoons with stand off weapons. The F-35A could be used basically by the USAF.
DeletePreserving the industrial base and the importance of EA cannot be overstated. Do we really want only one manufacturer of tactical aircraft - one that has not had the best record of developing working fighter aircraft on time and on budget? Stealth is useful, but it also injects design compromises that severely affect cost and performance, plus, in the case of F-35, is optimized for X-band (FCR/seeker frequencies) - thus the need for EA aircraft to produce full spectrum effects. I would prefer that the Navy drop the F-35C and move to developing the F/A-XX now, but I'm also realistic. Unless the -C completely fails its carqual, the Navy will be forced to buy at least some F-35Cs. But since they are going to cost at least twice (if not more) as much as F/A-18E/Fs, I can easily foresee a truncated buy - maybe enough to equip one squadron per CVW, or even fewer aka det sized (4-5.) Super Hornets with CFTs and a weapons pod gives you a rough equivalent of F-35Cs - make Boeing eat a chunk of development costs, and the line could stay in business for several more years beyond 2016.
ReplyDeleteThanks Sol for the clarification about the refuel. I tought the USNavy is loocking for a UCLAS more in the class of the avengers. Any way, maybe the F-35 has a point as a sensor considering the UAV can be jammed. That's why he USNavy is showing thr UAVs in support role and as tankers, missiles and bomb trucks commanded by the Growlers and Awacs. If all they need is an F-35 protected by the Growlers, better to use the F-35B. Having more of them will reduce the price for the Marines and allies navy air forces in their carriers, and the Marines could have some Advanced Super Hotnets in the Navy carriers too.
ReplyDeleteSomething likr in my old video.
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=JLE-v-ldaHM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
The Navy is having a hard time deciding what they want from UCLASS. Yet if it is an aircraft similar to the X-47B there will be areas where it is lacking. Both in terms of being limited to subsonic speeds and the current limitations of unmanned systems.
ReplyDelete