Retired USMC Lt Gen Emerson Gardner, a former principal deputy director of the Pentagon's Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE), says that there are lots of reasons to be sceptical about the USN's ability to fund the F/A-XX.Trust me on this one gents.
"It's not going to happen," Gardner says. "There's not going to be any money there."
Gardner says that the USN will probably not have any money for the programme in the fiscal year 2014 budget. Nor is it likely that the USN will ever come up with the $20 billion to $30 billion in research and development dollars to fund an F/A-XX development programme.
Gardner estimates the total cost of a new F/A-XX programme to be more than $40 billion and yield a maximum of 150 aircraft. The unit cost, he estimates, could be as much as $125 million per jet.
The USN simply does not have the money to pay for F/A-XX. With the USN's ship-building budgets squeezed, Gardner says that naval aviation accounts will likely end up being raided to help pay for submarines and surface ships.
The only place the money can come from is from within the F-35 programme, Gardner says. "There is a community over there that says 'let's just skip the F-35C, let's just keep buying F/A-18s and we'll go and develop this other airplane,'" he says.
"That's very dangerous for the carrier because it makes the carrier irrelevant. They are not going to have first-day capability. I'm absolutely convinced that if you do not have stealth by the year 2022 to 2025 you will be irrelevant."
Lt Gen George Trautman, a former USMC deputy commandant for aviation, concurs.
"It sort of validates the naval aviators' overall lack of commitment to the F-35," he says. "It shows how much they're in bed with Boeing to include a whole host of retired navy aviators who work for Boeing. And it shows, frankly, their lack of commitment to unmanned systems."
Gardner concurs that the USN's relationship with Boeing is playing a role in the service's push towards a new tactical fighter programme.
"I think it's Boeing. There is a huge Boeing lobby in the navy," Gardner says. "That has a lot to do with it."
The General's Club has made an estimation and decided that the "hand on the wheel that's driving the Marine Corps" needs to be fortified a bit.
Not one but two retired General's decided to make a statement on the Navy's F/A-XX project and the backing from that service on the F-35C.
You're starting to see the Club members speaking up on matters important to the Marine Corps...the first hint of this came with the Commandant's pronouncement to "stop embarassing the Corps" and now this.
I've stated before that Amos' time in the big chair will not be seen in the same light as General Gray's or Mundy's or Krulak's...this confirms it.
ooh, looks kinda good , reminds me of the "black widow" YF-23, especially the jet engine outlets, at the back, the YF-23 ceramic tiles to hide the exhaust plume from ground based detection, always thought that was very innovative.
ReplyDeletethe Navy doesn't even have the F-35 in service. remember this is old hat for the Air Force but new for the Navy.
ReplyDeletehow will stealth work at sea? the USMC can say screw it, we don't need stealth, we need STOVL and get by...but what aobut the navy with first day of war strike?
f-35c is a capable aircraft but is really a medium weight fighter, akin to the super hornet, compared to the to the now retired f-14, which would be considered the heavyweight.
ReplyDeleteThey need, a new heavyweight, better all aspect stealth, larger internal stores, longer legs generally larger & more capable, No reason, they couldn't use the f-35c avionics, bms, engines simply in a larger twin engine configuration
that's not the point. the point is that the F-35C is a major improvement over what they have now. the last time the USN tried to design a naval stealth fighter it got killed.
ReplyDeleteBoeing is playing games...its there for all to see. first things first. get the F-35C into service then start thinking about what comes next...not the other way around.
Boeing, yes, it's called drumming up business!!
ReplyDeletef-35c is capable & is almost in service, if you think linearly you'll not get this thing in service till the 2040's if atall, thats why you start planning now while the r&d on the f-35c is still fresh in people's minds, so that they can use what they learned, in a new aircraft! like i said use all the good things from the f-35c in a larger package, equals reduced risk in development, plus reduced thru life costs.
no, its called interferring with an ongoing project.
ReplyDeletewhat about innovation? your business plan is basically just an upgraded F-35...that'll come anyway...two seat models, upgraded engines, better AESA, improved EO/DAS etc...
what i'd be looking for in the next gen fighter is something cutting edge...a step beyond what we have. your model does not give me that and essentially freezes out any work that Dasault, EADS or Boeing might do. if all those companies can do is slightly improve the F-35 then why buy from them.
that's my complaint today. the Eurofighter, Rafale, F/A-18 and Gripen aren't as good as what we're getting yet they're still chirping like birds in the morning.
I don't think F/A 18 and euros are in the same game. F18 chirps because there's a huge momentum behind it. Euros chirp for both political reasons and physical & economical limits. Europe (and other parts of the world) simply does not have as many airports. There's a logical need for a smallish fighter that can do a relatively short takeoff/landing on some country road. I think even the bigger ones (Typhoon and Rafale) have shorter runway requirements than US fighters.
DeleteOne of the reasons I like F35[B] is that it would allow us to use any road in a storm. Of course, that's still a bit of a Cold War train of thought, the same that got us current designs.
Take care.
you mis understand my approch, use the software & engines (2 of them), longer legged bird, it's about mitigating problems, reducing costs, but will still run rings round the f-35c
ReplyDeletetheir talking about putting the f35 avionics into the f-22, but the f-22 would still eat f-35's for lunch, if the two had some real fighting in the air
you're smoking crack. the F-35 would see the F-22 first, would achieve a firing solution first and if the combat got within visual range would see the F-22 first and would be able to launch from whatever position or angle it finds itself in because of the JHMCS and AIM-9x.
ReplyDeletethere is a reason why they want to put the F-35 avionics into the F-22. despite all its power and such its still old tech in comparison.
you can talk about high flying but the USAF is learning again why it required space suits above a certain hieght .... 55,000 feet is about it without them...and the F-35 can get that high.
face it. the F-22 was limited in production for a reason and it wasn't because of its price point.
i think not, seeing it first anyways, the stealth on the f-22, is far superior to that of the f-35, ill give you that the f-35, has better avionics, but the aesa radar is smaller with fewer "signal dodahs", therefore lower resolution, therefore lower chance of finding the f-22, before it is blotted from the sky! if you mean, it'll be seen on the das system, i think not very likely, as the f-22, employs active cooling on leading surfaces, to reduce thermal signatures, also, the f-22 has a larger internal payload, I don't know what weapons they each carry but i cant see them fitting anything inferior to the f-22, that will be on the f-35.
ReplyDeleteI think, your right the avionics could have a kick up the ass, aswell as installing the das, the only areas's where the f-22 is lacking, oh yeah, they should also stop killing there pilots aswell by sufocating them, we both can atleast agree on that point!!
You don't need a Boeing conspiracy to explain this: the Navy has wanted a bigger, twin engine design all along. It has never had an F-14 replacement nor an A-6 replacement and has wanted both for a long time (though lack of an A-6 replacement is their own fault).
ReplyDeleteStill the basic points of the generals are correct. There is no money for this and the USN will not be allowed to build a USN only 5.5 or 6 gen fighter: they just don't have the production volume to justify the R&D cost.
Also the idea that the pentagon could start today and have a new fighter operational by 2030 is laughable as is even Gardner's $125M cost. This is, however, just as true of the USAF's discussion of a 6th gen F-22 replacement by 2030, which somehow is not seen as a plot to destroy the F-35 . . .
Any dollars in the aviation budget of any service not going to the F-35 in a zero sum universe is a threat to the F-35. The USN plan going back a decade is to operate 2 squadrons of F-35C's and 2 F/A-18E/F mid term. Long term they require a replacement for the E/F and they have some specific requirements for this bird. If a derivative of the F-35 can fit the bill fine.
ReplyDelete