That quote is from a "Breaking Defense" story on the Navy's stance on future F-18 purchases. It was well done and I highly recommend you read it. It doesn't fill in all the blanks but gives a bit of clarity on the Navy's thinking on the F-35 and the F-18.
My take? The Navy is far from sold on the F-35 and I expect a push for more F-18s instead, to start soon. With the F-18 expected to serve until 2030 and the F/A-XX to begin development at the start or middle of the 2020's, a move from the F-18 to the F/A-XX makes perfect sense..especially when you couple the X-47 with the F-18 to make a formidable deep strike package that costs less and is just as or more effective than a F-35/F-18 teaming.
Interesting comment about the economies of scale involved with keeping the Super Hornet's assembly line open. One wonders if the the Super Hornet's price would increase if they are only able to build the minimum 24 planes a year.
ReplyDeletei thought the article was clear in stating that the price is baked in the cake UNTIL it goes below 24 aircraft a year.
DeleteI recall the attempts by McNamara to MAKE the F-111 into a Naval Multipurpose carrier aircraft.
ReplyDeleteWhile a great Bomber for the Air Force it was not a Carrier Aircraft.
Need to go reread that history. In the F-14 carrier certification report "Inferior take and landing properties compared to the F-111" page 9 if I remember correctly. All the money on the F-14 saved 3000 lbs cat launch weight. Unlike the F-14, the F-111 had to carry 10 Phoenix missiles, a internal weapons bay, and side by seating. All Naval requirements, not USAF. The gigantic tires? Marine requirements! The F-111 could land in 1500 ft and take of in 900 ft from dirt. But again the Naval requirements sent size and weight though the roof.
DeleteThat started the tit for tat Navy/AF fighting for years. The fix wing F-14 proposal would have been an excellent alt to the F-15. But after the Navy screwed the AF with the F-111 they would not buy it.
Then the F-16/17 LWF, the Navy would not take the Naval F-16, due to the F-14 snub. The Navy always claim "Twin Engine Safety" until you point out the A-7 had a better record the the F-18.
In the 1980 the USAF was supposed to by the A-12, they had 1 requirement supersonic dash. When the pricing problems started, they did not back the Navy, as they did not need a second F-117.
Solomon has his anti-joint programs view. But prior to McNamara trying to force cooperation, many platforms were used by multiple services. Come on OV-10 anyone? A-7's, F-4 these were all multi service. We have the H-60's now, still have the pre-McNamara C-130's, I think the last 40 years would have looked much different if not for that one decision.
you have my views exactly wrong. i believe in the Marine Corps using other services equipment where applicable. i don't believe in attempting to adapt equipment that is not adequate for Marine requirements however. all the aircraft you listed started out as single service and then were accepted by other services when the planes excellence in the given task were realized. the H-60 is the perfect example of this. the Army wasn't thinking about the USAF and Navy when they designed it, but it was so good they finally bought it for themselves.
DeleteLooks like Korea's already having a buyer's remorse regarding its F-35 purchase. As heard in the news, Korea just declared an expanded ADIZ in the East China Sea and needs to patrol and scramble in the area, but only the F-15K are long-legged enough to do so but there are only 60 of those and most are tasked with bombing North Korea. The ROKAF needs additional long range jets ASAP, but they do not know when the F-35s would be arriving in Korea. The ROKAF would have received the delivery of the Silent Eagle starting in early 2017 had the deal gone through, but they probably won't reach an IOC with the F-35s until the 2020 at the earliest and there will be only 40 of these.
ReplyDeleteAn alternative is build a new air base in the Jeju Island and base F-16s there, but this is a complicated issue because the Jeju Island has what is called a "self-governing" right where the island sets its own immigration(For example, Chinese are allowed to enter visa-free and apply for a permanent residency through a $500K investment, which are not allowed in mainland Korea) and governing policies to amend for past discrimination, so the military just cannot put a new base without the local government's consent and they cannot get one because all the political capital has been spent on putting the Jeju Naval Base(Which is 490 km away from Shanghai and can host two CBGs).
So the only realistic option left is to fly the patrol from the mainland, which requires more F-15Ks which Korea doesn't have, etc.
Buyer's remorse regarding its F-35 purchase? I'm not aware that ROK ordered or purchased any F-35s.
DeleteDon Bacon,
DeleteIt is politically impossible to back off from the deal now; the ROKAF will have to damage control on the outcome, by buying tankers to extend flight durations and additional FA-50s(It's the FA-50 that is being mentioned for 20 additional units, not the F-35).
My point is that it's not a deal until it's a deal, with a contract. The purchase/sale has yet to be negotiated, price and terms.
DeleteDamn, EADS won't give up. EADS just held a press conference in Seoul making an offer for 40 Typhoons. If Seoul buys 40 Typhoons, they guarantee IOC by 2017, and honor the offset agreement for 60 units. In addition, EADS offers to join in Korea's 120 passenger jet program as an equity partner which Bombardier recently bailed out(<= This proposal is angering KFX backers because they were actually cheering when Bombardier bailed out on the 120 passenger jet program, because it was seen as a resource competitor to the KFX)
DeleteOh, more breaking news. The KFX's final spec is decided as a 40,000+ lbs twin engine jet with a 12,000 lbs of internal fuel. The increasing conflicts in the East China Sea has made a longer-range a top capability priority and eliminated Lockheed pushed F-50 ADV.
ReplyDeleteLockheed Martin is in an awkward situation of having promised to participate in the development of a jet that will likely out-turn, out-fly, have a lower RCS rating(already at 0.01 m2 frontal aspect RCS as of 2012 testing), and cheaper than the F-35A. The US State Department will face a pressure to lower the RCS rating of export-grade F-35s it sells to Japan and Korea from current 0.15 m2 to whatever the local jets(F-3, KFX) achieves in a given time frame.
Another good quote from Bill Sweetman:
ReplyDelete"The theoretically CAS-minded Marine Corps has mortgaged its future in order to acquire supersonic stealth fighters (with a two-burst gun pod option)."
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_12_09_2013_p15-641104.xml&guid=2013-12-09
The problem is that the F-35 is too big to kill.There are too many countries involved and too much money involved.
ReplyDeleteAcording to Combat aircraft and AIR international magazines there are many people in the USAF calling for more new build Strike Eagles and Vipers.There are also many voices against the Raptor line shutdown.
There are also rumours of many costumers of the JSF that want to bail out or reduce buys anf operate mixed fleets...lets see were this will end.
So as you indicate, the JSF is NOT to big to kill, and we won't merely "see where this will end" but we will work diligently to influence the proper end decision.
Deletehave you read Sweetman's latest? i think he believes that the F-35's death is already a done deal and is moving on to what the future holds for the AF.
Deletehe launched a pre-emptive strike against us ground pounders in that article and i really was going to comment on it in a post later tonight. it really appears that this turkey is dead, its head ready to be mounted and its carcass tossed in the field for the coyotes and wild hogs to munch on.
I guess you mean the article I linked to above. His point (one of them) is that if the MC badly wants the STOVL than why should we continue to procure A-10s.
Delete(Reminds me of a division chief I once had to ask for input now and then, with him having to submit it by a certain (hopefully ample) time. He'd say: "If you want it bad, that's the way you'll get it." The MC apparently wants the F-35B bad, is Sweetman's point.)
The F-35 originated as a MC STOVL project and then went joint.
So I guess I haven't seen the "F-35's death" piece. Sweetman's been real quiet on the jSF lately, and AvWeek's Executive Editor John A. Tirpak just wrote a huge puff-piece promoting the JSF. Are you sure?
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2013/December%202013/1213f35.aspx
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete