Posted on 01/07/2013 6:36:13 PM PST by the scotsman
How much verifiable time have you logged in any F-35 variant/simulator?
Your question is a Non sequitur.
The problem with the F-35 isn't its conceptual design. It is all the added baggage the politicians affixed to it. In their desire to make it work for all circumstances, it works for very few.
Other than H2H (we may never know that), the F-16 can fulfill all the mission requirements the Flying Anvil F-35 at 1/4 the price. The Navy (rightly) is hesitating on the F-35 since the F-18 (the next best MRF) can also fulfill the missions parameters
It saddens me b/c I loved the idea of the F-35. A homogeneous next-generation MRF platform with interchangeable parts made a lot of sense. Then the ballast-attachers got involved and killed it.
The F-15, F-16 and F-18 will continue to rule the skies (another sadness: F-22) for at least another generation.
Well, we're obviously talking to different people. I don't know who you are talking to, but I do know the people I am talking to know their stuff and they've been doing this for decades - and I used to do with them in some cases. They could be wrong, but time will tell.
EMALs for the CVFs has been scrapped. The UK cannot afford $3.2 billion to outfit two boats with catapults and arresting gear. There will not be a catapult of any type installed.
Cost is the reason why the 'drop dead' date is on the second carrier - it's already been decided the first will not go with the CATOBAR design at least initially as it would waste money that has already been spent. If needed, it could eventually be retrofitted, but, yes, that all costs money and money is tight. What Britain can and can't afford though, to an extent comes down to need. If the only way they can have carrier capability requires a couple of billion pounds and they want that capability, the money will be found. It'll blow budgets and nobody wants it to happen, but it will be found. Building carriers that don't have planes that can fly off them wastes every penny spent on the carriers. That's worse than finding the extra money if needed.
There are a lot of people who were confident that the F-35B would never make it off of Gates' probation, including Gates. They were wrong as well. Sea trials on the Wasp in October of 2011 proved that. As for viability of the B, you might want to talk to the folks in Yuma at VMFA-121, which stood up on 20 November 2012 and will have its full complement of aircraft by the end of 2013.
Do I believe the F-35B will eventually be a fully viable aircraft? Yes, I do. So do my friends. But the problem is when it will happen. Decisions have to be made at certain points in the Carrier project and those decisions have to be based on the guaranteed (not theoretical but guaranteed) capabilities of the aircraft. The dates aren't working at the moment.
Having got rid of the Harriers, there's no fall back available. Unless there is a 100% guarantee the F35-B will meet requirements at the decision date, the decision has to be different. A 100% guarantee, at the moment, is considered to mean, it has met the requirements by that date. There is some wriggle room on that but how much is a big question.
There are no 'done deals' on this. A year ago, it was a 'done deal' that it would be the F35-C. To begin with, it was a 'done deal' that it would be the F3-B. At the moment, officially the F35-B is the choice, but that can be changed by a decision from the Defence Secretary. The people I am talking to are people who have to plan based on what they believe Britain's defence needs will be, and ensuring a credible carrier force as soon as they can get it. They look ahead, beyond what is being said now, to what they believe will be being said in the future.
When I joined the RAN, Australia was meant to have a carrier forever. I spent much of 1981 learning to be a carrier sailor, because it was the official position of Australian governments that we would have carrier capability for decades to come and all the details had been worked out. By the middle of 1982, we didn't have any carrier capability at all, and we still don't. What politicians have decided today, doesn't really mean much to me.
But all I'm reporting is what I believe to be true, based on what people who normally know what's going on in my experience, believe to be true. They could be wrong and I could be wrong. Maybe you've got better sources. The proof in the pudding will be what is sailing in 2020 and what is flying off them. I just hope it's something sailing with something flying - not carriers that can't find suitable aircraft. I'd be perfectly happy with the RN going with the F-35B (partly because the only hope Australia has of getting any sort of carrier capability in the next two decades is the success of the F-35B flying off the Canberras - again, not officially an option at the moment, but...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.