Navy getting close to F-35 decision

ENCToday.com ^ | 5/03/2010 | Ken Buday

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

The Navy may be getting close to releasing its draft study on basing options for the new Marine Corps F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Public meetings to be held on the report have initially been scheduled for June 15, 16 and 17 in the area. The meetings are supposed to be scheduled within a 45-day window on the release of the study, which is supposed to make recommendations concerning the basing of 13 squadrons of the newest Marine Corps jet.

Cherry Point could get as many as 11 or as few as two squadrons of the jets among the options the study will consider. The other squadrons would be located in Beaufort, S.C.

The first public meeting on the study in the area has been tentatively scheduled for June 15 at the Havelock Tourist and Event Center. Meetings would follow June 16 in Emerald Isle and June 17 in Bayboro.

Skip Conklin, director of facilities at Cherry Point, confirmed that "there are some plans being made. I know there is movement to have the hearings."

The meetings are still tentative and will be confirmed when the Navy releases its study, which is expected sometime this month.

The F-35 is scheduled to replace the Marine Corps arsenal of AV-8B Harriers, EA-6B Prowlers and F-18 Hornets.

Officials and proponents of Cherry Point believe getting as many squadrons as possible of the new jets at the base is key to the assuring its future. A recent study completed for the N.C. Eastern Region listed the annual economic impact of each squadron on the area at $30 million to $35 million.

[DesertRhino]

the effect on the local economy be damned. Is it the correct plane,,, or is it not?

[Southack]

Exactly. Pick one: F-22 or F-35. Kill the other.

Failure to choose between the two shows a lack of prioritization. Inability to prioritize shows a lack of Executive Management talent.

A lack of executive talent leads to overspending and under-delivering.

[Christian_Capitalist]

Exactly. Pick one: F-22 or F-35. Kill the other. Failure to choose between the two shows a lack of prioritization. Inability to prioritize shows a lack of Executive Management talent. A lack of executive talent leads to overspending and under-delivering.

It seems that the decision has been made to kill the F-22, and proceed with the F-35. Many on this forum seem to disagree with that decision, but that appears to be the way it's working out.

That being said, IF trillion-dollar deficits were not an issue, I don't know why you'd have to "Pick one: F-22 or F-35. Kill the other." Would you say the same of the F-15 Eagle versus the AV-8B Harrier? They're completely different planes, meant to do completely different things, and to me the same seems to be true of the F-22 (replacing the Eagle) versus the F-35 (replacing the Harrier).

Not trying to be contentious, just wondering.

[freedumb2003]

>>the effect on the local economy be damned. Is it the correct plane,,, or is it not?<<

Not.

By the time the brass finished screwing with it, the F-35 is not a proper replacement for the Falcon nor the SuperHornet. It has a few advantages, but not enough for the 3X or 4X price tag of the very effective airframes in service. It isn’t like the Hornets are physically old (although there some veteran craft that are still in use) — they go out the production doors constantly.

They need to pull the plug on the F-35 and start again, and get experts who know what an MRF is and who can keep the performance envelope closed to provide the proper price/performance profile.

[freedumb2003]

>>Not trying to be contentious, just wondering. <<

Your point is well-taken. Originally, the F-35 was a MRF to take the place of the F-16 and F-18 (all variants). It was also to be a sort of SWA approach — a single airframe with replaceable parts across the fleet and a homogeneous structure.

But then individual agendas started to manifest. More armor (weight) was added and F-22 type Air Superiority capabilities were added (at a loss to overall performance profiles). The net result: A heavy, overloaded aircraft that cannot outperform the craft it is designed to replace, without using techno-tricks that can be put in those craft as well. Turn off the BVR and a modern F-16 or F-18 can match or defeat the F-35.

A camel is a mouse built to government specifications. That is the fate of the F-35 JSF.

[Christian_Capitalist]

Thanks for your thoughts!!

I confess to being a big fan of the F-35 idea, in terms of the many roles it's designed to perform; though I think that if you want to have a pure Air Supremacy fighter -- well, that's the F-22, not the F-35. But I like the concept, at least.

I've only dropped in on a few of these F-35 threads, so I don't know whether or not I've posed this question to you before; hopefully I'm not repeating myself: What do you think of this article? F-35 Cost Rise Is Speculative, But Progress Is Real

"....On the plus side, the Marine version of the plane demonstrated for the first time its ability to land and take off vertically from confined spaces without imposing the heavy workload on pilots seen in earlier vertical-ascent jets. On the minus side, veteran defense reporter Tony Capaccio of Bloomberg Business News wrote that the F-35 program "has risen about 62 percent in cost and is four years behind schedule." The two stories illustrate a paradox in the F-35 program: it is progressing better than any other major aircraft development program in the world, and yet the political system views it as a "troubled" effort....

.... Here are some facts about the F-35 program you probably haven't heard:

1. The program is facing no major design or engineering problems.
2. The program is satisfying or surpassing all key performance parameters.
3. The designs for all three versions of the plane are complete, and all three have been built.
4. The weights, strengths and radar cross-sections of the planes are matching program goals.
5. The development program is 80% complete, and progressing better than previous fighter efforts."

I'm sympathetic to the issue of cost overruns; I sincerely am (heck, I'm not even completely opposed to the idea of just making do with the manned aircraft we have now until we start building UAV Robot-fighters).

But "It costs too much, and doesn't do what it's supposed to"...
...is not exactly the same argument as "It costs too much, but it does what we ask it to do".

The article I linked for you suggests that the truth is closer to the latter. Your thoughts?

[Vroomfondel]

ping

[A.A. Cunningham]

Failure to choose between the two shows a lack of prioritization.

Failure to comprehend the difference between the two is a sign of ignorance.

[Southack]

You’ve never seen a new weapons system that you didn’t want funded. Pity.

Great Powers fall in one of only two ways: from lack of spending on defense...and from overspending on defense (going broke).

You are focused on one, unable to see the other.

[verity]

You are neglecting Congressional meddling.

[tanknetter]

By the time the brass finished screwing with it, the F-35 is not a proper replacement for the Falcon nor the SuperHornet. It has a few advantages, but not enough for the 3X or 4X price tag of the very effective airframes in service.

Perhaps you'd like to ask Scott Speicher whether, on the opening night of Desert Storm, he'd rather have been flying his Hornet or a navalized F-117 variant. Oh yeah, you can't. Or maybe William T. Costen on whether he'd preferred to have been flying his A-6 or a navalized F-117. But you can't ask him, either. How about Reginald Underwood about his AV-8B? Nope.

But you could ask their next of kin, I suppose.

The fact is that the Navy is way late in taking stealth to sea. This has resulted not only in direct loss of life, but also in limiting the options available to commanders at all levels in the chain. And given the progression of potential opponents' capabilities (like the Russian air defense systems being sold to the Iranians and others), not having stealth at sea will constrain options even MORE as time moves forward.

The F-35 is the aircraft that is going to rectify this situation, in the next few years. Instead of the 20 or so that would result in going back to the drawing board (if we're lucky, anyone else remember the A/FX?) It may not be an F-22, or a B-2 ... but it does represent capabilities far, FAR beyond what the Navy/Marines currently have in it's F-18 (both Legacy and Superbug) and AV-8B platforms. It actually represents a massive INCREASE in options.

[freedumb2003]

Price/Performance analysis is an art more than a science.

I have had some people agree with my summary, others, like yourself, disagree.

I am just noting my deep disappointment with what happened to the F-35. I was its most enthusiastic supporter until it started to just become the proverbial camel: mouse built to government specs.

The F-15, which ruled the skies until just a few years ago, went from concept to production in 3 years, deployment in 5 years.

The F-16 (and after her, the F-18 and SH F-18) was revolutionary in its implementation of the idea of a lower-cost MRF — and again was deployed in about 4 - 5 years.

And don’t get me started on BVR — in today’s world you can extend a lot of capabilities that are not airframe-dependent.

Bottom line: The F-35 was a GREAT idea that has been all but ruined by the suits and stars. Not the craft itself, but the price/performance/mission profile.

Again, IMHO.