Jump to content
HiFlyer

F-35 Lightning info

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

I agree with you. Its not worth the cost when you evaluate what you must give up for VSTOL capability. But it does give you some nice flexibility in very specific circumstances.

Yup - can't argue that VSTOL can give you high flexibility in logistics.  Brits were going to use converted cargo ships for RAF Harriers in the Falklands War to augment the RN Sea Harriers.  

Atlantic Conveyor launched her Harriers prior to being attacked and it was not a bad plan to quickly increase the landing deck capacity of the British Task Force.

http://aviationintel.com/sea-basings-ancestor-the-forgotten-commercial-freighter-aircraft-carriers-of-the-falklands-war/

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/the-atlantic-conveyor-falklands30/

3 minutes ago, Lawman said:

You guys are the very specific service.

honestly I’m all for anything that keeps smaller (read less capable) carriers out of the structure. It would be the same kind of confused self justification to essentially gut the real capability that the Naval strike arm brings in with a big nuclear carrier. The Midways and other non nuclear carriers did that all through the big money Reagan days. To the people holding the purse strings they don’t want to hear arguments on number of sorties it can make, operational times without refuel, etc, they just see a flat top boat with aircraft on it and think a carrier is a carrier. Never mind you had a couple carriers that would have been bringing F-4s and A-7s instead of Tomcats or fully laden Intruders and calling them equal when it was time to pay for it all. To some an LHA is a “carrier” which is just laughable (unless it’s the America which gets no other option).

Small deck boats mixed with big boats just make that way too easy to find ourselves in a similar position to the Brits or French thinking “how did we get here?” People like to point at the Falklands as an arguement that small deck can still do the job. What they ignore about that is had it not been for the Courageous sinking the Belgrano and scaring the Argentine Carrier back into port that task force would have come under a hell of a lot worse than what it saw and wouldn’t have had a counter punch too it. It also would would have gone far differently had a heck of a lot more Strike power had the British had even 1 ship in its fleet comparable to any of our 80k+ ton full size carriers.

Good points but to home in on one for debate "that small deck can still do the job" - the cost of the small deck is lower, that it really is that several small decks can get the job done (and overall be cheaper than an all big deck nuclear fleet) and then be less expensive to own/operate when you don't have the need to generate / concentrate naval air power, you break down and have an ability to cover a great number of areas

Hi / Lo mix - some big decks some little decks (sts)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Yup - can't argue that VSTOL can give you high flexibility in logistics.  Brits were going to use converted cargo ships for RAF Harriers in the Falklands War to augment the RN Sea Harriers.  

Atlantic Conveyor launched her Harriers prior to being attacked and it was not a bad plan to quickly increase the landing deck capacity of the British Task Force.

http://aviationintel.com/sea-basings-ancestor-the-forgotten-commercial-freighter-aircraft-carriers-of-the-falklands-war/

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/the-atlantic-conveyor-falklands30/

Good points but to home in on one for debate "that small deck can still do the job" - the cost of the small deck is lower, that it really is that several small decks can get the job done (and overall be cheaper than an all big deck nuclear fleet) and then be less expensive to own/operate when you don't have the need to generate / concentrate naval air power, you break down and have an ability to cover a great number of areas

Hi / Lo mix - some big decks some little decks (sts)

But again, what do you want a carrier to do and what is it supposed to bring to a fight.

the Brits had 3 classes of Carrier in that near term Falklands conflict. 

Their “big” Audacious class fleet boats were still in the 50k ton range similar to our Midway boats (the ones that couldn’t embark Tomcat or fully laden A-6s). They were gone, but would have brought a fully capable airborne C2 and long range fighter in the form of Phantom, which would have greatly impacted the Argentines getting anywhere near the fleet compared to an air arm with only light close fight capability.

Their intermediate boats of the centaur (which one was at the Falklands but only due to lucky timing) wasn’t big enough to have ever embarked F-4 before it was modified to ski jump, but it still had more room for more airwing than the smaller Invincibles which were barely carriers. Looking at carriers in other nations like the Foch or the Kuznetsov it’s the same old problems. Either they embark small airwings of smaller lighter aircraft because of the smaller ships ability to manage finite room, or they embark a paltry Air wing of large capable fighters (like the Kuznetsov) and usually end up operating those aircraft at much lower weights than their land based cousins so the advantage over VSTOL begins to be nullified. 

Also the reason everybody wants to talk about the Harriers taking on the Mirage is outside point Defence protection, the Brits didn’t have an airwing that could do much else. They with 2 small carriers and the reinforcements that came off the Atlantic conveyor later lacked anything resembling the kick in the door power needed to take port Stanley direct, which is why they came up with a bold and luckily successful end run around that problem with the Para, Commando, and Marines. If it had been asked to do more with its airwing it simply wouldn’t have been able to generate it while conducting its main role of protecting the staging for the task force. The Argentines didn’t really start hurting the fleet until after the Brits had eroded away its own CAP due to simply not having the airwing for sustained ops. 

 

The other thing about it is historic requirement for our force across the globe. If you can find a period where it looks like we won’t need these big boats which are seemingly at the limit with the small fleet we currently have great. Given recent trends and the fact it takes decades now to build a carrier, probably not the safe bet. Small decks would be to Naval planners an augmented addition but to the budget planners would be reason to target the big expensive ships because like Army Brigade types a Brigade is a Brigade and a carrier is a carrier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Lawman said:

But again, what do you want a carrier to do and what is it supposed to bring to a fight.

Valid question, what I would say (segueing to a smaller carrier point) is that a small deck carrier is to bring the same (or nearly) capabilities but in smaller amounts (same aircraft but fewer on board probably taking off at lower weights) and at lower costs (acquisition and operation).  

Won't argue that big carriers, brigades, etc... are valuable (better) for the big fights but they carry their own costs, vulnerabilities in combat (real and budgetary), having a force that has scalable options seems a better fit for the wide security responsibilities the US takes on.  

NK / China getting frisky?  Send two/three Ford Class carriers and the CBGs.  Trouble in East Timor or HOA requiring some tactical airpower that's sea based?  Send the Agile class (made up) carrier(s) and escorts to thump terrorist base camps / support SOF forces.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said:


Wtf are we doing selling F-35s to Turkey?

The enemy of my friend’s friend’s enemy is my enemy. Or something like that. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said:


Wtf are we doing selling F-35s to Turkey?

Don't forget that Nuke Sharing crap; F-35's and them new B61-12's are going to be a perfect match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, waveshaper said:

Don't forget that Nuke Sharing crap; F-35's and them new B61-12's are going to be a perfect match.

Since Turkey is really only interested in bombing the PKK, seems like overkill. 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

Wtf are we doing selling F-35s to Turkey?

Gotta keep that per unit cost down, strategic concerns be damned...

I don't know what the data architecture is but why would the Russians want to let some of their best A2AD stuff talk to ours potentially compromising theirs? 

This is all in the rearview mirror but a non-ALIS based JSF would have been the ideal export variant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a19620889/air-force-may-need-to-cut-a-third-of-f-35-fleet-due-to-high-operating-costs/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-28/tesla-says-cause-of-fatal-crash-not-yet-known-without-car-s-logs

BLUF:  

The U.S. Air Force may have to cut its purchases of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 by a third if it can’t find ways to reduce operations and support costs by as much as 38 percent over a decade, according to an internal analysis.

Does this crowd out the procurement of the B-21 then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a19620889/air-force-may-need-to-cut-a-third-of-f-35-fleet-due-to-high-operating-costs/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-28/tesla-says-cause-of-fatal-crash-not-yet-known-without-car-s-logs

BLUF:  

The U.S. Air Force may have to cut its purchases of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 by a third if it can’t find ways to reduce operations and support costs by as much as 38 percent over a decade, according to an internal analysis.

Does this crowd out the procurement of the B-21 then?

Like no one saw that a decade ago. Maybe the warning just got lost with the whole retention problem message

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peanut Gallery observations from 6-9 years ago:

  • “Seems like totally shutting off fighter drops to UPT for a couple of years may have compounding effects down the road.”
  • “Wow running a simultaneous RIF/VSP/TERA seems like a bit of an extreme way to downsize, especially since the airlines are hiring again.”
  • “OK, so I understand why the Air Force hates the MC-12 - being an effective & cheap COTS solution and all - but I think they’re jumping the gun by giving them all to the Army before we’re done with Afghanistan.”
  • “Huh, we’re drawing down Afghanistan again? Last time we backburnered that the Taliban took full advantage and gained a lot of ground.”
  • “It’s pretty obvious that everyone in the Battle Royals hates ISIS, but I bet we’ll have big problems when all of our bedfellows want to kill each other after ISIS is gone.”
  • “We can get rid of the A-10 because the US is planning on buying 2,400 F-35s? Just like we were going to buy 132 B-2s and 750 Raptors?”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a19620889/air-force-may-need-to-cut-a-third-of-f-35-fleet-due-to-high-operating-costs/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-28/tesla-says-cause-of-fatal-crash-not-yet-known-without-car-s-logs
BLUF:  
The U.S. Air Force may have to cut its purchases of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 by a third if it can’t find ways to reduce operations and support costs by as much as 38 percent over a decade, according to an internal analysis.
Does this crowd out the procurement of the B-21 then?

You should see what it’s going to do to the allies who bought it in terms of budget busting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2018 at 10:54 PM, Sprkt69 said:

Like no one saw that a decade ago. Maybe the warning just got lost with the whole retention problem message

Yup, there was no plan B even contemplated as far as I know.

On 3/30/2018 at 1:08 AM, di1630 said:

You should see what it’s going to do to the allies who bought it in terms of budget busting.

No doubt, anything open source or unclass released?

This (the yuuugge increase) has been the most legitimate critique of the JSF / F-35 program IMO, it was so naively optimistic in its cost projections and had no automatic shutoffs if the program began to run away that we are now so deeply invested we can't stop even if the political will formed to.

So playing Devil's Advocate, how do you exit a death spiral if a program / system grows in operational cost that it cuts procurement of tails which then rises the cost per tail rinse lather repeat?

Can you cap the tails at X number (less than the original buy) and work with the contractor to minimize the growth in per tail cost to exit a potential spiral as gently as possible?

Do you just rip the band aid off and prepare for the short term extreme pain?

I still think the F-35 is going to be the backbone of ACC / USMC (not sure if USN is still really all in) and Allied tactical aviation arms, just how much of the future I think is still debatable.

Edited by Clark Griswold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sparkle said:

He missed the boat a while back: Fat Amy. 

 

I also assume it’s not “panther”...it’s “sex panther,” but maybe that’s not fit for print in a questionable internet blog. 

Edited by SurelySerious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sex Panther is great!  Fat Amy is extremely applicable for the BFM aspect, literally just think about turning and it's slowing down!  Still a lovely lady.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×