Report: Navy’s next-jet-itis irks sibling services

Report: Navy’s next-jet-itis irks sibling services

The Navy’s dream of building a sixth-generation manned carrier fighter could over before it even begins, 20 years before the first prototype might fly, reports Flightglobal’s Dave Majumdar.

There doesn’t seem to be a plausible scenario under which the Navy could afford it. In the meantime, discussions about the potential program are having one definite outcome: Making everyone else angry at the Navy. Again. Writes Majumdar:

[T]he USN is working on the F/A-XX effort by itself. Not even the US Marine Corps, with which the USN’s tactical fighter force is integrated, has had any input into the F/A-XX.


“They once again seem to want to go it alone,” the [DoD] official says, “Big mistake.”

But the DoD has ordered the services to fund research and development efforts where ever possible in order to preserve the US industrial base for the future. “Considering the guidance to fund science, technology and general RDT&E accounts, I expect [the Department of the Navy] will get support for this at some level,” the official says.

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.

“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.

Not unless Congress discovers the ability to govern or the U.S. suddenly becomes flush with the profits from asteroid mining. In the meantime, however, the other jet-flying services are trying to pull the boulder called the F-35 Lightning II, and the Navy, which says it’s all about boulder-pulling, is not inspiring much confidence. Majumdar’s next passage spells out a belief that few people like to address openly:

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 [of the war] capability. I’m absolutely convinced that if [the Navy does] 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.”

Officially, the Navy supports the F-35C one thousand percent, and how dare you even suggest there is less than total unanimity about that! Naval Air Systems Command is careful to announce every incremental step forward of both the C and B, to keep the flow of good headlines churning. The Navy and the Marine Corps signed a deal. Everything is wonderful. Nothing to see here.

Still, NavAir also was the probable source of the slide deck a few years ago that spelled out the astronomical cost projections that eventually became the official view of the Defense Department. And there are the other ancient tensions probably still at work even now … naval aviators are supposed to fly airplanes built by Grumman or McDonnell Douglas, not Lockheed — Lockheed jets were for Air Force fancy boys. (Except the S-3 Viking, but c’mon, we’re talking about fighters here.) More basically — a carrier airplane with a single engine? What happens if something goes wrong in the middle of the night out over the Pacific?

Perception can be as important as reality, and despite the Navy’s insistence, Majumdar’s report reaffirms that there’s still a belief that the Navy is, at best, only halfway pulling its share of the boulder.

Join the Conversation

“Big mistake.”? Why? Because going it all together has been oh, so successful with the F-35?

Yeah, was about to point out that the F-35 has been less than smoothly run. Of course, the F-22 had no input from the other services and that wasn’t exactly a thrilling example of program management either. :p The Navy is eventually going to need a Super Hornet replacement. NATF didn’t work; the JSF is more strike-oriented. Hence, F/A-XX.

Edit: The point about the USMC: Who cares? The F-14 wasn’t designed with the Marines in mind either because Marine air is predominantly CAS. F/A-XX is supposed to be air defense/air dominance.

Someone please explain to me how they will not have “first-day [of the war] capability” with the Super Hornet and a lot of advanced ordinance?

The Super Hornet doesn’t need a replacement any time soon..

Well lat’s face it, these are quotes from Marines that see anything that isn’t an F-35 as a threat to ever getting F-35B. The fact that alternatives DO exists or could exist scares them since the F-35 is FUBAR and draining the entire DoD budget. I think their stategy is that as F-35 continues to bleed out, their will be no money for anything else like FA-XX. It may come to the “nuke” option of killing F-35C in order to pay for FA-XX.

But it should be noted that there are not USAF or USN flags saying we don’t need an 6th Gen fighter. They realize that F-35 is a very compromised design that will not provide air dominance and does not have the legs or the weapon payload needed a to go against a near peer threat somewhere out East. WIth F-22 dead, and PAK-FA and J-20 seeming to pass up F-35’s “development” schedule its time to get going!

The Marines don’t fly the Super Bug and are paid by the Navy, ’nuff said! The Navy’s concern with the F/A-XX will be about the same as the AF with it’s F-22; it’s mine and not yours, back off! If the AF likes the F/A-XX, maybe the DOD will let them buy a few, in history similar to the F-4 or the A-7.

I love the Navy. They seem to be the only service with both common sense and brains. The Marines and the USAF seem to always have only one of these traits.

You got to look at who the quote is coming from. The F-35B is the *only* option for the USMC. Unless someone privately launches a jump jet prototype, but I don’t see that happening. Even if it did, Lockheed would probably squash it to keep its money coming in.

You know, they run this “jointness” crap up the flagpole every few years. Remember that McNamara was aBIG believer in all the services using the same planes. How well did the F-111B turn out as a carrier fighter? After that money-pit finally failed, the Navy got the F-14 Tomcat instead.

Seems the Navy foresees the same thing happening with the F-35, and they are probably correct.

Want to drop a note with surprise and disappointment that two former very senior USMC GOs want to demean an FAXX analysis for the sole reason of it being seen as a threat to F35B. I would have expected a more strategic understanding from former three stars. The strategy of procurement of one platform while planning for another has been followed previously. The legacy Hornet followed the A7 and A6, the Super Hornet follows the Tomcat, the F35 follows the legacy Hornet… I believe the pattern goes further back than that but I don’t have specifics. The Navy are not the ones saying “sixth generation”, quite the contrary, and in agreement with Gen Gardiner, no one knows what that means. Those GOs completely understand that the program of record for F35 does not fill all Navy CVWs with that capability, it shares the deck with Super Hornets. So.….what fills in for Super Hornet when those airframes retire? With the Marine Corps not flying Super Hornets, what role do the former GOs envision in USMC planning for its replacement?

What role was the Navy solicited for in planning the Huey/Cobra replacement? The Navy does not have an FA-XX program, they are committed to analyzing the alternatives to replace the Super Hornet airframe in the 2030 timeframe. With regard to Gen Trautman’s: “It sort of validates the naval aviators’ overall lack of commitment to the F-35″ and “It shows how much they’re in bed with Boeing…”, NOT what I would expect from former senior DoD leadership from a service that prides itself on ‘team’. Would be an honor to talk to the two former warriors to hear their ideas as we try to ensure our ability to meet the 2030 threat.

First day of war-Cruise missiles and Marine F35B, second day of war F 18 with HARMs. Where’s the problem? I can’t see it happening though. Not buying F35C means the cost on the A and B goes up.…way up.

What cruise missile off the F-35B? The premise of F-35 is that you must have internal carriage or you are dead. The only cruise missile that will go internnally into F-35 is the JSM from Kongsberg. That missile is realtively short ranged for a cruise missile and not that survivable. If you go to external carriage then you may as well use F/A-18s. And, I think only the A and C models can carry JSM. Potentially there could be a very slow powered JSOW some day. Again, not sure the B model can carry that either as the weapon bay is smaller than the A & Cs. JSF is not really designed as a cruise missile launch platform.

F22 forever. F35– also. Build boys build
Semper fi

F-35c programm is an echec its a plane without anysuperiority to he other 5th gen fighter like Pak-fa or J-20. This two plane will kill the F-35 because of mach 1.6 isn’t enough to assume air superiority. Put the F-35 to the trash and go straight NAVY with Boeing on 6th gen plane.

You may not have see analysis of “see first-shoot first” in a Contested Denied Ops environment…ref adjusted National Security Guidance?

Have heard Naval Airmen state they will have to let AF kick down the air door of a Contested Deghraded Ops environment before ther Hornets can “safely” proceed.

Bad idea on both accounts the idea of a alll F-18E/F fleet is not good they lack fleet defense capabilities and are old as we speak. The F-35C is a waste not by design but by political and financial crap attached to the whole program. The F-35C should be in service now but the program has now been drug into many more years of test and congressional squabbling so its a waste. Its lose lose for the Navy. What they need is a F-22N version or a F-15SEN version for a true fighter for fleet defense may be just as good to bring F-14Ds back. There no way a 6th gen fighter will come this decade no money they haven’t even finished a 5th gen fighter yet.

hyperbolic nonsense. Employ sub launched tomahawk cruise missiles to paralyze the enemy and carefully employ Hornets to minimize potential losses.

Define “soon?” They’re talking about building the F/A-XX in 20–30 years.

He said cruise missiles and the F-35B, not from the F-35B.

The F-18E/F is only 10 years old. The other F-18s are showing their age.

“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.”

And the Air Force doesn’t have the same relationship with LockMart?

And Boeing has spent a fortune of its own money on the UCLASS program.

With sequestration kicking in in 7 months, there will not be much money left for the F-35 or the F-XX or aircraft carriers or the next gen Bomber. Who is kidding who? If we had to defend Taiwan, we would have to borrow the money from China to do it. And before I forget it, all the Bush tax cuts are going to expire as well, we will notice it in our wallets

10–20 years down the road even if they follow Boeing’s International route for the F/A-18E/F, the F/A-18E/F will not be capable of beating the latest Chinese or Russian built jets. Right now I think the F/A-18E/F could beat the J-20 in a fair amount of engagements. The improvements 10–20 years from now that the Chinese put into the J-20 will make it impossible for the F/A-18E/F platform to win no matter improvements have happened to it.

The Navy needs the F-35C and strarting the F/A-XX program is not a fall back option. The F-35C is going to have a strong bomber capacity and will not be as effective in the air to air arena. The F/A-XX from what I have read will have a stronger air to air capability. Basically, the two planes compliment each other.

The USN needs to wake the hell up. How ’bout you get your Hornet replacement and figure out ship-building before you piss that money away too.

The 35 is going to kill the rest of DoD acquisition. This chart is just scary:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TtP5RSBjFik/T4zzeH0OeVIhttp://​www​.informationdissemination​.net/​2​0​1​2​/​0​4/t

Unless a reasonable level of taxation is achieved (Bush cuts and Obama cuts expire), the 35 will break the DoD.

I think the Article in the current issue of “Foreign Policy Magazine” pretty well sums it up with regards to the JSF Program ” The Jet That Ate the Pentagon “. And I think the Navy is looking for a reasonable way out. The JSF won’t be able to preform fleet defense with the new PAK-50’s, SU-35’s and J-20’s coming at it. It may be able to be a bomb truck, but to do High G turns in a dog fight with the advanced dedicated Air Superiority fighters of it’s most probable adversaries. It’s not going to be pretty.

http://​www​.foreignpolicy​.com/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​s​/​2​0​1​2​/​0​4​/​26/

1. its odd because when ever, I create a post setting the record straight on F-35 pricing. my post disappears.

2. We have a anti– F-35 conspiracy. The same people who said the F-117 would not work and the F-22 wouldn’t work are against the F-35. Its the liberal John Kerry crowd.

3. Wouldn’t it make more sense to re-wing and re-engine a F-35? Uprate the engine to 55-60kLbs of thrust lengthen the nose a bit, Add a extra weapons bay in the lift fan spot. Give it a new wing plan form with L-band reduction. Add super cruise, thrust vectoring but keep most of the internal components, the vertical tails and the avionics. And don’t forget to add more heat reduction to the tail. reusing the avionics alone would save a lot. oh and you’d need a new inlet for the uprated engine.

4. The F-35 has greater range than the F-22. To quote other wise is fallacy, or misrepresentation.

I agree on age but the F-18E/F is not a good fleet defense fighter.much lower range and less climb and carries less missiles and short range missiles than the Tomcat did. A new Cat is needed for fleet defense.For ground attack the F-18is ok.

Since when is planning for the future and developing options a bad idea? None of the services should ever go “all in” on anything. Good or bad, the fact that there is not a real viable option to F-35 right now is criminal. People may bemoan that development costs are too high with modern fighters to support multiple parallel development efforts, like back in the day of the four F-teen fighters. Perhaps the answer is that development costs spiral out of control exactly BECAUSE there are no parallel development efforts to keep competing aerospace companies on their toes. If F-15 had taken 20 years and cost 5X original estimates the AF would have cancelled and bought F-14s.

Wana see how you do a program right?
http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​V​o​u​g​h​t​_​F​-​8​_​C​r​u​s​a​der
http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​L​T​V​_​A​-​7​_​C​o​r​s​a​i​r​_II

Everyone bought the A-7 because it worked. And the A-7 evolved from a pure dog fighter which is one of the best fighters ever made. It incorperated flybywire and countless new designs It could fly with its damn wings still in the folded position.

2 years form first flight to readiness for both.….THAT is how to build a aircraft.

Well, they’ve made sure the F-14 is dead, so there’s no hope for those. An F-15SE variant isn’t out of the question, though. Back in the 70s, the Navy toyed with getting a navalized F-15N to replace the F-111B. (They ended up with the F-14, ironically.)

The threat environment will be so deadly that the F/A-18E/F will a less than acceptable chance of survival much less mission success.

Complete BS. The ENTIRE JSF program represents <2.5% of the base DOD budget each year.

Complete BS. The ENTIRE JSF program represents <2.5% of the base DOD budget each year.

And completely impossible in today’s regulatory environment.

Nothing more than the same age old interservice rivalry. Any/all resources spent on any/all program/programs for one service is resources not available for any program for any/all other services.

This FY budget: Out of a $525 billion base budget, $135billion went to personnel, $208 billion went to O&M, $9.6 billion to construction, $1.7 billion to housing, and $70 billion to R&D. That left $99 billion for procurement. That’s 82% of the DoD budget before a single weapon was bought. Run your 2.5% against that.

Sequestration not being a factor means the base budget will be flat for the next 5 years when the JLTV, tanker, JSF, and LCS will enter full rate production and the GCV, next-gen boomer, and bomber programs begin. All the troop cuts and stuff being offered for cancellation are to make room for those things with that fixed pot of money. The procurement budget will gradually rise to $18 billion from today by FY17, but all of those other budget categories are expected to make up the difference. GAO projects full rate production of JSF will cost $13 billion a year for 20 years. That’s 2.5% of base budget, but 11% of procurement for the JSF assuming $160 million per plane. Rethink those numbers if any of the above mentioned programs go over budget.

Hello Lance

For sure the F/A-18E/F will be useless against the Su-27/30 Flanker family in air-to-air combat, which the aircraft has much lower range, less climb, poor aerodynamic performance, poor agility and carries less weapons payload which is why the F/A-18E/F is a “Super Dog” because the sting in its tail is certainly not their. Not as good as the beautiful F-14A/B & D Tomcat. The US Navy was far better with its fleet of Tomcats back then.

@ Lance

Well said statement. You’re aien’t wrong there.

They havent come close to completing the testing on the current airframe, now you think it’s best we upgrade it? If that came to fruition hopefully we may have F-35’s pulling fleet defense by 2050 :) There is no anti F-35… it’s simply more about “either it can or it can’t”.

Here is the Solution Navy! Develop and Build a Navy version of the F22 and called this version F22N and give this fighter also an IRST system and you have your 6 generation fighter such was ones planned to replace the F14. And the F22 is in compare to the F35 so superior what you can call the F22 a 6 generation fighter.

And to do this you will need about 30 Billion (because of US corruption) but them you let the Russians do something like (navalisate Pak FA) it will cost you just about 300 Million and 200 Million of that will be bribe and additional costs for Vodka and whores for the Program manager and the Program inspectors .^^

Now let’s be serious, to plan now for the F-XX is simple stupid and this because why it simple now money and also no time. The navy need the F35 jet and not in 5 Years but he will get the F35 at best in 5 Years and the he continuing with this daydreaming of a F-XX it is likely what he will never get a F35 and become irrelevant in 2020 around. But not all is stupid hear! So the decision to develop a Fighter only for the Navy can be after the extremely bad experience with all “joint” programs the right decision. So a big part of the massive cost explosion of the F35 was indebted of the common requirements of the three services. In compare with this the last none joint projects were great successes sol for example the F18 E/F/G or the F15A-E or also the F22 how is not cheap but definitely the best Fighter what was ever created. Them you need just to satisfy the requirements of one service your will get your fighter faster and cheaper but now it is too late to do this.

The cost of modifying an F-22 to become carrier compatible would almost make it worth while to develop a new plane. You would also have a lot more limits on the performance of a navalized F-22 because of all the additional equipment necessary. (reinforced landing gear, folding wings, etc)

How about this.

3 different fighters.

1 STOVL Strike aircraft for the marines.

1 Long range strike aircraft like the A-6. Good because it can do the other jobs nessesary also

Last buy more F-18 SH and begin developing a strike fighter for the SH eventual replacment.

No 3 versions of the same aircraft. Just build good solid aircraft.

An those who say that the F-18E/F or later versions cant stand up to the Pak and chinese aircraft…ask the F-22 pilots what happens when you try to lock onto a growler and cant, its guns time. Plus with the extra aircraft the navy orders (and maybe other nations) there will be a lower cost over all for the aircraft. Which would also mean that more would be available for operations.

The airforce needs to either invest in more F-22’s or F-15SE or some such.

They already tried a Navy F-22 and yeah, it was a fail.

I think this whole contention is rather ridiculous because F-35 is going to enter service in the next five years; F/A-XX is a plan for 2030–2040 IOC. UCAS-N is the next big thing for the Navy in aircraft; when that and JSF enter service you’ll see UCAS-N/JSF handling strike missions while the Super Hornets guard the ships (not being super-stealthy is not a big deal at all there, given that they’re guarding ships that show up quite easily on radar and are broadcasting millions of watts in radar energy anyway), and eventually that Super Hornet role will be taken over by F/A-XX.

Between UCAS-N, JSF, and F/A-XX, the Navy’ll be able to get back to it’s long-range strike (gone with the A-6) medium strike (F/A-18 classic, A-7) and air defense/dominance (F-14) trident. That is exactly where the Navy is going with these three programs.

The problem with making Airforce aircraft carrier capable is that it requires basicly rebuilding the entire aircraft.

Structural integrity and strength must be strengthened. Landing gear also. More power is nessesary because of the increased weight and the needs of operating off a carrier.

So in the end making a F-22 navalized would simply lead to a entirely new aircraft.

Its one of the reasons designing a aircraft for both land and naval aviation is stupid. Fighters like the F-16 and F22 can take advantage of this lessening in the area’s of strength leading to a greater thrust/weight ratio.

However Naval aircraft have a advantage in being tough and having fast turn arounds because of the closness of their base of operations.

Having a enormous air base is a luxury. We learned what happens when you lack such a asset in Korea and have neglected you carrier fleets.

Except the F-35 will never be bought in the numbers nessesary. Lacks the air-air abilities of its competators depending entirely on absolute knowledge and perfect working conditions.

UCAS is only capable of working in a entirely airdominant region and has a tiny payload while costing as much as a modern fighter. This also assumes we have complete control and dont lose the satelites in a war.

This is true but I wrote the F22 plan more as a joke to clarify how bad the F35 are in compare with the F22. One the other hand even a modifying and heavier F22N will be far superior to a F35 and what means the cost so it is possible what it will cost about the same like the continuing of the F35C Program I estimate about 20–30 Billion. The F22 is the only real alternative to the F35 and this because of the time problem so the Navy needs a stealthier and more capable Fighter how has also two engines the F22 has all this. To start a new Program how are not based on an existing concept will cost far more money and more important it will cost time. So the Navy can start a 6 Generation Program but to do this he will need to cancel the F35 Program and as consequence of this he will have to wait for the new Fighter 20–25 Years more and the F18 E/F cannot beat actual treads like the S300PMU or the SU35 and in 10 Years he will have to fight against S440/S500 SAMs and J20 and PAK FA.

Too much R&D, not enough Procurement..

you are thinking too logically!! The USAF did sc* the pooch on the F-15 and almost ended up being stuck with the F-14, if not for the efforts fo Col John Boyd.

Part 1

@Belesari

“3 different fighters.”

I agree there, the termination of the joint concept can be a rational decision but them you decide to do this you will need to change now really fast your entire concept. Hear a more realistic plan for the three services.

Navy

1. First cancel the F35C and also the B variant.

2. Stop the buying of additional the F18 E/F after the procurement of 100 additional units the Navy should have at least a fleet of 600 F18 E/F/G.

3. Develop immediately a F22N for Air Superiority and buy a lot of them about 300 this can be partially funded by the money how were planned for the F35B and C.

4. Focus all research funds to get the X47C operationally as long range strike platform as assistance for the F22 and buy more them 160 of them.

5. Start also the developing of a next gen cruise missile how can fired from Submarines and develop a stretched Virginia class immediately as SSGN. To fund this Programs the Navy can kill the idiotic LCS Program this will generated more them enough money for this part of the plan. As consequence of the LCS termination the since of the Fleet will fall far below 300 Ships but the LCS is not a warship so what. Them is possible buy 3 no two Virginias peer Year the Program are so successfully what this will be a priority. The new fleet target should be around 260 ships but this should be real warships not LCS.

6. Cancel the planed Block 3 DDG51 in favor of 10–15 additional DDG1000 how can be more viable in symmetric Warfare and this is at last the request of the pacific focus. This decision will be probably also cheaper them the experiment of the developing of the DDG51 Block 3.

7. Improve the Ship defense of all existing bigger Navy Ships by RAM Launchers and more ESSM Missiles and give all DDG51 Ship to Ship combat skills with a new VLS compatible Anti-Ship Missile.

8. Cancel all unmanned helicopter Programs like the Fire Scout or love and drone programs and use the funded for them to improve the ASW Skills of the existing Fleet.

9. Develop a mobile Mine System to combat the larger Chinese Littoral Fleet with asymmetric tactics this can be more effective them a larger Fleet how contain a lot of non-combat ships like the LCS.

As consequence of this strategy shift the US-NAVY will miss is 300 Ship target by 40 ships but become more powerful because what all its ships will be real Warships. The Carrier will become also not irrelevant and the Submarine fleet will rise beyond the 48 requested Units.

USMC

1. Cancel the F35B Program and shift the funds to the Navy account, the USMC don’t need his oven Fighter he should to focus his resources to core skills so he should to buy more Helicopters and a replacement for the canceled EFV.

2. Cancel the America Class because why this ship has not a real combat value without the F35B so it will be better to shift this funding’s to the Navy account to financing additional Submarines.

3. Co-Financing the DDG1000 with the Navy because what the DDG1000 will also give the USMC fire support for is core mission the landing on enemy beaches.

4. Focus the research funds on the developing of long range artillery for fire Support and on a next gen landing vehicle.

As consequence of this strategy shift the USMC will lose of is nice to have skills like is oven Air Force but it will be able to hold is core functions and in face of the financial situation necessary.

USAF

1. Cancel the F35 in favor of a high low mix of Long Range Strike Platform, F22 and improved legacy fighter.

2. Buy 400 to 600 additional F22 in global strike configuration this is a realistic Number and easily to fund with the savings from the canceling of the F35A.

3. Buy 300 Long Range Strike Units this will be necessary to secure the US Dominance and get a low peer Unit cost for the LRS.

4. Develop a new Air lunched cruise missile how can penetrate actual air defense systems.

5. Buy an Air force Version of the X47C this for Long range Strike Missions and replace with this all useless MQ9 at last the should to have around 380 MQ-X/X47C.

6. Buy 800 new F-16V to replace the old F16 Fleet this will be the cheapest decision.

7. But don’t replace the F15E this will save money because what you not really need a F15SE as second low end fighter.

8. Move all A10 to the army, the Army love this useful and cheap aircraft and it should pay for them.

9. Start the developing of a 6 Generation Fighter what should to replace first the F16V and also only meet the Air force requests.

As consequence of this strategy shift you will get a 2X larger Bomber fleet, a smaller but far more High End capable Air Force.

Part 2

@Belesari

“An those who say that the F-18E/F or later versions cant stand up to the Pak and chinese aircraft…ask the F-22 pilots what happens when you try to lock onto a growler and cant, its guns time. Plus with the extra aircraft the navy orders (and maybe other nations) there will be a lower cost over all for the aircraft. Which would also mean that more would be available for operations.”

I will be really carefully with the truth-content of such comments don’t forget the US sailors for example are enable to say what the LCS is the best ship how was ever created and everyone with a brain should to know what this is bullshit. The F18 is obsolete this is the truth and everyone know this but it is not nice to talk bad the own people and the DOD has also an interest to hold is last electronic warfare fighter (the F18G) on live and comments like the F18G can fight against a F22 are very helpfully for the DOD, the Navy and the Boing Lobby but they are hard to believe.

To make the F22 navalized is not easy this is true but on the other hand it is not so hard how you say so it is possible costly to make the flight cell stronger and this will made the F22 heavier and so reduce the operational range a bit but at last the Number of modifications are not so big to call what the develop of a F22N will so difficult and so costly like to develop a complete new fighter. It is not really comparable but a t navalized F22 will not be the first navalized fighter in the History how was sucefully navalized.

So for example the Su27 was also navalized as Su33 and the Mig29 was also get navalized and now in use by Indian Navy and this on much smaller carrier them the Nimitz class and even the F18 was at first designed for the Air force but become later the Main Fighter of the Navy and the France has also navalized there Rafale Jet successful. It is not easy but it is not the same like to design a complete new Fighter why the Navy has no longer the time for. And as consequence of this the only options how remain are to continuing with the F35C or to develop a F22N.

Because why the developing of the F22N has the benefits what you can already use proved hardware how are integrated and tested so you don’t need to develop a new engine or complete new Anionic and the base design of the flight cell still at last the same so it will be easily possible by good funding and stable to get a navalized F22 in 5 to 7 Years after starting of the Program. I compare with this an F-XX will take around 20 to 25 Years and this are simple too much them you cancel in the same time the F35C program and the only way to get enough funding for the F-XX is the termination of the F35C program.

@charles222

I agree with Belesari the idea what the F35C will be bought in sufficient Numbers is illusionary in face of the massive problems of the Program and the Horrors like Sequestration and other perversions how are on the horizon. To get the F35C in the planed time and Numbers will need a lot of luck (no more Problems with the developing) and a Republican Administration after 2012 how has the full control other the Government and avoid sequestration completely and reversed also a big part of the devastating Obama cuts how there already made. And this is under the actual Situation really unrealistic the most likely scenario is the continuing of the deadlocked situation after 2012 because what Obama, will get reelected but the GOP will hold the House. And this will mean more cuts or also realistic full sequestration how will kill the F35 Program immediately.

And what means the Drones so I can only say at again, the UCAVs are extremely overhyped they people speak about unmanned aircraft so what they are the solution for all problems but this is simply not true at last they are joust good for Support and for Anti-Terror Missions but not they are not capable for Symmetric Wars because why they can easily jammed or neutralized by the destruction of the Satellites how are needed for their running.

So many people tell me permanently what a MQ9 cost just 20 Million Dollar in compare with a F16 how cost about 50 Million or a F22 how cost 170 Million but all this people forget what the MQ9 has the performance data of a bad World War 2 Aircraft. Them you decide to construct a drone only with the same performance data like a F16 Block 10 you will need easily to spend far more those 50 Million Dollar per Unit.

The only benefits of Drones are at last the long endurance but this it, all other benefits are fiction and daydreams of people how there also enable to believe that thinks like the FCS program would work. And unnamed Aircraft make attack strategies for the enemy possible how are hard to beat so all UCAV need Satellite Communications and also a Signal how is secure from jamming now the problems is what so what is technical impossible. The Signal can be jammed or the satellite can shut down and you lose the war and the only what the enemy needs are cheap jammers and a handful of ASAT Rockets.

Food for thought !
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209–1.htm

Also the large landing gear,wheelbase and the demonstrated landing speed of the PAK make for a typical Russian Naval Conversion. Now that is a very scarey thought for Naval Aviation anywhere.

I think the Generals were speaking frankly, which I can appreciate. And they’re absolutely right about Boeing.

the Marine Corps was originally suppose to receive the F-14 but but decided to let the navy have it and waited for the FA-18

Interesting article.

The A-7 was not FBW…the first FBW aircraft was the F-16! almost 15 years later!
Semper Fi

The “big mistake” is that this inevitably leads to someone saying:
“Why do we have two fighter programs?“
“We only need one.“
“This new Navy program is on schedule and on budget…” (never mind it still has years ahead)
“Lets cancel the other one or in the least divert funds away from it”

Can PAK-50 out turn an AIM-9X or the F-22 the AA-11? High off bore sight missiles make the turn and burn argument irrelevant at this point. Modern AAMs have already led to the unmanned dominance of the sky as they are able to now actually hit around 95% of the time versus previous generations as recent as the AIM-9 Lima or god forbid the Sparrow III that were in fact 50/50 at best and typically far less reliable in actually real world engagements.

Well for the price of 2 F-35Bs and 2 more F-35Cs, you could probaly cleanup, modernise and deploy most of the 6 rows of Tomcats I drive by every time I go down Kolb road in Tucson. I’d love it. Well until the first time they had to order any of the 99% of their spare parts that are not in production anymore. As a young SSG I watched, dumb struck, as a RA-5C Vigilante with a F-14A Tomcat on each wingtip made a hi-speed pass at 50meters altitude over the Boca Chica Key fishing pier. I’m a fan for life.

Well put, Guy.
I’ll go a little further too: I’m against the F-35, and I never said the F-117 would never work; and I CERTAINLY never said the F-22 wouldn’t work. Where’s Jessmo getting his info from?
What I HAVE contended all along is that the F-22 is FAR superior to the F-35, not only in air-to-air, but in its ability ( albeit lacking in SUPPORT. The JSF team isn’t interested in ANY competition for its F–35… It can’t even compete with itself :-) ) to take on almost any role due to its much better airframe. The F-35 has WAY too many things working against it to fulfill even a short-list of the to-do’s we were all promised — It’s too expensive, too compromised, too immature… All the things we DON’T need right now.

Belesari: Agree with you completely on the F-22 and F-15Se argument.
However, I would caution you in comparing a single shoot-down of a Raptor by a Growler as testament to its ability to survive… For a number of reasons.
Firstly, the Growler has a very capable jamming system (ALQ-99), and is a VERY expensive 4th-gen aircraft.
Secondly, even with those capabilities, the Growler was forced to fight close-in and take a well-timed shot to score the hit.
Thirdly, and most importantly: What happened to the remaining flight package that the Growler was protecting. It makes no difference whether your $120 Million aircraft was able to shoot down a $150 Million aircraft, when it cost you your entire strike package — THAT, my friend, is what makes the Raptor so effective. These stories of a Raptor being shot down are just silly, because the end-result is ALWAYS the same — You lose your air assets long before your occasional shoot-downs have any effect whatsoever. In my book, that’s money well-spent.

The USN is replacing all Hornets (192?) with 180 F-35C. They intend to replace 198 Super Hornets with the F/A-XX. The USMC is replacing all Hornets (192?) with 80 F-35C and also 340 F-35B. The USN Super Hornet has longer range and more weapons load capacity than the Hornet (thus the “Super”). The F/A-XX maybe the expanded version of the F-35C Lightning, thus the “F-35D Super Lightning”, ha! A XX based on a proven F-35C would be a competitor from the flight deck for the ultimate Raptor.

Why not just restart the TomCat line.Best Fighter Ever and they finally had engines that mad the Cat bad to the bone.We keep hearing how electronics and computers keep getting smaller,well a new Tomcat with state of the art electronic’s would be unbeatable.BRING THE TOMCAT BACK.

Probably we can interest other car makers to invest on new and modern stealth jets for the navy, marines, and airforce. During WWII Ford leads the way on the production of planes. It was Ford’s vision of mass production and its subsequent implementation that had harnessed the industrial might of the United States and had helped make staggering wartime production goals attainable. His mastery of manufacturing techniques has made Henry Ford’s name a household word. Ford had built 86865 complete aircraft, plus 57851 airplane engines

The Tomcat was a good jet for its time but its time has passed. It would cost way to much to reconstitute the production line let alone to modernize it. It would probably end up costing as much as developing a new plane.

That being said, I really think a 5thGen aircraft that performed the same mission as the F-14 would be wise. I wonder if a new Phoenix size missile could be used in the BMD role?

In 20 years there will be no Air Force or Army. The Navy has been steadily building a strong air-land-sea force that can strike anywhere in the world. No point in duplicating (actually, triplicating) all that cost when one service can do it all.

So here we go again, spending billions on an airplane that has no credible target, now or on the future. You know, like the F22 that just flies around burning tax payer money while it suffocates its AF pilots and crashes into apartment buildings.

Fighters are no good for the asymmetric forces wars we will be fighting from now. on. Best spend those billions on language/culture studies to win the hearts and minds, and for more special units like SEAL Team 6.

Air superiority over what? The F22 flies training missions because it has no credible target. Our wars are and will continue to be asymmetric forces wars; fighters have no place in them

I for one am tired of Congress deciding what to build and what not to build, based primarily on creating jobs in their constituents areas. Building trillion dollar weapon systems that have no credible targets is worse than earmarking; especially when healthcare, education, infrastructures, and such throughout the United States are underfunded and failing.

Let the pork barrels roll.

Turf wars are nothing new, they have gone on as long as there has been aviation. Generals have been demoted over them.

In this time of tightening budgets and fighting for dollars this is to be expected. This isn’t the first and it won’t be the last.

If he F-35 is scrapped in favor of the F/A-XX, that leaves the Marines in a world of hurt. Particularly if the F-35B is scrapped, that leaves the Corps with no STOVL jet to replace the Harrier. I think that is more the concern than the C model. The Super Hornets are more plausible than trying to keep the Harrier around. Dumping the F-35B project, with the F/A-XX a couple of decades from readiness, if the budget even allows developing the aircraft, is foolhardy.

Like the F-111B, teh Air Force was lead on the F-35 with a single engine concept. The US Navy doesn’t like single engine aircraft and they certainly did better dumping the F-111B to develop the F-14. The US Navy is in a quandry, the F-35C can’t land on an aircraft carrier (at least not yet), so do you pour more money down a money pit or cut your losses and start over? They have a start over track record, maybe they haven’t lost sight of the fatc that the F-35 multiservice was a DOD mandate similar to the F-111 fiasco. The f-35C had better make up time and mistakes quickly or the US Navy will most likely start their own development project and fund ut from waht is left in the F-35!

I agree, let the guys putting their ass on the line decide what they need to stay ahead, and what works best for them, and tell all the politicians and overpaid ex brass that are playing house boys for other contractors to go F themselves.

The Navy ran its “Let’s Get A New Aircraft ” program for years and years. Remember the NATF and AX, etc. Then there was P-7 which begat the P-8, all to replace the P-3. Each time the admirals spent millions and later billions in studies, concepts, and prototypes. Then each program got scuttled. All that wasted money and nothing to show for it. The real problem is lack of guidance in their aviation sector while the tin can navy and the silent service vie for their share of the pie. If one sector got a new ship or sub, the flyboys wanted still another jet as compensation.

Just a thought.…why not dust off the plans and prototype aircraft for the Northrop F-23? Based on its size, stealth capabilities and dual engines, it would be a better fit as navalised version than the F-22. From all of the data collected during testing ‚the F-23 was a better performer than the F-22, but, politics got in the way and Lockheed got the bid.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.