Dump The Navy's Version Of The JSF (F-35C?)

[[email protected]]

""“I’m growing more and more convinced that the Navy variant of the
F-​​35
might not be worth buying. The program is sliding further and further
to
the right, as costs increase. When we have an 80 percent solution in
active production, and significantly cheaper, the F-​​35C looks like a
great
candidate for cancellation,� said one congressional aide."

See:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/01/12/navair-offers-f-18-ammo-amid-jsf-woes/

Would the Navy be better off skipping the F-35, and using upgraded F/
A-18's
until UCAS-D, or some other solution, is ready?

[Jack Linthicum]

On Jan 12, 3:57Â*pm, wrote:
> ""“I’m growing more and more convinced that the Navy variant of the
> F-​​35
> might not be worth buying. The program is sliding further and further
> to
> the right, as costs increase. When we have an 80 percent solution in
> active production, and significantly cheaper, the F-​​35C looks like a
> great
> candidate for cancellation,� said one congressional aide."
>
> See:
>
> http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/01/12/navair-offers-f-18-ammo-amid-jsf-woes/
>
> Would the Navy be better off skipping the F-35, and using upgraded F/
> A-18's
> until UCAS-D, or some other solution, is ready?

Back in the same day once again
No consequences in a life without an end
so you take the money and watch it burn
as it all goes up in flames
Until you realize what you got to learn
you'll make the same mistake over and over again

say goodbye to one more day
and another chance for you to change
spinnin' circles' round the sun
but tomorrow never comes
tomorrow never comes

[Typhoon502]

On Jan 12, 3:57Â*pm, wrote:
> ""“I’m growing more and more convinced that the Navy variant of the
> F-​​35
> might not be worth buying. The program is sliding further and further
> to
> the right, as costs increase. When we have an 80 percent solution in
> active production, and significantly cheaper, the F-​​35C looks like a
> great
> candidate for cancellation,� said one congressional aide."
>
> See:
>
> http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/01/12/navair-offers-f-18-ammo-amid-jsf-woes/
>
> Would the Navy be better off skipping the F-35, and using upgraded F/
> A-18's
> until UCAS-D, or some other solution, is ready?

I'd go the other way around, dump the AF version and make the F-35C be
the only non-STOVL option, then put STOVL off until F-35C is up to
speed. But F-35 is probably going to go the way of the F-22 in any
case.

[The Raven[_2_]]

"Typhoon502" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 12, 3:57Â pm, wrote:
> ""â?oIâ?Tm growing more and more convinced that the Navy variant of the
> F-â?<â?<35
> might not be worth buying. The program is sliding further and further
> to
> the right, as costs increase. When we have an 80 percent solution in
> active production, and significantly cheaper, the F-â?<â?<35C looks like a
> great
> candidate for cancellation,â?� said one congressional aide."
>
> See:
>
> http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/01/12/navair-offers-f-18-ammo-amid-jsf-woes/
>
> Would the Navy be better off skipping the F-35, and using upgraded F/
> A-18's
> until UCAS-D, or some other solution, is ready?

I'd go the other way around, dump the AF version and make the F-35C be
the only non-STOVL option, then put STOVL off until F-35C is up to
speed. But F-35 is probably going to go the way of the F-22 in any
case.

===

Agreed, the STOVL option is what's pushing up the overall per unit
design/manufacturer costs. Wait until the conventional models are well into
production (and where 90+% of the market is) then develop STOVL for those
with a harrier fixation.

[hcobb]

On Jan 12, 6:13*pm, Typhoon502 > wrote:
> I'd go the other way around, dump the AF version and make the F-35C be
> the only non-STOVL option, then put STOVL off until F-35C is up to
> speed. But F-35 is probably going to go the way of the F-22 in any
> case.

An AF Lt wrote a paper about using the F-35C for short field
operations by setting up arresting wires, but I lost the link.

The problem with the F-35 is the tiny range. The F-35C is only
slightly longer ranged than the F-22.

Just look at the stats:

F-22, RCS of 0.0002 m^2, Combat radius: 410 nmi
F-35C, RCS of 0.0015 m^2, Combat radius: 640 nmi
Sukhoi PAK FA, RCS of 0.5 m^2, Combat radius: > 800 nmi (Spots the
F-35 just outside of Sidewinder range and the F-22 just outside of
cannon range.)

-HJC

[guy]

On 13 Jan, 02:13, Typhoon502 > wrote:
> On Jan 12, 3:57Â*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ""“I’m growing more and more convinced that the Navy variant of the
> > F-​​35
> > might not be worth buying. The program is sliding further and further
> > to
> > the right, as costs increase. When we have an 80 percent solution in
> > active production, and significantly cheaper, the F-​​35C looks like a
> > great
> > candidate for cancellation,� said one congressional aide."
>
> > See:
>
> >http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/01/12/navair-offers-f-18-ammo-amid-jsf-woes/
>
> > Would the Navy be better off skipping the F-35, and using upgraded F/
> > A-18's
> > until UCAS-D, or some other solution, is ready?
>
> I'd go the other way around, dump the AF version and make the F-35C be
> the only non-STOVL option, then put STOVL off until F-35C is up to
> speed. But F-35 is probably going to go the way of the F-22 in any
> case.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Just out of interest what are the benefits of the small wing on the A
model over the big wing on the C? (purely an airframe question,
nothing to do with equipment etc)

Guy

[eatfastnoodle]

On Jan 12, 2:57Â*pm, wrote:
> ""“I’m growing more and more convinced that the Navy variant of the
> F-​​35
> might not be worth buying. The program is sliding further and further
> to
> the right, as costs increase. When we have an 80 percent solution in
> active production, and significantly cheaper, the F-​​35C looks like a
> great
> candidate for cancellation,� said one congressional aide."
>
> See:
>
> http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/01/12/navair-offers-f-18-ammo-amid-jsf-woes/
>
> Would the Navy be better off skipping the F-35, and using upgraded F/
> A-18's
> until UCAS-D, or some other solution, is ready?

Isn't the cost per unit for F35 already exceeds $100 million? How can
that price tag make F35 an "affordable" alternative for F22? And I
don't think it's realistic, budget wise, to expect the Pentagon to
really fulfill its contract of buying 2443 F35.

[hcobb]

On Jan 15, 4:45*pm, Daryl Hunt > wrote:
> Or, we can mod the 15 or the 16 and put them back into production as a
> stopgap.

You can't expect the USAF to think that far ahead.

If you want a truly modern F-16, you'd have to get another country to
fund the development.

Like say the UAE.

-HJC

[[email protected]]

On Jan 15, 4:45*pm, Daryl Hunt > wrote:

>
> Or, we can mod the 15 or the 16 and put them back into production as a
> stopgap.

A mod for the F-15 is in the works now:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awst/2010/01/18/AW_01_18_2010_p32-196830.xml&headline=Boeing%20Looks%20To%20First%20Silent%20Ea gle%20Flight&channel=defense