"If the Military's Future Stealth Jet Fails..." Topic

… the Navi's Got a Backup Plan.

"The U.S. Navy is carefully backing away from the troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program and putting in place a backup plan in case the trillion-dollar, jack-of-all-trades stealth jet can't recover from mounting technical and budgetary woes. So much for the F-35 being too big to fail.

The Navy's Plan B is still taking shape. But its outlines are coming into view, thanks in large part to recent comments from its top officer. It involves fewer F-35s (the Navy still buy some) and more copies of the older Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet carrier-based fighter, which the Lockheed Martin-built F-35 was originally meant to replace. In the unlikely event the F-35C° the naval version of the radar-evading plane gets canceled, the Super Hornet could be upgraded past its current shelf life. The twin-engine F/A-18E/F is already getting new weapons. Extra fuel tanks and some stealth treatments could be added as well.

The Joint Strike Fighter program is many billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule; it probably can't deliver a single combat-ready warplane to the Navy before 2018. The Navy has long been the least enthusiastic of the Joint Strike Fighter's U.S. customers, which also include the Air Force and Marines, each with their own unique variant of the F-35. Since the sailing branch has the youngest fighter force in the military, it has the least urgent need for factory-fresh planes.

And the Navy downplays radar-eluding stealth capability in its war plans, instead preferring to fight its way through enemy defenses or fire weapons from a distance. It is time to consider shifting our focus from platforms that rely solely on stealth to also include concepts for operating farther from adversaries using standoff weapons and unmanned systems ¡ª or employing electronic-warfare payloads to confuse or jam threat sensors rather than trying to hide from them Adm. Jonathan Greenert wrote last year in the U.S. Naval Institute journal Proceedings.

Greenert, the Navy's top officer, is a case study in the Navy's ambivalence about the Joint Strike Fighter. His Proceedings piece was interpreted as a shot across the F-35 as bow, but Greenert denies he meant any such thing. ¡°We need the F-35C; we need its capability, Greenert said two weeks ago. ¡°It has stealth, range, big payload capacity and an enormous electronic attack (potential).

But in the same breath, Greenert hinted that the Navy might buy fewer F-35Cs than the current 260 on order. ¡°The question becomes how many do we buy, and how does it integrate into the air wing, he said, adding that totally canceling the new plane is unlikely for political reasons. If we bought no Cs that would be very detrimental to the overall program.

Any reduction in the number of Joint Strike Fighters purchased subtracts from Lockheed's intricately laid-out production plan, therefore increasing the cost of the remaining jets. However, buying fewer F-35Cs and more improved F/A-18s might be possible without utterly wrecking the Joint Strike Fighter program…"
Full article here.
link

Amicalement
Armand

Sounds like the Navy didn't want the F-35C. It is buying any at all only to keep the program afloat (no pun intended) and will only reluctantly purchase the bare minimum required so that the program won't be canceled.

I guess the squids thought even if they try to buy as many F-35's as they 'need' it won't be nearly enough airframes, so they're just going to get more super Super Hornets and just have a token force of Lightning II's.

Perhaps they should see if any of those Swedish Viggens are still available.

A good, solid, robust airframe, with: Mach 2 speed, a good radar system, datalink capability, can carry a hefty weapons load, and have STOL performance.

Sadly, I fear, those may have been scrapped, and made into drink cans.

Or they are getting ready to switch over to more drones. If I remember right, this year is the year that they really start carrier testing their new unmanned strike plane.

Didn't realize there was anyone left in the Navy who'd been around when the F111 program augered in.

Though the F111 was doomed from the start because nobody had told McNamara the Navy's weight limit was the absolute max of the arresting gear, not something that could be exceeded by a few thousand lbs.

I think the Navy is looking at the massive delays in getting the C model online. Marines don't have a choice, they have to get the B models, full stop. At least F18E/F are in new production still…

If it wasn't for the Navy bastard-child holding up development of the whole program, F35A would be in a much better position than it is now.

As for stealth, what stealth! Have the squids not seen all the weapon pylons hanging off the wings.

Wonder what the the RN are going to do, Buy some Harriers from USMC!

Or MiG-29s?

Quite true E65.

A shame they didn't design it a little bigger, so that they could put more than just a few missiles internally, and/or come up with a design to carry some bombs, and other weapons that way too.

The real crying shame is the cancellation of the A-12, for the latter.

Ah well, hopefully those working on the drawings/designs for the next project learn a bit from this one.

I won't hold my breath though, since the same cycles seem to repeat regularly, so it appears lessons from previous projects are not reviewed, especially at the governmental procurement level.

A shame they didn't design it a little bigger, so that they could put more than just a few missiles internally, and/or come up with a design to carry some bombs, and other weapons that way too.

The F117 carries a total of TWO bombs, no missiles.

The real crying shame is the cancellation of the A-12, for the latter.

The A12 carried a pair of 2000lb bombs and (I think) 2 AMRAAMs and 2 HARMs internally (might have just been two missiles total). Basically, the same weapons load as the F35. Except we would have been flying them for the last 15 years!

Assuming all those would have been carried internally, that sounds like at least double the payload to me.

I suspect that in retrospect, the A-12s will look like a bargain, assuming they would have had fewer issues than the F-35.

Seems likely to me, since they weren't bothering with three variants of the same aircraft, for three different services, plus a bunch of other countries.

US Navy is also looking at investing heavily in UCAVs – i.e. UCLASS competition.

link

F/A-XX 6th generation jet is also being researched.

Sounds to me like someone is a bit cautious on stealth being able to accomplish everything….

It's always been a great idea to save money, gain free lunches and grow extra-long rhubarb by mixing up air force and naval requirements into a single hairyplane. Apart from the enormous success of the F-111 and the EH-101, consider the awesomness of the P-1154 and the SR-177.

All the best,

John.

>Sounds to me like someone is a bit cautious on stealth being able to accomplish everything….

Stealth IS everything. Or to put it in simpler terms: Stealth is the new normal.