"USN: F-35C overrated, 6th generation jet slow and unstealthy" Topic

It's well known for several years the USN has not brought into stealth. They've been slashing F-35C buy and buying more F/A-18E/F Super Hornets instead.

It hasn't helped the F-35Cs has the worst performance of the three F-35 variants and has been plagued with some bad engineering (e.g. placement of arrestor hook).

Now Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert has basically said that the 6th generation jet will be relatively slow and unstealthy.

He has claimed that stealth in itself "overrated."

navytimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/02/09/greenert-questions-stealth-future/22949703

nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-6th-generation-fighter-jets-will-be-slow-unstealthy-12193

Meanwhile the USN is cutting/delaying F-35C orders in favour of stand off weapons and F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs.

aviationweek.com/defense/f-35cs-cut-back-us-navy-invests-standoff-weapons

Not surprised. The Air Force has also cut their numbers in favor of the F-22. I'd like to limit the number of F-22 and get more F-15 and F-16 planes. At $100 USD million the F-22 is way to expensive to have in large numbers.

Whew. Well, at least the F-35 was really cheap to produce, right?

I doubt that the C model is the least capable of the 3. The B model has to carry around all that extra gear for STOVL capability. Increases weight, decreases space available for fuel, avionics, etc.

The Air Force has also cut their numbers in favor of the F-22.

I thought no more F-22's can be manufactured since the assembly infrastructure is no more and it's 'prohibitively' expensive to start it back up.

The F-35C variant can be canceled but the F-35A and F-35B are still going along well. Canceling the -A is inconceivable since other countries have committed to orders and contributed to the development costs, while canceling the VTOL -B would mean the USMC has to keep flying Harrier II's forever (the F-18C, -E or -F has no VTOL capability and can't fly off amphib assault ships).

Not surprised. The Air Force has also cut their numbers in favor of the F-22. I'd like to limit the number of F-22 and get more F-15 and F-16 planes. At $100.00 USD USD million the F-22 is way to expensive to have in large numbers.

1. F-22 has been out of production since December 2011. Only 187 production F-22s were built and 3 of those have been lost in accidents, leaving 184 in service.

2. USAF is still committed to 1,760-ish F-35s. Delays to production have not been driven by USAF but by development and budget issues.

3. Currently an F-35A is over $100 USD million. F-22A flyaway cost in 2009 was $150 USD million.

4. Older 4th generation jets with modern systems are also very expensive (anywhere up to $100 USD+ million depending on fit out). Apparently Eurofighters cost as much as an F-22 and they're nowhere near as advanced and still don't have full compliment of A2G upgrades.

I doubt that the C model is the least capable of the 3. The B model has to carry around all that extra gear for STOVL capability. Increases weight, decreases space available for fuel, avionics, etc.

Apparently the wing planform of the F-35C contributed to significant decreases in things like transonic acceleration and sustained turn rate.

Apparently (and don't quote me on this one) it's getting down to A-6 level performance here, albeit faster.

1,760 F-35s?

Seems crazy to me to buy ten times as many poor-performing aircraft for about the same price as the F-22 (that $100 USD mil a copy price for the F-35 is inaccurate – more like $150 USD – $200 USD mil with the R&D costs included).

I suggest it is time to cancel the project, and rollover the funds/savings into the 6th Gen. Fighter.

Slow means dead.

It's also time to fire some of the Air Force Procurement Planners/Managers and Generals involved with this ill-fated project.

The 6th Gen. jets should be fast, stealthy, affordable, and loaded for Russian Bear, and Chinese Pandas, as far as hardpoints for AAMs go.

1960's era performance, at 2020 prices is not a good plan for the USAF, Marines, or USN aircraft procurement.

You can say any technology is good/bad compared to which enemy it has to face. P-40 in 1939 was fine unless it had to face Me-109 or Zero and even through 1942 if it could fight the battle in a way that favored it, then it could shoot down the enemy.

Not saying I am a huge fan of the F-35 but who is it going to face? And it is not just plane to plane but air warfare is a complex mix of aircraft/technology/pilot skills in anything beyond a "police action."

As for the Navy, they have always had a "Not designed by us means no good" mentality since they started flying airplanes off carriers.

Thinking you are getting more F-16s and F-15s in any numbers is a drug induced fantasy. Seriously not happening.

You won't get any improvement in combat aircraft design (or ships or AFVs or <fill in the blank> …) until reality forces the inbred military-industrial-Congressional-political complex to get it's ass kicked and forced to change their ways. Lots of young men would have to die before the people awake from their pleasure driven mind-numbed mode of existence.

"… It's also time to fire some of the Air Force Procurement Planners/Managers and Generals involved with this ill-fated project.

The 6th Gen. jets should be fast, stealthy, affordable, and loaded for Russian Bear, and Chinese Pandas, as far as hardpoints for AAMs go.

1960's era performance, at 2020 prices is not a good plan for the USAF, Marines, or USN aircraft procurement…"

First is not going to happen, they will just retire and become contractors or civilian "leaders" – See James Clapper <spit> – for how that works.

The second is a nice ideal (I like it) but as the Germans supposedly say, "The Devil is in the details."

Can't argue with the obvious accuracy of the last statement quoted above.

1,760 F-35s?

Seems crazy to me to buy ten times as many poor-performing aircraft for about the same price as the F-22 (that $100.00 USD USD mil a copy price for the F-35 is inaccurate – more like $150.00 USD USD – $200.00 USD USD mil with the R&D costs included).

In that case F-22 cost is helluva lot more. The $150 USD million was flyaway (i.e. no R&D and no infrastructure).

Slow means dead.

Actually 1960s experiences showed that speed was not as relevant as manoeuvrability and acceleration rates. Speed's handy in terms of reaction time or if you have to bug out (but you're not going to outrun an AAM).

F/A-18 is slow by 1960s standards – Mach 1.6 compared to Mach 2.0+ for an F-4 or F-106 or Mirage III or MiG-21. It's still a pretty good dog fighter and has ample BVR capability. In certain close range spectrums it is in fact better than an F-16 (which in it's base form is one of the best dogfighters ever built).

The 6th Gen. jets should be fast, stealthy, affordable, and loaded for Russian Bear, and Chinese Pandas, as far as hardpoints for AAMs go.

As soon as you want to fight Russia or China, affordability goes out the window:

1. You need lots of fuel to deal with large range, so the jet has to be big (especially if you are to avoid relying on vulnerable tankers).
2. You need top of the line avionics and systems.
3. If you're relying on stealth, it has to be top of the line.

All of the above is expensive to acquire and to maintain. You're basically looking at F-22 or even enlarged F-22.

And it doesn't solve the issue of the average combat mission since Vietnam being dropping A2G ordnance on largely defenceless third world types.

F-22 is beyond overkill for this kind of mission and a bad use of tax payer dollars.

It's comforting to know that at least one high-ranking officer in the military has a brain!

Stealth is overrated, easily bypassed with revised radar designs (microwave frequencies etc…). And, as he noted, friction with the air will produce heat, which is detectable.

Some high-end stealthy aircraft to use as the spear-point would be useful (potentially) but, the bulk of our aircraft should be built for speed, payload/range and handling advantages.

Not saying I am a huge fan of the F-35 but who is it going to face? And it is not just plane to plane but air warfare is a complex mix of aircraft/technology/pilot skills in anything beyond a "police action."

Exactly.

Even the F-35's stealth capability will be seldom or even never used and they'll be hanging non-stealthy ordnance off it most of the time and launching it on defenceless insurgents.

Last time USAF faced enemy fighters were a handful of non-functioning Serbian MiGS in 1999.

Since then the average air force has shrunk even further. Even in growing Asia, Taiwan, India and Malaysia are effectively slashing fighter fleets by retiring jets without replacement.

Even the Chinese air force has been massively slashing fighters. Average regiment size for modern types is 24 aircraft as opposed to 40+ for older types. And they have abolished a lot of units too. They've effectively halved their fighter fleet by 50% since 1991.

Even the F-35's stealth capability will be seldom or even never used and they'll be hanging non-stealthy ordnance off it most of the time and launching it on defenceless insurgents.

That's never stopped a country that always relied on overkill and having the capability even though it's not really needed.

Even the Chinese air force has been massively slashing fighters. Average regiment size for modern types is 24 aircraft as opposed to 40+ for older types. And they have abolished a lot of units too. They've effectively halved their fighter fleet by 50% since 1991.

That's because the PLAAF has modernized and no longer need large numbers of J-7's. J-10 and J-11 regiments don't need to be as large. Each is worth at least two J-7's so the PLAAF is actually more capable with fewer AC than 1991.

I hear they don't plan to have more than a squadron or two of the J-20 Stealth fighter (about 20-ish).

But yeah, there's no reason why the USAF need over 1,500 F-35A's when it can more than meet any global challenge with under 1,000. But then there's "economy of scale" with lower unit costs I guess.

It's only taxpayers' money.

That's because the PLAAF has modernized and no longer need large numbers of J-7's. J-10 and J-11 regiments don't need to be as large. Each is worth at least two J-7's so the PLAAF is actually more capable with fewer AC than 1991.

Whilst totally true, the large size of China's borders and several potential hotspots means they have less capability to concentrate force or take casualties.

I hear they don't plan to have more than a squadron or two of the J-20 Stealth fighter (about 20-ish).

All I've heard is there might be 1 regiment (24 a/c) in service by 2025 or even 2030.

But yeah, there is no reason why the USAF need over 1,500 F-35A's when it can more than meet any global challenge with under 1,000. But then there's "economy of scale" with lower unit costs….

The entire USAF doctrine of large numbers of short range tactical fighters reliant on vlunerable air to air tankers is debatable.

In any case, the USMC and USN flat tops offer more flexibility in both colonial and conventional scenarios and especially if you're dealing with Russia or China.

"Meanwhile the USN is cutting/delaying F-35C orders in favour of stand off weapons and F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs."

I don't know where you got this, Deadone? Did you misread the article? Not a single new F/A-18 has been ordered in the new budget. It does mention a purchase of them in 2013, and orders made years ago will be fulfilled into next year, but the Navy has not made any new orders of F18s. Also, the CNO has previously stated the reduced buy of F35C's is due to the continuing impact of sequestration, not any opinions he has on the F35C, which in the first article refer to the transition from the F35C (a 5th gen fighter) to the future 6th gen fighter (something that will happen at least a decade from now).

It is quite probable that the Super Bug line will shut down in 2017 if no new orders appear on the horizon.

The article also states as fact that the Sidewinder 9X Block III is being canceled because it was slated for the F35C. This is a dubious conflation. While the F35C was planned to get the Block III, all aircraft capable of firing a 9x would have gotten the Block III, so the loss of that weapon is bad news for all fighters across the board- not just the F35C. (Though there are rumors that the block III is being cancelled in favor of a new missile altogether- I'm not sure I believe that just yet.)

Overall that latter article you quoted seems like Bill Sweetman on another snipe hunt.

TGerritsen,

Sorry I forgot to link this one in:

uk.reuters.com/article/2015/02/02/usa-budget-navy-boeing-idUKL1N0VC1DS20150202

Last year USN requested 22 EA-18G Super Hornets as an "unfunded priority." They got 15 of them approved by Congress.

Essentially they got through via the backdoor. The question arises whether a similar bid will be made this year.

Bare in mind Congress did the same with F-35C this year.USN wanted only 2, whereas Congress authorised 4.

Also, the CNO has previously stated the reduced buy of F35C's is due to the continuing impact of sequestration,

Navy F-35C cutbacks started years before sequestration. They were originally meant to get 480 F-35C but that got chopped to 260 F-35C. Additionally USMC was required to acquire 80 F-35C to bolster US Navy squadron numbers.

This is essentially a permanent cut of 140 aircraft. At the same time F/A-18E/F numbers were ramped up.

The Navy said last year that more permanent cuts were possible but that they were committed to program.

They had apparently requested a suspension of production of F-35C but that got canned too.

It's really not valid to include development costs when comparing aircraft.

The development costs have been spent whether you buy one bird or one thousand.

How much does the second/1001st bird cost?

In other news, seems some of the F-35 flight testing results have been massaged to obtain more favourable results according to the Pentagon's Director Operational Test & Evaluation.

defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/160338/f_35-program-massages-flight-test-results-%282%29.html

EA-18G's are not fighters. The Growlers are a dedicated EW aircraft and the Navy will probably request a few more unfunded this year but, given the budget already exceeds the sequester by a large sum (40B+/-?), the odds are pretty good that line is headed for shut down. The Navy hasn't requested funding, on or off budget, for a regular Super Hornet fighter for a couple of years.

McKinstry, if budget doesn't go through does that mean F-35 buy might also get derailed and reduced in number?

The budget is 40B over the legal mandate set by the budget control act. If there is not a deal between the House and the Administration, the full sequester kicks in and many things do not get purchased, the Army needs to drop an additional 70,000 troops, the Ohio replacement gets $0 USD and there will have to be a reduced F-35 buy across all models unless the Service Chiefs trade off other things. USAF will surely kill the A-10, USN will lay up 11 Ticos and an awful lot of training will cease.

USAF will surely kill the A-10

They tried but haven't been successful thus far….

The Warthog's too popular in congress to slash, which means other areas will suffer.

If it comes down to the USAF saying 'lose the A-10 or lose some Air Force facility (and the civilian jobs) in your district' then you'll see enthusiasm for the Warthog evaporate faster than a puddle on a hot summer day.

If Congress had any sense (yeah, I know…) they'd scrapped that idiotic Sequestration crap and do their job… But that's asking WAAAAAY too much….

If Congress had any sense (yeah, I know…) they'd scrapped that idiotic Sequestration crap and do their job… But that's asking WAAAAAY too much….

That would mean both closure of bases, especially small bases as well as retirement of A-10 and a few other assets as well.

Fixing the budget means dealing with defence spending and social security, two things considered untouchable.

"Do you hate the troops? / Do you want to starve grandma?"

Maybe they could hold a bake sale?