There is no doubt the navy will be down in the slumps if they delay the F-35. F-18's are getting old they arent up to date with stealth and aerodynamics like the F-35 is. If they delay the F-35 what are they going to do? The F-35 will soon be the most advanced fighter jet in the world. That things is seriously packing some power behind it to. Its nuts what these aircraft technicians can do these days.
U.S. Navy faces fighter gap.
- Thread starter F-15 Eagle
- Start date
I've checked, & in constant 2002 dollars the predicted programme cost of F-35 went up by $600 million between the September 2007 & December 2007 SARs, while the "then year" figure, including predicted future inflation, went down by $1 billion. The number of aircraft to be bought went down slightly, from 2458 to 2456. The unit cost therefore went up by 0.4%. Not much increase, but certainly not a fall.
The apparent reduction in cost is chiefly due to a reduction in predicted general inflation, & to a lesser extent, due to a very small reduction in planned numbers. There is no real reduction in cost.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2007/d20071119sars.pdf
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2008/d20080408sars.pdf
Last edited:
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #23
I 100% agree with you on that. If the Navy delays the F-35C then that will only make the fighter gap grow bigger and the F-18s will get older and it will make the problem worse. They will only harm themselves.
Were is Gordon England in all of this? He if he is so pro-F-35 then why has he not stopped the navy from delaying the F-35C like he did several other times like when the Navy wanted to delay the USMC STOVL F-35B but was blocked by Mr. England?:coffee
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #24
It says page not found when I went on it.
Last edited by a moderator:
A cut and paste problem. My error. Sorry about that. It works perfectly on the F-35/Norway thread. Fixed here now.
I hope you don't mind, but I also fixed it in your post, where you quoted me.
contedicavour
New Member
A slightly provocative proposal - why is the USN insisting on F35C when it could just save money and time by ordering the same F35B that the USMC is waiting for (on top of the Royal Navy, Italian Navy and Air Force and probably eventually Spain's Armada) ?
Or, less provocatively, focus now all means to have as soon as possible F35Bs operational and then wait a while for the -Cs ?
cheers
Or, less provocatively, focus now all means to have as soon as possible F35Bs operational and then wait a while for the -Cs ?
cheers
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Because the F-35B doesn't meet the range/payload requirements that the USN needs.
The -B meets the USMC requirement for a STOVL capable aircraft. But to achieve that capability, significant performance compromises where required to achieve it within a significantly common airframe.
By way of example, the -B wouldn't have met the range requirement for USN that it experienced in it's carrier ops in GW2 without AAR. Just like the Hornet didn't.
The -C would have...
With barely sufficient AAR resources already, placing less strain on them seems like the better idea to me...
America could have not developed the B version to replace the Harriers too. But America and her allies did developed A, B, and C versions. Many of the allies wanted the B versions for their smaller carriers, the USAF is happy with its A versions, whereas the US Navy wanted slower wider winged aircraft to operate off its carriers.
You could then ask, why don't the USAF buy the C versions the navy will be receiving. The USAF wants thousands, not hundreds. The USAF requires the cheapest versions, i.e., not necessarily that much cheaper and certainly not a downgraded aircraft, whereas the US Navy requires aircraft suitable for carrier operations.
The GAO is happy too, seeing much of their suggestions being followed. Finally an aircraft that appears capable of doing three different aircraft, surely a development bonanza. Everyone is getting a better, improved aircraft. There are those who claimed it couldn't be done.
You could then ask, why don't the USAF buy the C versions the navy will be receiving. The USAF wants thousands, not hundreds. The USAF requires the cheapest versions, i.e., not necessarily that much cheaper and certainly not a downgraded aircraft, whereas the US Navy requires aircraft suitable for carrier operations.
The GAO is happy too, seeing much of their suggestions being followed. Finally an aircraft that appears capable of doing three different aircraft, surely a development bonanza. Everyone is getting a better, improved aircraft. There are those who claimed it couldn't be done.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Though I agree, I don't think it's a lock in success, once the F-35B hits full production I think it will look pretty good till then fingers crossed IMO.
I agree with Salty, the C version is the most different version, enlarging the wings and body a bit. The prototypes have been flying several years, and the first's of the As and Bs have been flying over a year. If the program stays on schedule, and that is a big if, we should see the first deliveries for the As during 2010 and the Bs during 2012. There is still more testing to be done, but the aircraft seems to be overcoming all of its obstacles. Both the As and the Bs are flying as expected, but we still have the weapons tests to do, much of it to do with software. I don't for see any major problems. The F-35 program, as long as it has been, has moved along in my opinion swiftly, unlike the F-22 program. But then again much that was learned with the F-22s have been applied to the F-35 program.
The British keep saying what if the program falls significantly behind? So far, the F-35 program is much farther along its path than the Queen Elizabeths carriers. Knock on wood, lets hope the F-35 doesn't fall further behind, and as Lockheed claims, catches up on its schedule.
The British keep saying what if the program falls significantly behind? So far, the F-35 program is much farther along its path than the Queen Elizabeths carriers. Knock on wood, lets hope the F-35 doesn't fall further behind, and as Lockheed claims, catches up on its schedule.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #32
Yeah its fixed now thanks.
LOL yeah they tried something like that back in 2005 were the Pentagon was considering canceling the F-35A and have the USAF buy the F-35C but that meant cost would go out of control, the USAF would get less then 1000 aircraft(like around 500-800) and the F-35C was not meant for the USAF so they did not go with the plan.
And I'm glad they didn't.
Everybody is missing the big picture here. F-22 is hi up; the opponent is low down...and nobody is going to want to give away his advantage. So they fly around a look at each other. Now what? A full composite Su-33/30MKi/27M type airplane with all our wiz-bang gear in it….wow!! Super ass kicker!...and you can hang whatever you want under it!! It was already proposed years back for the US Navy.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #35
If your talking about a naval F-22 well thats what the F-35C was designed for.
Cheers.:cheers