which to cut F-35B or F-35C

[lucinator]

Given the budget battles in Washington it is looking increasingly likely that one variant of the F-35 joint strike fighter will be cut. But which one? There are merits to both sides of the argument. It would be interesting to hear arguments for both.

Note: this is a either or argument, no saying things such as cancelling the whole Joint Strike Fighter program or such.

To start things off I'm going to take the more controversial side and say that the C variant should be cut. My reasons are that its role it better filled by UCAV's. Deep strike missions are better left to unmanned air vehicles. Though I would say that a limited run of C's set up in EW configurations might have some merit, though even this could be done with UCAV's. The B variant has some unique capabilities, the most important one is the use of amphibious assault ships as sudo light carriers, allowing the United States not to have to necessarily commit a whole carrier group to a crisis and allowing more flexibility. Also until a UCAV with VTOL is developed it still has relevant capabilities.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

To start things off I'm going to take the more controversial side and say that the C variant should be cut. My reasons are that its role it better filled by UCAV's. Deep strike missions are better left to unmanned air vehicles. Though I would say that a limited run of C's set up in EW configurations might have some merit, though even this could be done with UCAV's.

The major issue with the argument is the immaturity of UAS technology. The F-35 and UCAS's are not peers, they are not interchangeable options as one is WAY further down its development curve. USN F/A-18 C/D's need replacing now, not in 15 years. Not to mention the additional risk of relying on such an unproven technology. If the F-35C is cancelled then it will not be replaced with some unidentified UCAS, it will be replaced with the F/A-18E/F. Anyway you cut it that is a significant drop in the USN's air combat and power projection capability over the next two decades.

The B variant has some unique capabilities, the most important one is the use of amphibious assault ships as sudo light carriers, allowing the United States not to have to necessarily commit a whole carrier group to a crisis and allowing more flexibility. Also until a UCAV with VTOL is developed it still has relevant capabilities.

But how often is the US going to deploy a USMC AGTF to a situation which is dangerous enough to require fixed wing CAS but will not deploy a CBG? If the US is looking at a serious defended landing scenario the marine commander can be confident of USMC F-35C's in support operating off a CVN. If we are talking a low intensity scenario then providing local infrastructure for conventional fixed wing TAC AIR would not be a problem. For the United States I personally just don't see the real value in STOVL operations. Sure with an unlimited budget STOVL capability is great for the USMC, but compared to the F-35C I don't see anywhere near as much utility. Different story for all those pocket carrier operators.

 

[Bonza]

take this to F-35 thread this thread will get locked in<insert time here>

Let the moderators worry about that. I understand you might only be trying to help out but it's not necessary for you to advise other posters on what is and is not acceptable.

 

[wormhole]

The major issue with the argument is the immaturity of UAS technology. The F-35 and UCAS's are not peers, they are not interchangeable options as one is WAY further down its development curve. USN F/A-18 C/D's need replacing now, not in 15 years. Not to mention the additional risk of relying on such an unproven technology. If the F-35C is cancelled then it will not be replaced with some unidentified UCAS, it will be replaced with the F/A-18E/F. Anyway you cut it that is a significant drop in the USN's air combat and power projection capability over the next two decades.

Valid observations. I'd also like to add that I don't see UCAS as being cheap..once those things are developed to have equivalent capabilities approaching that of manned platforms, they will probably wind up costing very similarly.

But how often is the US going to deploy a USMC AGTF to a situation which is dangerous enough to require fixed wing CAS but will not deploy a CBG? If the US is looking at a serious defended landing scenario the marine commander can be confident of USMC F-35C's in support operating off a CVN. If we are talking a low intensity scenario then providing local infrastructure for conventional fixed wing TAC AIR would not be a problem. For the United States I personally just don't see the real value in STOVL operations. Sure with an unlimited budget STOVL capability is great for the USMC, but compared to the F-35C I don't see anywhere near as much utility. Different story for all those pocket carrier operators.

STOVL does provide flexibility though in ratcheting up the level of response ie. just applying the force needed to deal with the situation. Libya is an example where the STOVL capabilities cost-effectively match the US need w/o having to tie up a finite CVN fleet. The F-35B will improve further on this.

I can't find the article but I read once that the DoD estimated that aound 80% or more of future potential conflicts would involve some aspect of littoral operations. The versatility of the F-35B, Osprey and LCS, for example, would fit in nicely in these scenarios.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

STOVL does provide flexibility though in ratcheting up the level of response ie. just applying the force needed to deal with the situation. Libya is an example where the STOVL capabilities cost-effectively match the US need w/o having to tie up a finite CVN fleet. The F-35B will improve further on this.

Sure, but the question isn't whether the US will enjoy any utility out of STOVL operations but whether the benefits of STOVL justify the cancellation of the F-35C. Libya is an example of an operation which could have been achieved without the deployment of either STOVL or a CBG as there was basing well within range requirements. I know that creates persistence issues but again you can always deploy a CBG if its that much of a problem. In any case how often is the USN so stretched it couldn't deploy a CVN to a situation it deemed necessary and had to rely on USMC AV-8B's alone?

I can't find the article but I read once that the DoD estimated that aound 80% or more of future potential conflicts would involve some aspect of littoral operations.

I'd question that assumption given the increasing likelihood of peer competition over the next 30 years. IIRC its one of the major reasons why additional Burkes were selected over the DDG-1000; the ability to support SM-3. I'd wager this was a tacit acknowledgement of an overemphasis on the littorals.

The versatility of the F-35B, Osprey and LCS, for example, would fit in nicely in these scenarios.

I don't really see the F-35B's additional utility in littoral operations compared to the F-35C. You don't need to stage the platform in the littoral environment in order for it to operate there, you can project it from blue water. Yes there are some persistence benefits with STOVL staged forward, but they are somewhat counterbalanced by the F-35C's additional internal fuel capacity. They both have the same sensors and weapons, so apart from that I don't see any difference for green water operations.

 

[wormhole]

Sure, but the question isn't whether the US will enjoy any utility out of STOVL operations but whether the benefits of STOVL justify the cancellation of the F-35C. Libya is an example of an operation which could have been achieved without the deployment of either STOVL or a CBG as there was basing well within range requirements. I know that creates persistence issues but again you can always deploy a CBG if its that much of a problem. In any case how often is the USN so stretched it couldn't deploy a CVN to a situation it deemed necessary and had to rely on USMC AV-8B's alone?

Its not a certainty that a choice will have to be made between the A&C. The rescue of the downed F-15E crew utilized STOVL assets, Ospreys and i believe Harriers as well.. quick response was paramount. You can’t be assured of the availability of long concrete runways in the vicinity or that you can secure access in an acceptable time frame. Other crises could easily arise tying up deployable CVN resources. A2A refueling to support jets operating from more distant bases is a strain on resources that can otherwise be avoided or at least minimized.

I'd question that assumption given the increasing likelihood of peer competition over the next 30 years. IIRC its one of the major reasons why additional Burkes were selected over the DDG-1000; the ability to support SM-3. I'd wager this was a tacit acknowledgement of an overemphasis on the littorals.

It doesn't necessarily follow .. that's why the Navy is building up its LCS fleet and their synergy with the V-22s and F-35Bs will address most situations involving littorals.. of course the other fleet assets will play their respective roles. ABM capability of the Burkes was cited as a major factor in the decision to cap the Zumwalt fleet but this simply implies that the USN is reallocating resources to meet a legitimate growing threat from ballistic missiles. It doesn't minimize or downgrade the role the littorals are going to play in future conflicts.

I don't really see the F-35B's additional utility in littoral operations compared to the F-35C. You don't need to stage the platform in the littoral environment in order for it to operate there, you can project it from blue water. Yes there are some persistence benefits with STOVL staged forward, but they are somewhat counterbalanced by the F-35C's additional internal fuel capacity. They both have the same sensors and weapons, so apart from that I don't see any difference for green water operations.

The USMC has been very clear about the value of the unique capabilities the F-35B brings to the MAGTF Its basing versatility in not being tethered to a long concrete runway or a CVN gives it an added dimensional flexibility over the C. We can only begin to imagine what factors/consideration supported by real-world intelligence and other classified considerations convinced them that the B is the way to go. Needless to say, the B forms a integral component in their concept of operations..

Mod edit:

Why is every post of yours being written in bold? Seems a tad rude to me...

AD

 

[Ananda]

If come to the choice between B or C, and whatever the arguments, the one being cut will be B version. It will come to question of who's have bigger clout, the Navy or the Marines.

US will not jeoperdise the effectiveness of their CVG. With increasingly Russian and China will have something that's above Shornet capabilities in near future, US will need F-35 capabilities on their Carriers. While if need be Harriers can still be upgraded for Marines need. It will not what the Marines wants, but rather than not having the F-35 capabilities on the Carriers, it's I believe will be more acceptable to US military establishement.

 

[wormhole]

Apologies

Sorry for the bold lettering, it was just meant to highlight my responses for readability.. will find some less obtrusive way from now on. Thanks for pointing it out.

Mod edit: No worries, just seemed a little like shouting.

No harm no foul...

AD

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Its not a certainty that a choice will have to be made between the A&C. The rescue of the downed F-15E crew utilized STOVL assets, Ospreys and i believe Harriers as well.. quick response was paramount. You can’t be assured of the availability of long concrete runways in the vicinity or that you can secure access in an acceptable time frame. Other crises could easily arise tying up deployable CVN resources. A2A refueling to support jets operating from more distant bases is a strain on resources that can otherwise be avoided or at least minimized.

Sure, STOVL definitely has its uses and in a perfect world I'm sure the USN & USMC would each love to have their own version of the F-35. But the OP asked us to make a decision between the two.

The USMC has been very clear about the value of the unique capabilities the F-35B brings to the MAGTF Its basing versatility in not being tethered to a long concrete runway or a CVN gives it an added dimensional flexibility over the C. We can only begin to imagine what factors/consideration supported by real-world intelligence and other classified considerations convinced them that the B is the way to go. Needless to say, the B forms a integral component in their concept of operations..

Again I agree, however the question isn't whether the USMC is correct in desiring a STOVL tac air capability but whether the F-35B is more valuable to the US military as a whole opposed to the C. STOVL may have any number of battlefield advantages but in the real world the question of cost effectiveness always needs to be asked; can the role this platform is intended to fill be covered by another solution in a more cost effective manner? In a world of budget cuts I'd wager the hammer would fall on the B over the C for this very reason.

Sorry for the bold lettering, it was just meant to highlight my responses for readability.. will find some less obtrusive way from now on. Thanks for pointing it out.

Do you know how to edit quotes? Just insert the {quote} to open the quote and then {/quote} to end the quote section. Replace the {} symbols with [] and you should be fine.

 

[MarcH]

Why limit the choice to B and C ? I think if you really find a reason to eleminate one variant, then why not the A-model ?

The -A maybe the technological least troubled at the moment, but if you think about it from an operational perspective, then it is easily the least "necessary" version.

The Navy needs the range and carrier compatibility of the -C, the marines need the -B for amphibious ops, but the airforce could easily live with the -C.

Naval fighters have been operated by the airforce in the past. See the Phantom, or Hornets flown by several nations that don't even have a blue water navy....

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Why limit the choice to B and C ? I think if you really find a reason to eleminate one variant, then why not the A-model ?

The -A maybe the technological least troubled at the moment, but if you think about it from an operational perspective, then it is easily the least "necessary" version.

The Navy needs the range and carrier compatibility of the -C, the marines need the -B for amphibious ops, but the airforce could easily live with the -C.

Naval fighters have been operated by the airforce in the past. See the Phantom, or Hornets flown by several nations that don't even have a blue water navy....

Because the A is by far the most cost effective and fulfills the most needed role. Without an F-16 and A-10 replacement where will the USAF find itself? Remember out of all the services it has the greatest problem with old airframes and the C would have to be modified for USAF requirements, which adds risk, time and money to an already risky, late and expensive airframe. Could the C be operated by the USAF? Sure. Could it be procured in the same volumes? No. Could it be delivered in the same time frame? No. So you get a more expensive fighter, in fewer numbers, later, (across your largest air arm), all in order to save the F-35B. Doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Ananda]

Because the A is by far the most cost effective and fulfills the most needed role. Without an F-16 and A-10 replacement where will the USAF find itself? Remember out of all the services it has the greatest problem with old airframes and the C would have to be modified for USAF requirements, which adds risk, time and money to an already risky, late and expensive airframe. Could the C be operated by the USAF? Sure. Could it be procured in the same volumes? No. Could it be delivered in the same time frame? No. So you get a more expensive fighter, in fewer numbers, later, (across your largest air arm), all in order to save the F-35B. Doesn't make much sense to me.

Also the A is the primary versions that will be used or needed by F-35 International partners or potential International orders.
There's also one of the reasons why F-16 get more orders Internationally than F-18. Naval aircraft can be effectively used by Air Force, but not all AF wants to be burden with additional capabilities that they don't need necessary.

 

[lucinator]

I wonder how much modifications would be needed to launch b's from a conventional aircraft carrier? Since it can land vertically it would not need strengthened landing gear. While the lift fan would limit carrying load, it could give both services a fighter.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Well, since it can take off from an LHD without a ramp, a CVN would be a piece of cake.

 

[ADMk2]

I wonder how much modifications would be needed to launch b's from a conventional aircraft carrier? Since it can land vertically it would not need strengthened landing gear. While the lift fan would limit carrying load, it could give both services a fighter.

Where would they land on a CVN?

Nowhere near the arrestor gear, nowhere near the catapults, nowhere near the elevators...

As big as a CVN is, space is still at a premium and they will still require the ability to cat launch and trap non-stovl aircraft. If there was no requirement to operate catapult launched aircraft, sure, but I'm not sure there's enough space to operate F-35b's in addition to cat launched aircraft...

 

[wormhole]

Do you know how to edit quotes? Just insert the {quote} to open the quote and then {/quote} to end the quote section. Replace the {} symbols with [] and you should be fine.

Oh, so THAT's how its done LOL..

Anyway, if given a choice, I'll go with the F-35B for the Navy as well. I can just imagine the look on the Navy Brass' faces:sick
In reality, I think its very unlikely that either will be cut.

 

[wormhole]

Where would they land on a CVN?

Nowhere near the arrestor gear, nowhere near the catapults, nowhere near the elevators...

As big as a CVN is, space is still at a premium and they will still require the ability to cat launch and trap non-stovl aircraft. If there was no requirement to operate catapult launched aircraft, sure, but I'm not sure there's enough space to operate F-35b's in addition to cat launched aircraft...

Isn't that one of the reasons the Navy were opposed to the STOVL jet operating off CVNs..i.e. that it would screw up their flight deck ops?

 

[ADMk2]

Isn't that one of the reasons the Navy were opposed to the STOVL jet operating off CVNs..i.e. that it would screw up their flight deck ops?

Very much so. Remember carriers have to operate E-2C/D Hawkeyes, C-2 Greyhounds, Super Hornets and helos in addition to whichever type of F-35 the USN ends up with. On top of which USS Wasp has had to undergo significant modification to allow it to conduct F-35B operations. Whilst I haven't seen the list of modifications made, it's difficult to envisage that they wouldn't impact conventional ops in any way.

Nothing that signifcantly upsets those operations is going to be operating from CVN's...

 

[SpudmanWP]

Do you know how to edit quotes? Just insert the {quote} to open the quote and then {/quote} to end the quote section. Replace the {} symbols with [] and you should be fine.

Here is the BBCode page on using quotes

Defense Technology & Military Forum - BB Code List

 

[lucinator]

What about on the new Ford class?might they be able to add a section for VTOL landing or strengthen/heat treat, a part of the deck?