which to cut F-35B or F-35C
- Thread starter lucinator
- Start date
Sure it is the cheapest version. But it is the only version, that could be axed without the loss off a capability.
In the end it depends on what the Pentagon values more. A larger fleet of conventional aircraft, or the capabilities the naval versions add.
I would say the navies army doesn't need an own airforce, but usually US decision makers have a different opinion about that.
There's really no choice here. The C is essential to USN carrier aviation and now to the RN as well. While the USMC has made a case for years on the virtues of an all V/STOL force it's something useful but not essential. Most of the Corps fighters are currently not V/STOL, nor have they ever been, and Marines have been served well by that.
In fact some of the driving force for going to all V/STOL force was so the USN didn't steal, from the Corps perspective, their units for service aboard carriers. This is now out the window given the USMC is programmed to operate some C's now. The USMC can live without the B, they'd just prefer not to.
That said there's probably little chance the B gets cut. The Corp has deep support in Congress, cutting it is a bit late at this point, and it will be useful to other nations with smaller carriers or those wanting to get into naval aviation without going catobar.
In fact some of the driving force for going to all V/STOL force was so the USN didn't steal, from the Corps perspective, their units for service aboard carriers. This is now out the window given the USMC is programmed to operate some C's now. The USMC can live without the B, they'd just prefer not to.
That said there's probably little chance the B gets cut. The Corp has deep support in Congress, cutting it is a bit late at this point, and it will be useful to other nations with smaller carriers or those wanting to get into naval aviation without going catobar.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
No, the very fact that it is the cheapest version means that if it was axed, there would be a loss of capability. Funds are not limitless. A significantly more expensive platform delivered several years later in fewer numbers IS a loss of capability, no matter how you cut it.
In any case, say the B was cut. What "capability" could have been lost? The ability to provide supporting fires for a USMC AGTF? There are a number of systems which already fill that role, from AH-1 to M-777 to F/A-18C to F/A-18E to F-15E. Given USN's CVN fleet and the USAF's global basing infrastructure, what does forward deployed STOVL aircraft provide which is both truly unique and valuable enough to justify shelving the F-35A or F-35C.
OK, I'll play.
Cut the C if any variant is to be cut. The USN currently operates F-18SH as its frontline strike fighter. Equipped with AESA and AMRAAMs, its a higly capable foe in A2A combat.]
Given that, the F-35B STOVL jet simply outclasses a SH. The B has longer range, better kinematics, VLO stealth, internal carriage of weapons, far superior avionics suite. If need be, spend a few bucks and develop stealthy CFTs as the Israelis were reported to be exploring. Of course, there's that little matter of the USN no longer being tied to CATOBAR carriers.I'm sure they'll be thrilled by that.
Cut the C if any variant is to be cut. The USN currently operates F-18SH as its frontline strike fighter. Equipped with AESA and AMRAAMs, its a higly capable foe in A2A combat.]
Given that, the F-35B STOVL jet simply outclasses a SH. The B has longer range, better kinematics, VLO stealth, internal carriage of weapons, far superior avionics suite. If need be, spend a few bucks and develop stealthy CFTs as the Israelis were reported to be exploring. Of course, there's that little matter of the USN no longer being tied to CATOBAR carriers.I'm sure they'll be thrilled by that.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #26
while I support your choice, you forget that the navy does need CATOBAR carriers for: refueling aircraft, interceptor aircraft, EW, and ISR.OK, I'll play.
Cut the C if any variant is to be cut. The USN currently operates F-18SH as its frontline strike fighter. Equipped with AESA and AMRAAMs, its a higly capable foe in A2A combat.]
Given that, the F-35B STOVL jet simply outclasses a SH. The B has longer range, better kinematics, VLO stealth, internal carriage of weapons, far superior avionics suite. If need be, spend a few bucks and develop stealthy CFTs as the Israelis were reported to be exploring. Of course, there's that little matter of the USN no longer being tied to CATOBAR carriers.I'm sure they'll be thrilled by that.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Comparing the F/A-18E/F to the F-35B is the wrong comparison; the chose isn't between these two platforms. Yes the F-35B may be an improvement in capability over the F/A-18E/F, but so what? The real question is which program, the F-35C or F-35B, provides the greatest utility (across the entire military) for the least cost and risk. And if the F-35B is so much better than the F/A-18E/F, how much more capable again is the C (remembering persistence, payload and bring-back)?
BTW, I dont actually think the F-35B has either better kinematics or a vastly superior avionics suite to the Rhino. EODAS is reportedly the same as Sniper XR (not sure how ATFLIR shapes up in comparison but there's easy room for improvement in bolt on pods) and AFAIK AN/APG-79 is entirely comparable to AN/APG-81.
No they wouldn't be thrilled with that at all. They aren't 'tied' to their CVN fleet out on necessity but simply because a super-carrier is the most efficient way to operate air power at sea. If the USN wanted a more flexible STOVL platform they would have requested one. But why on earth would they need one with nearly a dozen CVN's? What you end up with is the USN operating STOVL fighters off ships which simply aren't designed for that kind of operation, with decks full of CATOBAR aircraft, all at the expense of a CVN designed fighter which is more capable.Of course, there's that little matter of the USN no longer being tied to CATOBAR carriers.I'm sure they'll be thrilled by that.
1. It is EOTS that is the upgraded Sniper XR as EODAS is completely unique. The XR is also not an IRST.
2. APG-81 has been designed from the ground-up to fuse with the F-35's EW suite (on a "pulse-by-pulse" basis), the APG-79 was not. Then there is the whole LPI issue which Raytheon does not claim as a capability for the APG-79.
2. APG-81 has been designed from the ground-up to fuse with the F-35's EW suite (on a "pulse-by-pulse" basis), the APG-79 was not. Then there is the whole LPI issue which Raytheon does not claim as a capability for the APG-79.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Sorry mate, typo (didn't mean EODAS). Thus EOTS is a development of current gen targeting pods, which was my point. Touche on the IRST.
Sure, but in terms of traditional FCR functions the 79 and 81 are certainly comparable (I thought LPI was in the development path for the APG-79). I wasn't trying to argue that the Rhino BII's avionics suite is as advanced or as capable, I was quibbling with the therm "vastly superior", given two of the fighters primary sensors are comparable. Semantics I know...
My comment re the admirals being thrilled at the loss of the CATOBAR carrier was obviously tongue-in-cheek. It is fun debating the B vs, C, quite refreshing from the usual F-35 vs. legacy jet w/c has become tiring.
In reality, the chances of the C getting cut are about the same as a snowball's chances in hell; there's a reason its called the Department of the Navy and not the DoUSMC. Still, if the point is to hypothetically discuss the platform providing the greater overall benefit, we have to include the USMC in the equation. Actually, why not include the AF as well as the B can cut their umbilical to long concrete runways and golf courses,
The C is looked at to provide air defense and long-range interdiction capability as primary roles. In the former role, it will deal directly with threats but what's intriguing is its synergy with AEGIS in forward picket mode to cue long-range SMs onto multiple targets. The B can also do this of course but doesn't have the same endurance.
In the coming decade, we can expect to see a UCAV derived from the X-47B attaining IOC which will be able to interdict targets at twice the range possible with the C. This is the future of naval aviation long-range strike.
The B doesn't bring any net increase in capabilities in these roles,, as pointed out, they even have less endurance. But endurance (i.e. fuel) can be addressed by developing external stealthy CFTs, for example. As it is though, the B already possesses pretty good range exceeding that of a SH. And I really think STOVL is a very compelling capability and will only become more prevalent in the coming years.
In reality, the chances of the C getting cut are about the same as a snowball's chances in hell; there's a reason its called the Department of the Navy and not the DoUSMC. Still, if the point is to hypothetically discuss the platform providing the greater overall benefit, we have to include the USMC in the equation. Actually, why not include the AF as well as the B can cut their umbilical to long concrete runways and golf courses,
The C is looked at to provide air defense and long-range interdiction capability as primary roles. In the former role, it will deal directly with threats but what's intriguing is its synergy with AEGIS in forward picket mode to cue long-range SMs onto multiple targets. The B can also do this of course but doesn't have the same endurance.
In the coming decade, we can expect to see a UCAV derived from the X-47B attaining IOC which will be able to interdict targets at twice the range possible with the C. This is the future of naval aviation long-range strike.
The B doesn't bring any net increase in capabilities in these roles,, as pointed out, they even have less endurance. But endurance (i.e. fuel) can be addressed by developing external stealthy CFTs, for example. As it is though, the B already possesses pretty good range exceeding that of a SH. And I really think STOVL is a very compelling capability and will only become more prevalent in the coming years.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Why? It seems like a compromise without a justification to me. The USN has CATOBAR carriers and doesn't want to move to STOVL. The CVN is one of the key capabilities which distinguish the US as a true global power, why would you compromise that just so the USMC can have Harrier replacement? Greater range and small PGM's have reduced the need to forward stage air assets for CAS (i.e. greater persistence) anyway. Thus why does the US military need a STOVL fighter at all?
I'm not limiting its usefulness only to the US..the F-35 variants roles role may be set in stone (at least for now) for the Yanks but I really believe that STOVL versatility will appeal to any number of countries.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
I say cut nether, without the F-35C aircraft carriers could become useless in the future high threat environment without stealth. Without the F-35B the Marines lose the ability to forward deploy STOVL jets from amphibs. They need both. And no unmanned drones will not replace aircraft carriers, drones don't have the range and payload. Where as an aircraft carrier and go anywhere around the globe and carry 85-90 aircraft. Can you have the sustained strike power of an aircraft carrier with just a bunch of unmanned drones? No, they are not meant to replace compete with one another. They work together for completely different missions.
Personally I think lawmakers from DC are just making the problem sound worse than it needs to be. When they are looking at ways to reduce the debt they should look at areas other than the defense budget, like raising revenue and reforming the tax code which is badly needed. They need to cool their heads, set aside their pathetic partisan games and act like adults.
Here is an idea, adopt Obama's debt plan, problem solved. There done, no more bitching with real solutions being put off for another 8 months, no more government shutdowns and stupid continuing resolutions, they could fix it now. No more defense cuts, and the debt is reduced so people can stop freaking out and acting like the whole planet is going to blow up and we are all going to die type of attitude.
Personally I think lawmakers from DC are just making the problem sound worse than it needs to be. When they are looking at ways to reduce the debt they should look at areas other than the defense budget, like raising revenue and reforming the tax code which is badly needed. They need to cool their heads, set aside their pathetic partisan games and act like adults.
Here is an idea, adopt Obama's debt plan, problem solved. There done, no more bitching with real solutions being put off for another 8 months, no more government shutdowns and stupid continuing resolutions, they could fix it now. No more defense cuts, and the debt is reduced so people can stop freaking out and acting like the whole planet is going to blow up and we are all going to die type of attitude.
t68
Well-Known Member
sorry OT
Does the United States have a GST based tax, I do have to give it to Howard I was against the GST here in Australia but with withdrawal of some tax in other areas (not all they said would go did) net income for the government went up under a GST it might be a small step in getting the extra that government needs but everyone pays not only the rich and reduce debt levels.
But it’s not as simple as that just one possible step.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
We have a sales taxes in most states, like 45 of them I think. But I live in Oregon, we have don't have a statewide sales tax. It's not the same as a GST based tax though.
I think the biggest help would be to tax the rich at the same levels during the 1990s. The rich did fine then and still got richer and the economy and federal revenue went up. Thats a 3 in 1 package right there, more revenue means less debt, less debt means faster growing economy, both means no more defense cuts. Yeah happy times would be upon us again....
localhost127
Member
Reagan-era tax brackets. that should get both sides to shut-up and get on with doing their job and removing uncertainty.
both sides are guilty of spending. the two wars weren't even on the books until the Obama administration, correct? how was that even possible...
..on topic - what do the mfg lines look like with regards to all three variants? are they produced on the same lines? sister-lines? completely separate lines? - with regards to final assembly.
t68
Well-Known Member
Here in New South Wales we had pending on what the item for sales was a tax between 15/30%, under a GST sales tax was abolished and 10% applied across the board except on fresh fruit and veg plus milk, only real problem with it was utility’s expenses went up 10% overnight.
It’s not a silver bullet to American debt but would go towards some of the problems.