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

[SpudmanWP]

Are there any other income or VAT taxes on top of that 10%?

 

[t68]

Are there any other income or VAT taxes on top of that 10%?

Yes they put on what is known as levy or stamp duty, such as on house insurance you pay the 10% GST plus a fire levy which supposed to go towards the fire brigade plus stamp duty (just another name for a tax), excise on fuel they are always saying its not a tax its a levy or put on tolls for major roads under PPP (private, public, partnerships).yep they always finding way’s of putting on a levy.

 

[Cadredave]

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?

The argument should not be the B vs the C model, but how do they each compliment each other

1. USN has how many CV's 10 or 11 with the ability to launch 60 x F35C or more in the future,

2. If you add the USMC F35B which will be on the LPA/LPD that's another 11 to 13 ships with the ability to launch 5 Gen strike aircraft.

3. In total you could possibly have 21 to 24 flat tops able to deploy anywhere around the world that in my book is power projection of the highest order.

Yes I know that some ships will be in dock for maintenance etc but add the two together and it makes alot of sense why the Navy would or needs both models. It can cover all oceans in the world with the ability to launch strike aircraft matter of fact USS Kearsarge (LHD-3) was ordered to deploy to provide the Aircraft support in the early stages of Operation Odyssey Dawn.

On March 2, 2011, Kearsarge, along with USS Ponce (LPD-15), traveled through the Suez Canal in response to the Libyan uprising. Robert Gates had said days earlier that he ordered the two warships into the Mediterranean, along with an extra 400 Marines, in case they are needed to evacuate civilians or provide humanitarian relief. As of March 20, AV-8B Harrier II attack aircraft from the Kearsarge have been reported attacking Libyan targets as part of Operation Odyssey Dawn. On March 22, V-22 Ospreys from the Kearsarge conducted a successful CSAR operation to recover the crew of a USAF F-15E Strike Eagle after it crashed in Libya due to a mechanical failure during a combat mission.


They each have there strengths and weakness but combine the two and you get double the number of hulls to cover the whole planet and sometimes a CV is just too big?


CD

 

[colay]

Obviously all three variants can be justified by their adherents.
In the spirit of the original post though, IF we had to choose one for scrapping, which model would it be?

 

[riksavage]

Obviously all three variants can be justified by their adherents.
In the spirit of the original post though, IF we had to choose one for scrapping, which model would it be?

Has to be B

A & C are need by the USAF & USN respectively. Carrier strike is more important than deploying a few 'B's' aboard USMC LHD's. The real losers if B goes will be the smaller NATO powers who need a Harrier replacement.

Lockheed Martin are already working on a VTOL UCAV, which may be able to step-up at a later date if more funds become available.

 

[localhost127]

if something like this were to take place,...

would sole-US concerns dictate the decision to drop a particular platform, or would foreign customers input / requirements also be taken into consideration?

 

[lucinator]

As starter of the thread I'm saying foreign input is definitely taken into consideration due to the program being multi country.

 

[Media Buff]

Assessment?

Is Washington looking at one or another or are both under assessment independently? I don't know if it is a binary decision ...

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.

 

[Media Buff]

Consortium Partners

To this point, it has been interesting to see a number of consortium partners switch their preference between B and C. V-22 could fill some subset of those missions but not air superiority/dominance mission of a fighter, no?

Has to be B

A & C are need by the USAF & USN respectively. Carrier strike is more important than deploying a few 'B's' aboard USMC LHD's. The real losers if B goes will be the smaller NATO powers who need a Harrier replacement.

Lockheed Martin are already working on a VTOL UCAV, which may be able to step-up at a later date if more funds become available.

 

[Media Buff]

Isr

A separate but equally interesting question is what missions will the F-35 be designed to serve. ISR continues to be the most obvious one under debate.

Obviously all three variants can be justified by their adherents.
In the spirit of the original post though, IF we had to choose one for scrapping, which model would it be?

 

[riksavage]

To this point, it has been interesting to see a number of consortium partners switch their preference between B and C. V-22 could fill some subset of those missions but not air superiority/dominance mission of a fighter, no?

The ongoing financial crisis in Europe could hit the current batch of Harrier uses pretty damned hard and result in increased pressure to reduce military funding. So the decision to ditch the 'B' might be swayed by a sudden reduction in non-US orders. European countries operating LHD's / LHP's may opt to go for more tri-service attack helo's built in Europe and wait until a suitable and cheaper UCAV appears on the horizon.

The recent Libya operation demonstrated that fixed wing could (not ideal due to reduced sortie rates) operate from Southern European airfields complimented by attack helo's flying off LHP/D's. If countries such as Spain and Italy decide not to operate East of Suez this arrangement might fit the bill in these austere times.

Drag the Harriers out until the UK has it's strike carrier operational, that combined with French assets (CdG) supported by Italian/Spanish vessels hosting attack helicopters might have to suffice until Europe's economy improves (likely in a decade or so). Post 2022 UCAV technology might provide a VTOL solution ideal for small carriers which demonstrates lower fixed and operating costs.

The world is facing the single largest crisis since WWII, money is tight, F35B may appear as a 'would like' not 'must have' weapon system.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

B. The only people that are going to buy it are the Marines and not in vast numbers. It's also the most expensive variant.

Whereas C is going to be picked up throughout the USN but also be bought by the RN.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Italy is also buying the B and Israel is eying i also.

 

[swerve]

B. The only people that are going to buy it are the Marines and not in vast numbers. It's also the most expensive variant.

Whereas C is going to be picked up throughout the USN but also be bought by the RN.

Italy & Spain have both built ships designed around F-35B. They'll be mightily annoyed if it's cancelled. Italy is planning something rather like Joint Force Harrier for its F-35B, with the navy fleet backed up by a larger number operated by the air force, & able to deploy at sea in an emergency.

 

[t68]

Here is an insider’s view on what the F35B means to the USMC,

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0ffr6p7NfA&feature=player_embedded"]USMC aviation chief defends F-35B - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[Marc 1]

To this point, it has been interesting to see a number of consortium partners switch their preference between B and C. V-22 could fill some subset of those missions but not air superiority/dominance mission of a fighter, no?

What subset of the F35B's missions can a V-22 fulfill? I'm curious.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Shove SDBs, Viperstrike, Gryphons, etc off the back ramp?

 

[Wooki]

Shove SDBs, Viperstrike, Gryphons, etc off the back ramp?

No, 1) The V-22 ramp is too fragile to repeatably "shove" ordinance off.

Why would you "can" (as in get rid of) the VSTOL version of the f-35? It is the principle reason why Lockheed were selected winners of the flyoff. If you canned it, then you are sending a bad message to the rest of the industry. The F-35 is a compromise to try and create commonality. If you abandon commonality, then you may as well write off the whole project (abandon compromise) and start again.

e.g. The F-35 cannot merge with existing threats, so go back and make an air dominance fighter that can and then add all the bells and whistles from the f-35 program that are behind the platforms acceptability (the things that make it survivable or viable).

cheers

w

 

[OPSSG]

Here is an insider’s view on what the F35B means to the USMC,

USMC aviation chief defends F-35B - YouTube

Thanks for the above link.

Dr. Robert Farley clearly states the value of the F-35B to the US, unlike the anti-F-35B naysayers. Read the link provided below for more details.

Over the Horizon: The Transformative Capabilities of the F-35B

On Monday, an F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter completed its first vertical landing at sea, aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp...

...At a time when the construction of every new Russian, Chinese or Indian carrier appears to be a cause for concern in the United States, the U.S. Navy has the ability to effectively create a dozen new carriers at will, each as capable as the most effective foreign contemporaries. Moreover, while the F-35 has been developed by an international consortium, export rights for the F-35B will be controlled by the United States. As there is currently no foreign alternative to the F-35B, this effectively means that the U.S. will have the final say on which countries can turn their flat-deck helicopter-carrying warships into light strike carriers.

The F-35B is one of those exceedingly rare weapon systems with transformative capabilities. With the F-35B, the United States Navy could have the equivalent of 22 strike carriers, a number that no other country could hope to challenge. This is a capability worth paying extra for. The F-35B could become a more important system than either of its sisters, or the F-22 Raptor. Unfortunately, too many seem to miss the forest for the trees.

See also Information Dissemination for comments on the F-35B, which references this May 2011 USNI article (on the role of the Amercia-class) and this Flight Global article, 'F-35B starts critical tests in comeback attempt';-

...programme officials also appear to have resolved a 90.7kg performance shortfall in the vertical lift bring-back weight of the F-35B in hover while returning to a ship. Engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney has confirmed the solution includes raising the output of the propulsion system by about 100lb-thrust (0.4kN).

Programme officials still hope for more orders, and Spain is considered a potential buyer of the F-35B. Meanwhile, Singapore - a security co-operation participant in the F-35 joint programme office - has launched studies aimed at considering the STOVL variant, said Gregg Pyers, lift fan programme director for UK-based Rolls-Royce...

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puj5lueXmJQ&feature=player_embedded"]2nd F-35B lands vertically on USS WASP - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Has to be B

A & C are need by the USAF & USN respectively. Carrier strike is more important than deploying a few 'B's' aboard USMC LHD's. The real losers if B goes will be the smaller NATO powers who need a Harrier replacement.

Actually your argument isn’t supported by logic or numbers.

First of all this is a stupid question with no bearing on reality but for the sake of argument which F-35 model (B or C) should be cancelled if you had to? The answer is clearly the F-35C. Because the B can do anything the C can but the C can’t do what the B can.

Could the USN and RN (the only C customers) fly the B model of their carriers? Sure, no problems. It would actually be easier for them as they wouldn’t need costly catapults and arrestor gear. Can the C model fly from an LHD or CVS? Nope. Can the C model operate from a short rapidly prepared airfield supporting an expeditionary force? Nope.

As to the numbers argument the C has no clear advantage over the B. There are 402 F-35Bs planned for acquisition by the USMC and IAF/IN (Italy). There are only 478 F-35Cs planned of which the RAF/RN (UK) figure of 138 will almost certainly be reduced to around 48-72 and 80 are for the USMC who actually wanted F-35Bs. So the real number of Bs vs Cs is around 480 vs 320. And that is without additional F-35B orders from Spain to replace their AV-8s. Plus potential F-35B orders from Korea and Japan who are seriously investigating this kind of capability.

The only thing the C brings to the table is a longer still air range. Which in the world of IFR and STOVL carrier operation is really not that much of a gain.