(F-35) Joint Strike Fighter

[jrklr]

I too have heard rumors that the navy may not even pick up the JSF. If anyone knows if the navy's variant has even been tested on a carrier yet, I'd like to know. The whole single engine deal just isnt navy-like.
Steve, I too would like an answer to that question, if anyone knows. I've also heard about the navy moving to mainly helos, but I'd like to know some numbers first, like how many jets are in the service now and how many (and of what kind) are being terminated without a replacement. One thing's for sure (at least I hope), the navy will still have jets in the next 10 years and they will need aviators for them, so I hope that no one gives their hopes up about flying jets in the navy. You'll get what ya want if you want it bad enough.

 

[wink]

You guys are thinking too hard about this. So the Navy only has 40 Super Bugs on order. That just means that is all the funding they have now. You delt with congress lately? As long as the line is open that can change pretty easily. The general fleet plan is to replace F-14s with Super Bugs, single and two seat and replace the Little Bug with the F-35. It will happen in one form or the other, even if delayed. The guy that heard the USMC was going to get the Super Bug should be reminded they thought they would get Tomcats too. F-18E/F my be capable enough, but it isn't stealthy enough. That is why the Navy wants the F-35 badly. We are lagging in stealth capability. The Super Bug, while not as big as the Tomcat is a very large aircraft. Deck multiple is a huge deal on a CV. The F-35 is small, that is generally good. SteveD think about what you are saying about Air Farse pilot slots and acquiring hundreds of F-35s. When a trucking company replaces an old truck with a new one do they go out and hire a new driver or do they just give the new truck to the current driver. I would believe that an Air Farse pilot is not smat enough to adapt to a new plane, but I bet the USAF will give them the chance. The F-35 is replaceing the F-16 and those guys will fly it. No new jobs because of it. I read alot here about the increased role of helos in the Navy but you guys aren't analyzing this enough. Helos have limited range/altitude/g and speed. Unless the Navy gets out of power projection (not very likely) we need aircraft capable of defending the fleet or going across the beach to bomb downtown. Helos don't even have the range/payload or speed to do the P-3/EP-3/E-6/COD missions. You guys need to read some of the professional military and aviation journals out there. The modern naval warrior is a smart guy. This has been written about and debated. Our leaders are communicating with us if you know where to get the news.

 

[vegita1220]

wink, the Navy LAGS in stealth? That's a big understatement buddy. What stealth the plane? The cancelled flying dorito?

Anyway, yeah I agree w/what you say.
Let's just say I want jets, but I want some real action in them too.
If I just wanted jets, I could just join the damn AF.
It may be much harder to get jets in the Navy, but it'll be more rewarding.

When it comes to rapid response to small crisis situations, you call over a Navy carrier, not an AF squadron. Who stopped the airliner w/Abu Nidal terrorists? F-14s.

Until the AF develops a plane that can fly to any point on the globe in 15 minutes, and has its pilots on call all the time, the Navy will always respond first. That's been proven over and over again, and doesn't bloody look like it'll change anytime soon.
As for the Navy taking a "helo-centric view," the first sign of that will be major cutbacks in CVNs. That's hasn't happened yet, in fact they're working on new (IMO ugly) "stealth" carriers, the CVX.

 

[theblakeness]

Originally posted by jrklr
The whole single engine deal just isnt navy-like.

I dont agree with this. Has the Navy ever flat out picked one jet over the other because it had two engines? In Vietnam, they used the Douglas A-4 and that was a single engine plane. Hell they even train their aviators in a single engine trainer. Its also my recollection that the reason why the Navy never picked up the F-16 wasnt because it was single engine, but because they wanted it as an air to air fighter, and the jet just wasnt able to handle the stressed that the pilots were putting on it. They all wound up with stress fractures.

Not claiming to be an expert here or anything. I could be wrong, but this has always been my gatherings.

 

[wink]

Vegita,
I'm impressed, you remember the A-12!! That debacle has cost the NAVAIR dearly. Like your attitude regarding Navy/Air Farse. I was a cold warrior and we routinely launched with real weapons. The airwing stood alerts. We went toe to toe with the ruskies, poked them in the eye a few times. Yet an Air Farse aviator could go his whole career without going on a "real world" mission. That is changing for them, but I'm still all NAVAIR.
blakeness, The Navy has always perferred two engines to one. You mention the very sucessful exceptions. This is changing tho since engine reliability is so outstanding now and there just isn't the overhead gas there once was. Consider the T-2, originally single engine, went to two. H-3 helo original design was single engine. Hueys were single engine, Cobra single engine, all redesigned for two engines.

 

[DBLang]

The Marine JSF has an external gun...but more importantly it will have the AIM-9x and the helmet mounted
cuing system.

 

[wink]

The budget for NAVAIR? I quess you mean acquisition. Depends who you ask. I think it sucks. We have no direct replacement for the H-46, it will be the H-60, a compromise for dollars. No replacement for the S-3. The Super Bug will pass gas and when ASW is a threat the helos will go out further and P-3 come in closer to the CVBG. While the fighters go over the beach the S-3s can provide outstanding force protection from surface and subsurface threats. No more. Can't afford a replacement S-3 so there will be less gas overhead, fewer weapons on the rails and fighters over the beach because they will be doing ASUW, instead of strike. Still no new E-2 on the drawing board or COD. P-3 replacement is late. We will get by. The Marines have shown us how to get by with less for decades. Seems like new planes actually get to the fleet every 15 years or so. Development times vary greatly. That is why it is foolish to read too much into programs like the F-22, F-35, and MV-22. Still much to work out, including the final sticker price.

 

[Hudson]

Speaking of single engine planes. Have we forgotten about the crusador and the corsair II.

 

[wink]

Great planes, no doubt about it. Still, the question is Navy preference. Count up the single engine planes versus the twins. The F-8 was basicly replaced by the F-4 and the A-7 replaced by the F-18, twins.

 

[Hudson]

Wink,
How much of the Navy's ability to buy and use their equipment is set by politics? I am sure Adm. Clark knows about the situation with the aging aircraft. Why in your opinion has the Dept. of the Navy been this tardy with replacing their fleet of air craft. When the Air Force needed a replacement for its fleet of F-15 single seat it got the F-22. When the Army needs replacements for its vehicles and weapons it seems as though the higher ups find the money to get them. How is it that Americas first responce force has to continue to use old air frames to do its mission?

Sorry this is more a rant then actual questions. Long hard day with students. Not in a good mood.

 

[beau]

Hudson,
Navy has ships, which cut way into the budget so its harder for us to drop a crap load into just Aviation like the Air Farce does. Its the reason that the Airforce gets amost everything they want. It's also the reason it takes the Navy a lot longer to replace aging aircraft/airframes. I would love to fly the T-6(texan 2) with Navy control, but it is not going to happen anytime soon. Look how long its taken to replace the T-2/TA-4 with the T-45! There are still T-2's around!

Finch

GO SOONERS!!!

 

[Hudson]

Not to get into a philosophical debate over how the navy should spend its money but, (and there always is a but isn’t there?), how long can the navy project Americas strength and defend national interests if it can not fly it’s ailing aircraft off it’s shiny new boats? I feel there has to be a balance and from what I have read here and other places it doesn’t seem like there is. Now I admit that I might be a bit biased because I am going into Naval Aviation and it would be so cool to sit in the Flight Officer seat of a brand spanking new aircraft. I can remember how important it was for us when I was in the army to be mission ready all of the time. It is hard to understand why I am hearing more and more about air frames that are being stretched to their limits and asked to hold on for a little while longer until something can be figured out.
I say all of this as a civilian and I will shut my mouth and tote the line when I put on the uniform.

 

[wink]

True enough, we have to support more than just airplanes and strips of concrete. The problem with that is also internal. The Sub guys want their piece of the pie as do the SWOs and NAVAIR. We fight among ourselves. Sometimes that is good, Darwin and all that. We just spread $$ around more. As to where we are now and why? There is a good book out there called "The Admirals Revolt", if I remember. It goes into some of our current situation. The A-12 blunder cost us dearly. It wasn't completely the Navy's fault. We invest years and tons of money in a stealthy replacement for the A-6. Imagine, carrier based stealth heavy attack aircraft in the fleet by the late 1980s. Well it didn't happen and the Navy was behind the eight ball from then on. The money was gone and more importantly, the time. The F-18E/F super bugs are a compromise because we didn't have the time or money to go back to the drawing board. The Tomcats are great strike aircraft now, but that was born of necessity because we needed more long reange bombers on target when the A-6s went away without a replacement. Likely because of money lost on the A-12 and spent on the Super Bug there was no money for a S-3 replacement, the Common Support Aircraft (CSA)and slower/no development on the E-2,C-2,P-3. When needed projects initial operating capability (IOC) slip due to congress not funding the whole program, the unit costs go up. Which brings us to the other services you thnk do so well. The Air Farce is getting a very small fraction of the F-22s they want, if they get it at all. They lost ALL electronic attack aircraft and the Navy fulfills the mission military wide with our EA-6Bs. They won't get a replacement for the F-15E so to boost the chances of the F-22 they have changed it to a F/A-22. The army can't afford the MV-22, lost Crusader, has had the Commanche on life support for years and has barely gotten support for the Stiker vechicle. The Marines want an all F-35 fleet, but that leaves them without organic EW because they won't take the EF-18 the navy will probably go with. So they are planning on taking the best EA-6Bs and living with them indifinitly. All the services have something to gripe about. BTW Latest numbers that have meaning come from the Navy Marine TACAIR Integration Study completed in MAR02. The count wast 460 F-18E/F (not counting possible EF-18) and 680 F-35. The F-35 number is combined USN and USMC, not sure of the split. So there you have it. Atleast one shiny new Super Bug or F-35 for each of ya. That ought to motivate you.

 

[stevew]

What is the EF-18? Does anyone have a link?

 

[wink]

Boeing should have something on it. Still in a concept stage, it is just a F-18F with electronic warfare equipment on it. Will propably not have Aim-9s on the wing tips because that is where the EW antennas go. EW equipment will be mostly pods like on the EA-6B. Otherwise will likely shoot all other weapons the F-18F does, so it can self protect or fly secondary missions, including tanking. If the technology comes far enough it may be that the EF-18 is just a software change and they can swith from EF to F at the organizational maintenance level. Navy loves it since there will be so much commonality in the airwing.