U.S. Navy faces fighter gap.

[F-15 Eagle]

The U.S. Navy is thinking about buying more F-18s to brigde to gap btween the current F-18s retiring and the introduction of the F-35. Well at the same time they are thinking about ether speeding up or delaying the F-35C.

It would be a very stupid move on the Navy's part to just delay the F-35C and possibly cut some of the F-35Cs. That would only make things worse and not help the whole fighter shortage that their facing. Delaying it will only make the fighter gap bigger and the prise will go up, speeding it along will help close the fighter gap and lower the price tag. If the Navy delays the F-35 then they are only damaging themselfs and it has the Air Force and USMC woried as well. The F-18s will not survive in future conficts without stealth and they need the F-35. Looks like the Navy is going to hurt itself if they delay the F-35.

Link: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS

[ROCK45]

Hi F-15 Eagle
I kind of have a different view on this and I'll try to explain my point. I think the USN realizes that the F-35 is still years away and the see very well what's happening in the USAF, F-15/16 fleet is getting up there in age. The USAF F-22 order is down to what 197 I think and there's like 400+ F-15s to replace. I think the Navy doing a better job not getting caught short handed fighter wise. The USAF also has so many more types to maintain it's very complex. A few years ago the USAF had 95 Wings not squadrons but Wings, not sure where that number is today or how many squadrons in a Wing. Remember the Navy has a lot more to deal with budget wise then just aircraft, maintaining carriers fleets, ships, subs, bases, etc, are costly. The USN like the USAF is huge and world wide 24/7 and like parts of the AF must maintain a nuclear force as well.
Air threats to USN fleets - This is another area where most hot spots or problems are dealt with Air Force assets first. There only a handful of advance Flankers in the world flying, no Rafale's, and Typhoon's for now are on our side so threat wise E/F Hornet's do well with other combined assets all working together. China's not fielding large numbers of J-10 fighters yet or J-11B, and were not at war with China, so threat/budget wise the Navy can wait 3/4 more years for there F-35s. This also tells says the E/F Hornets are better then everybody thinks they are too even know most people hate this fighter. For selfish reasons I want the USN to get Block-II F-35s like Microsoft products I'll wait for the first service pack to come out.

[Sea Toby]

Unlike the Raptors, which couldn't get the green light for multi-year production from any of the six organizations tasked to do so, the Super Hornet has from all six. Unfortunately, for the USAF the Raptor doesn't have the USN support like the Lightning IIs. Good-bye Raptor production lines. Obey has his objective in sight, October of this year.

Which brings us back to the decision of buying Lockheed products. It appears from this taxpayers point of view, Lockheed's management has failed not only us but the USAF and USN.

Makes you wonder whether Lockheed will survive in the long run.

[F-15 Eagle]

Unlike the Raptors, which couldn't get the green light for multi-year production from any of the six organizations tasked to do so, the Super Hornet has from all six. Unfortunately, for the USAF the Raptor doesn't have the USN support like the Lightning IIs. Good-bye Raptor production lines. Obey has his objective in sight, October of this year.

Which brings us back to the decision of buying Lockheed products. It appears from this taxpayers point of view, Lockheed's management has failed not only us but the USAF and USN.

Makes you wonder whether Lockheed will survive in the long run.

Lockheed will survive if they build all of the F-35s. If the USN supports the F-35 then why would they consider delaying the F-35 and making the problem worse?

If the F-35C is delayed for however long, then will there be an impact on the USAF and USMC and export F-35s?

[Sea Toby]

While I don't like to point fingers as a Monday morning quarterback, I have come to the conclusion while Lockheed had the better aircraft, as a corporation Lockheed's financial management of the two stealth programs leaves a lot to be desired. Ask the GAO what they think of Lockheed? One wonders whether we would have been better off buying Boeing products, anything but Lockheed!

Lockheed is operating as if they push hard enough, they will get the orders, nevermind any management of costs. And I say its time to put them out of business, Congress should be voting whether they fine Lockheed so much to force Lockheed's collapse. How dare them ask for more money.....or the costs have gone up, say double.....

While Congress won't go so far, I doubt whether this Congress will ever award a contract to Lockheed again! Its not as if the C-130J program is doing well either. I wouldn't be surprised if Airbus won that contract too. At least the USAF would get a better aircraft!

What does Lockheed use as a knife? Spoons to heap more costs!

[Salty Dog]

Boeing is touting an even newer version of its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet that, paired with an advanced sixth-generation fighter in the works at the company, would give customers what Boeing deems a better package of capabilities than Lockheed Martin's combination of the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Boeing Plans Sixth Generation Fighter With Block 3 Super Hornet (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/6THG013008.xml)

A possible option.

[F-15 Eagle]

While I don't like to point fingers as a Monday morning quarterback, I have come to the conclusion while Lockheed had the better aircraft, as a corporation Lockheed's financial management of the two stealth programs leaves a lot to be desired. Ask the GAO what they think of Lockheed? One wonders whether we would have been better off buying Boeing products, anything but Lockheed!

Lockheed is operating as if they push hard enough, they will get the orders, nevermind any management of costs. And I say its time to put them out of business, Congress should be voting whether they fine Lockheed so much to force Lockheed's collapse. How dare them ask for more money.....or the costs have gone up, say double.....

While Congress won't go so far, I doubt whether this Congress will ever award a contract to Lockheed again! Its not as if the C-130J program is doing well either. I wouldn't be surprised if Airbus won that contract too. At least the USAF would get a better aircraft!

What does Lockheed use as a knife? Spoons to heap more costs!

I do agree with you on that one. Lockheed really needs to get their act together and have proper cost control and management. Boeing did a much better job than Lockheed when they used to build fighter jets. I could not agree with you more on that one, they really really need to get a clue!!!

Boeing Plans Sixth Generation Fighter With Block 3 Super Hornet (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/6THG013008.xml)

A possible option.

That does not mean they will go for it, its just a report from a Boeing executive.

Also the F-18 is not better than the F-35. The F-35 will be a much better fighter and I think its worth the cost to keep building the F-35. Do they need better management on the cost? Yes they do but do I think they should just drop the F-35C for a upgraded super hornet, no they should not. It would also be hard to imagine the Pentagon cutting the F-35, that wont happen.

[Generalissimo]

The USN can stretch its F/A-18 fleet for a few more years. They're in good shape and are years younger than the USAFs F-15s and F-16s. The Ds and E/Fs will be around for a while even after the F-35 is in service, sharing the load until the transition to all F-35s is complete. Even after that we will probably keep F/A-18s around for tanker duty and other assorted tasks.

[F-15 Eagle]

According to a new report the USAF and the Pentagon have just said the F-35 will cost less then now expected and the program cost has declined in the past 12 months. The F-35 is not going to be a run-away budget buster as some have thought. The annual report to Congress now estimates the total cost of the F-35 program at $298.9 billion, about $1 billion less than was estimated a year ago.

See for yourself: http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/568197.html

[Feanor]

I think 298.9 billion is already a runaway project cost. On a related note does the F-35 have thrust vectoring?

[rjmaz1]

I think 298.9 billion is already a runaway project cost. On a related note does the F-35 have thrust vectoring?
No, the F-35 doesn't require it.

Thrust vectoring is mainly beneficial on aircraft designs that use high speed orientated wings with high stall speeds such as the F-22. Thrust vectoring gives the F-22 the ability to maintain agility when it is close to stalling. Most other aircraft would not be close to stalling so can maintain high levels of agility with conventional flight control surfaces.

Its all a compromise.

The F-35 is not inferior because it doesn't have thrust vectoring in fact you could consider it superior in that that its low speed agility is so good that it does not require it.

This same stance can be taken on the F-22. The F-22 could be regarded as superior that it has thrust vectoring to give it an edge at low speed, however you could also say that the design is inferior due to it requiring thrust vectoring in the first place. :)

[F-15 Eagle]

I think 298.9 billion is already a runaway project cost. On a related note does the F-35 have thrust vectoring?

How is it a run away cost if it went down $1 billion dollars over the past year? Well its not running away in cost.

Even if the entire F-35 program cost $1 trillion it would still be cheaper than maintaining todays current fighter fleet.

[Generalissimo]

How is it a run away cost if it went down $1 billion dollars over the past year? Well its not running away in cost.


Yes that's wht the Pentagon says. I'm sure that the bean counters have just shuffled the numbers to satisfy the politicians. I seriously doubt that they just discovered it's cheaper than they planned. Maybe the original estimate was artificially inflated to create this situation.

[F-15 Eagle]

Yes that's wht the Pentagon says. I'm sure that the bean counters have just shuffled the numbers to satisfy the politicians. I seriously doubt that they just discovered it's cheaper than they planned. Maybe the original estimate was artificially inflated to create this situation.

I'd say your making that up and I'm going to go with the facts.

[robsta83]

How is it a run away cost if it went down $1 billion dollars over the past year? Well its not running away in cost.

Even if the entire F-35 program cost $1 trillion it would still be cheaper than maintaining todays current fighter fleet.

While I tend to agree with the project seeming reasonable, to your latter statement I wouldn't mind see some facts to go with that statement at least your logic behind such a statement.

[swerve]

How is it a run away cost if it went down $1 billion dollars over the past year? Well its not running away in cost.....

That price is at "then-year" dollars, & depends on inflation predictions. 0.3% over 30 years is a blip. It's not significant. What's happened to the constant-price cost? That's the number that matters.

[F-15 Eagle]

U.S. Air Force and Navy officials gave Congress a bleak assessment of the Pentagon's future fighter fleet, warning lawmakers the military might be 900 fighter jets short of what it will need around 2020. Senior naval officials in the last few months have talked publicly about a "fighter gap" between 2015 and 2025, during which time they say the Navy and Marine Corps would be about 170 fighters short of what officials expect would be needed to carry out possible missions. During an April 9 Senate Armed Services airland subcommittee hearing, Rear Adm. Allen Myers, director of the service's air warfare division, indicated the sea service's gap could be about 70 planes deep.
As panel members were still digesting that figure, senior Air Force officials dropped their own acquisition bomb. Air Force Lt. Gen. Daniel Darnell indicated his service could face an even larger deficit of needed fighters, possibly as large as "over 800 fighters" between 2017 and 2024. Darnell is the Air Force's deputy chief of staff for air, space and information operations, plans and requirements.
Service spokeswoman Lt. Col. Jennifer Cassidy confirmed the 800 fighter figure about an hour after the hearing was gaveled closed by the panen's chairman, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn.
Part of that so-called "gap" reflects senior Air Force leaders' staunch belief in the need to field about 380 Lockheed Martin-built F-22 Raptors. The Office of the Secretary of Defense, including powerful Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, has repeatedly shot down the service's intentions, holding firm to the planned buy of 183.
But even if the service eventually wins out in the ongoing F-22 debate and gets around 400 Raptors, "that won't completely make up the gap," Lt. Gen. Donald Hoffman, military deputy to the service's acquisition chief, told reporters following the hearing.
The gap "is all about the JSF production rate," he said, referring to how quickly - and how many - of Lockheed's tri-service, international F-35 Joint Strike Fighters the Air Force can buy between now and then.
Lockheed is building the multibillion-dollar fighter for the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, as well as about a dozen international partners. But while attempting to get a grasp on how it can manage its "fighter gap," Navy officials have floated the idea of delaying its version of the F-35 in favor of buying new - and upgrading older - Boeing-made F/A-18 Hornets.
However, if naval officials opt for such a plan, it would send ripple waves across the trans-Atlantic fighter program, Hoffman warned.
"We have very tight room for hiccups with the JSF schedule," he told reporters. "If one [participant] changes its schedule, that'll have adverse effects for all of us."
Officials from both services told the subcommittee they have launched a slate of reviews aimed at determining how to manage their perceived tactical aircraft gaps.
The Navy expects by the end of the summer to have sufficient data on its gap to start making decisions on how best to manage it, according to Myers and William Balderson, deputy assistant Navy secretary for air programs.
"It is our challenge" during the remainder of the 2009 budget cycle, and while building the 2010 Navy budget request, to begin figuring out how to fill the sea service's gap, Myers told a reporter.
The Air Force, meantime, already has launched its own review to determine how many legacy F-15s and F-16s it might have to try and keep operationally fit to help manage its perceived fighter deficit, Hoffman said.
The handful of panel members who attended the session were sympathetic to each service's tales of woe. Near the conclusion of the session, Lieberman said the subcommittee will do "everything within our power to stretch" federal resources so the officials could buy what they feel is needed to conduct future missions.

[Generalissimo]

I'd say your making that up and I'm going to go with the facts.

Well I am a bit prone to conspiracy theory, but look at what swerve said earlier. That's how budget fights go, the services do whatever they can to get the money they want. If they can make themselves look more efficent then that will help them further down the line. I don't have any proof that this specific incident is a "lie", but I so stand by the statement that there's a real possibility that the "billion dollar bonus" is a fiction created by manipulation of exsisting numbers.

[Salty Dog]

Makes you wonder whether Lockheed will survive in the long run.

Lockheed Martin is actually some 40 different divisions in systems groups.

Aeronautical Systems, the most well known, is the largest systems group, however only makes up just 32% of the total company.

The rest are:

Integrated Systems Solutions - 11%

Electronics Systems - 28%

Space Systems - 19%

Technology Services - 10%

[F-15 Eagle]

As the USAF faces a fighter gap of 800 aircraft between 2017 and 2024 they are now doing a study to see how many F-15s and F-16s they will keep. Right now 177 F-15Cs are going to remain in service until 2024 or more but that number could go up. They are also plaining to see how many F-16s they will keep to help bridge the fighter gap. The USAF only getting 183 f-22s instead of 381 is a factor but also becasue they are only going to build 48 F-35s a year instead of the 110 needed.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/04/airforce_jsf_041508/

[Hoover19]

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.

[swerve]

How is it a run away cost if it went down $1 billion dollars over the past year? Well its not running away in cost.
....

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

[F-15 Eagle]

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.

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]

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

It says page not found when I went on it.

[swerve]

It says page not found when I went on it.

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]

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

[Aussie Digger]

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

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...

[Sea Toby]

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.

[robsta83]

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.

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.

[Salty Dog]

The most signifcant physical difference between the F-35B and F-35A/C is the lift fan in the F-35B used for VTOL. Once airborne, the lift fan serves no purpose taking up space and adding deadweight.

[Sea Toby]

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.

[F-15 Eagle]

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.

Yeah its fixed now thanks.


You could then ask, why don't the USAF buy the C versions the navy will be receiving.

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.:D

[Salty Dog]

Shipbuilding funds added to budget (http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/05/navy_seapower_051408/)

By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday May 15, 2008 18:36:25 EDT

The House Armed Services Committee took several steps Wednesday to improve Navy capabilities, adding an extra amphibious ship, making down payments on two Virginia-class attack submarines and creating the possibility of buying more F/A-18 Super Hornet jets to fill the so-called “fighter gap.”

The committee also opened the door for the Navy to buy more Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, even as the ship class nears the end of its run, by pushing back funding for a third DDG 1000-class destroyer.

Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, the former chairman and now ranking Republican member of the committee, was the chief sponsor of an amendment to the 2009 defense authorization bill that put in more money for attack submarines, something he said was needed because of complaints that there were more missions than subs.

“The number of attack boats will be less than 40 unless we do something,” Hunter said, noting Navy officials have warned that, at times, as many as 40 percent of attack submarine missions aren’t being done.

Hunter’s amendment, adopted by voice vote, puts advanced procurement funding for two Virginia-class attack submarines into the budget. One would be built in 2010 and the second in 2011. The budget request sent to Congress earlier this year included funding for only one Virginia.

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, ranking Republican on the seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee, described this as a rate of one sub every six months. “Accelerating procurement of attack submarines is a critical need to maintain America’s blue-water Navy superiority and capabilities to meet future challenges, such as those posed by a rising China and a re-emergent Russia,” Bartlett said.

An amendment regarding F/A-18 Super Hornet procurement also was adopted by voice vote at the urging of Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., who warned the Navy won’t have enough fighters as planes age.

“Aircraft carriers are nice things to have and float around, but without airplanes they are not very good,” Akin said.

The gap results from older Hornets wearing out before the expected replacement, the Joint Strike Fighter, enters the fleet. Atkin described the JSFs as “just not ready yet.”

The Akin amendment does not specifically order new production but instead asks the Defense Department to report by next March about how many F/A-18E/F models and EA-18G models should be built between 2010 and 2015, including the cost of procurement and how much less expensive it would be if they were purchased through a multi-year contract.

Other service officials have voiced concern over the Navy’s plans to buy more Super Hornets, saying the Navy is merely taking a step toward pulling out of the multi-service JSF program altogether. Navy officials have said they remain committed to the JSF program.

The bill also includes full funding for a 10th San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock, destroyer funding for either continuing the Zumwalt-class DDG 1000 program or returning to the Arleigh Burke class, and money for the two final ships of the T-AKE class of ammunition ships.

Rep. Gene Taylor, the seapower subcommittee chairman, said the combination puts the Navy on a “reasonable path” to having 313 ships.

More Rhinos to close the fighter gap, Virginia Class SSNs, San Antonio Class LPD, T-AKE ammo ships and perhaps funds for Arleigh Burke DDGs. In the works.

[obrescia]

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]

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.

If your talking about a naval F-22 well thats what the F-35C was designed for.

Cheers.:cheers