Pages

Wednesday, December 2, 2020

F-35 On Carriers? Sorry, Can't Use 'Em

When the USS Ford was being built, we all assumed, quite logically, that the ship would be able to operate the F-35 which had been around for twenty years or so, in various stages of development.  The timing was looking about right – the carrier and the F-35C would both be ready about the same time.  Well, in yet another disappointment for the Ford, it turns out that the carrier wasn’t actually built to operate F-35s.  No, this is not an April Fools post or some ComNavOps comedy piece.  This is real.  The Navy’s newest carrier can’t operate the F-35.

 

As it turns out, most of the Navy’s carriers and amphibious ships (LHA/LHD) can’t operate the F-35. 

 

Yes, the F-35C can take off and land on the carriers but the ships lack the communications, data integration, and maintenance facilities to fully utilize the supposed capabilities of the F-35 – those much hyped surveillance capabilities.  Without the proper comms and data handling facilities on the carriers, the F-35 can collect data but can’t effectively relay it to the carrier and allow the carrier to make use of it. 

 

On a related and stunning note, the US Navy has almost no ability to transfer F-35 engines to carriers.  The Ford is the only carrier that has the equipment to receive an engine.  The MV-22 has demonstrated the ability to transport a single engine to a carrier but this can only be done over very short distances.

 

As far as the amphibious ships, none can land the F-35B due to its excessive exhaust heat which damages the flight deck unless it has been specially modified.  You’ll recall that even the new USS America was unable to operate the F-35B, as the ship was built.  It had to be modified with special deck heat treatments, thermal and structural modifications to compartments immediately beneath the flight deck, and relocation of equipment in the path of the F-35B’s downward landing exhaust in addition to numerous communications and data handling facility installations and modifications.  Yes, America, the ship that was purpose built for the F-35B was unable to operate the F-35B without extensive and expensive modifications.

 

In fact, of 11 carriers and 33 amphibious ships, currently only 4 amphibious ships can fully operate the F-35.(1)  The lucky four are listed below.

 

  • USS Essex
  • USS Makin Island
  • USS America
  • USS Wasp

 

Even with the modifications, the F-35B can only land on a couple of limited spots.  For the America, the F-35B can only land on spots 7 and 9.(2)

 

It is worth noting that none of the supercarriers can operate the F-35.

 

The USS Bonhomme Richard, LHD-6, which recently suffered a massive fire that burned out of control for several days, would have been the fifth ship altered to operate the F-35.  The Bonhomme Richard is now, officially, being scrapped.

 

So, for those of you who envision air armadas of Navy F-35s sweeping the skies clear of enemy aircraft, that vision is still a long way in the future because we only have four amphibious ships that can even operate the F-35!

 

It is worth noting that the modifications required to operate the F-35 require many months and hundreds of millions of dollars to install (I assume the F-35 proponents are dutifully adding that to the cost of the F-35?).  It is not a capability that can be quickly installed when needed.  It will take decades to bring the current ships up to the standard required to handle the F-35.  If a war were to start today, we’d be limited to four amphibious ships operating our F-35s.

 

What is all this telling us?  What lessons are being demonstrated (and ignored!)?

 

  • In our pursuit of technology, we created an aircraft too complex to even communicate with our carriers.
  • Concurrency kills.
  • Even the modified ships have only a limited F-35 operating capability and, in the event of battle damage, we might lack the ability to operate the aircraft due to damage to the couple of specific landing spots.
  • In pursuit of the big, expensive, flashy toys, we’re ignoring the mundane support and infrastructure needed to even fully operate the toys.

 

 

 

Just a reminder … When the F-35C reaches squadron service, the Navy is planning to reduce the squadron size from the current 12 aircraft to 10, further shrinking the already shrunken air wings.  The F-35 is the gift that keeps on giving!

 

 

 

_____________________________________

 

(1)Breaking Defense website, “USS Bonhomme Richard Heads For Scrapyard After Devastating Fire ”, Paul McLeary, 30-Nov-2020,

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/11/uss-bonhomme-richard-heads-for-scrapyard-after-devastating-fire/

 

(2)Jalopnik website, “Navy Builds Ship For F-35, Ship Needs Months Of Upgrades To Handle F-35”, Tyler Rogoway, 13-Apr-2015,

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/navy-builds-ship-for-f-35-ship-needs-months-of-upgrade-1697523492


72 comments:

  1. Do you know what the situation is for the F35B and the HMS Queen Elizabeth/Prince of Wales ? If it is the same as for the US ships then they ony have an helicopter carrier ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know. The QE was built specifically for the F-35 so you'd think it would have all the necessary facilities and structure but you would have thought the new US ships would have had it, too, so …

      The US Marines sent several F-35s to operate off QE so, again, I assume the ship has necessary mods to at least land and take off. Whether it has the required comms and data handling capabilities, I don't know.

      Delete
    2. The QEs have the advantage of unassisted launching and recovering from longer decks. The jets don't have to deflect as much thrust downward onto the deck compared to the shorter amphib carriers.

      Delete
    3. I see no advantage. The amphib carriers have unassisted launching and have equal or longer recovery deck areas since they can use the entire deck length unlike the QE whose forward third is unusable due to the ski jump.

      Delete
  2. It's not : https://www.ddcoatings.co.uk/1275/new-deck-coating-hms-queen-elizabeth-aircraft-carrier

    The French carrier will have one, or possibly 2, landing slots prepared for the F-35B. This will allow interoperability with British and Italian F-35Bs - or US Marine F-35Bs if the US Marines have not been disbanded by then.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "It is worth noting that none of the supercarriers can operate the F-35."

    Not the greatest loss for those CVNs, frankly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Really? You think Hornets are going to do the job in the South China Sea? Like it or not, the future of the US Navy is tied to the F-35 - if you can't operate competitive aircraft, you don't need carriers. If you don't have carriers, you need less escorts etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not convinced. The F35 is a great asset for some missions but over spec'ed for most of them.

      What kills is not planes but missiles, bombs and bullets. The aircraft is primarily a delivery platform. And more delivery vehicles means more deliveries.

      /IED

      Delete
    2. "Really? You think Hornets are going to do the job in the South China Sea?"

      I'm just not convinced the F-35 will do the job either, frankly.
      (That comment wasn't entirely serious.)

      Perhaps the smart play as this point would be to build a new fighter and pretend the F-35 never existed, like the LCS, but that won't happen for a million reasons.

      Delete
    3. "The aircraft is primarily a delivery platform."

      While that's a true statement on the surface, the reality is a bit more complex. It does no good to have a thousand 'delivery platforms' if they're not survivable long enough to reach their delivery points. This is where stealth, electronic warfare, and other penetration/survivability aids come into the picture.

      The Hornet is only marginally survivable being only marginally stealthy and with little EW capability. The F-35 is stealthier and has some EW capability so it has a better chance of surviving long enough to deliver its ordnance.

      That said, the F-35 falls far short in other areas and I'm not a fan, at all.

      The point is that an aircraft must be more than just a 'delivery platform' in order to succeed.

      Delete
    4. What makes an aircraft competitive? If it cannot operate from the aircraft carrier can it truly be competitive? If you can only afford 100 planes is it competitive?
      Attrition will happen and our aircraft are too expensive to lose, similar to our ships being too expensive to lose.
      I like the idea of the loyal wingman, but at $5 to 10 million a pop they are still too expensive and I have not seen the US Navy expressing interest in the loyal wingman concept. I would make some of the loyal wingman drones turboprops that would operate at a greater distance from the stealth aircraft to suck up the missiles and help identify the radars. The turboprops could be designed with great range and short take off capabilities and not require aerial refueling or catapult launches.
      Ideally, the cost of the drone would be less than the cost of the missile required to shoot it down.

      Delete
    5. " loyal wingman"

      This is all the rage, right now but have you seen any actual exercise that demonstrated that this is a viable, combat-effective technology? I haven't. It is pure hype that has jumped right over proof-of-concept and straight into implementation. Now, that doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea but it does mean that there is no proof.

      We did this with 'littoral' and the LCS. We completely bypassed proof-of-concept and jumped straight into production and you see what resulted.

      I would sincerely like to read about a real world exercise of this technology.

      Delete
    6. I don't think they have a CONOPS yet and I also have not seen any loyal wingman trials demonstrating usefulness. The CONOPS that makes sense would be a stealthy strike drone that can carry two 2,000 pound bombs or eight small diameter bombs and travel at least the same distance as a Tomahawk, essentially a reusable Tomahawk. Since we have real world experience with cruise missiles this would be only a variation on the cruise missile CONOPS.

      Delete
  5. You sure its not time reopen the F-22 line at whatever cost and produce a navalised version, the F-35 seems to be the fiasco that never stops taking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't know if you have read this but APA did an article along the design of a realistic navalized F-22. Here is the link to the article:

      http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html

      I also offer you to ready up on the Super Tomcat 21 and the 2010 verison that was proposed. All fascinating upgrades indeed!

      Delete
  6. Question. Since the Boeing version of the what became the F-35 (X-32) used if I recall the same system used on the Harriers maybe it should have been picked separately from the X-35 for what is now the F-35B and could that have avoided the deck problems. Also perhaps a bit of competition might have been useful in the long run.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Also perhaps a bit of competition might have been useful in the long run."

      You're right. Competition is always a good thing. We forget that in WWII we had dozens of different aircraft performing the same roles. It allowed us to pick the very best aircraft to produce in quantity. Today, we are too focused on the economics of the business case for an aircraft and we ignore the combat case (while also messing up the business case with poor execution!).

      Delete
    2. To this day, very "confusing" why GE wasn't allowed to keep on working on their F35 to compete with PW for further contracts. At a minimum, all major systems like AESA, engines, etc should have dual source and be competed after initial batch.

      Delete
  7. Not sure USS Wasp should be on that list, can't recall if it was a CNO post or defense article about the WASP mystery, that ship has had 3? small deployments in over 10 years...not sure it matters much that she can dep deploy F35 since she never deploys!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's funny that you say CNO article is considered equal to (or better!?!?) than a defense article. An old comment on here mentioned something like CNO has two brains. I guess the comment was wrong, he must have 100+. LOL

      Are you referring to this article?
      https://www.militarytimes.com/2013/03/22/wasp-skirts-major-deployments-for-8-years-navy-denies-problems-cites-amphib-s-role-in-aviation-tests/
      This depicted a 7 year absence of deployments for the USS Wasp. I don't know if there is anything else, maybe another ship?

      Delete
    2. Seems Wasp is going in again and the claim is still to get it F-35 enabled. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/bae-awarded-197m-contract-for-uss-wasp-modernisation/

      Delete
    3. "USS Wasp"

      Nothing definitive is known but the reason I keep hearing is a major deficiency in the Wasp's combat system (self defense). Wasp deployed to Japan for a couple years so I don't if the problem was solved or if the Navy just gave up and accepted the deficient system.

      Delete
    4. "claim is still to get it F-35 enabled."

      I do not see that in the link you provided. The link states that the F-35 mods occurred during the 2016-2017 modernization.

      Delete
    5. @Ip. I would consider CNO above most defense analysts out there and his site way better than most defense sites which sadly are turning into PR releases for the big boys like LMT, RTN or BA.

      And thats coming from someone that doesn't always agree with him or his politics, I'm pretty sure we are on opposite sides!

      Delete
  8. I believe the Carl Vinson was F-35 certified in September? It would be nice to know what the Air Force 6th gen aircraft in the air looks like to assess it for carrier adaptation. The common lesson I see with F-35 and elsewhere is a lack of logistics prioritization in a cohesive war plan. Latest being the Marines dropping the M-1. That was a half measure. It would have been nice to see them decide to pick up a tank destroyer like Centauro II from the same company as the ACV, hoping some of the guts are shared in common. Getting vehicles down to under 32 metric tons opens all kinds of possibilities to get the vehicles to the fight in greater quantity faster.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vinson conducted flight deck certifications with the F-35C, however, that's not the same as having all the modifications to fully operate the F-35. To the best of my knowledge, the Vinson has not had the mods.

      Delete
    2. Irony is dead, let's spend billions improving "turn around time", more launches,etc....and Ford can't really deploy with the latest USN fighter....

      Delete
  9. Regarding this statement "It would be nice to know what the Air Force 6th gen aircraft in the air looks like to assess it for carrier adaptation."

    Just say NO!!

    IIRC there is yet to be a successful adaptation of an Air Force fixed-wing aircraft for carrier ops. As a general rule adaptation seems to be considerably more likely to be successful if it goes in the direction of Navy to Air Force (Phantom / Corsair II). You can extend this to the various air-force adoptions of the Hornet around the world as well.

    The closest I can come up with off the top of my head is the Blackhawk/Seahawk and that's not fixed wing, or air-force.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Just say NO!!"

      YES!! Uh, I mean no. I mean I agree. MKB, you offer simple but profound wisdom. The F-35 has taught us the folly of one-size-fits-all.

      Delete
    2. Anyone remember the TFX ?
      The Navy was to get a Naval "Fighter" version of the F-111 with AIM-54s. Topgun with Ardvarks?, would have tanked at the box office.

      Delete
  10. I have a question: In all the articles I read about aircraft carriers and the aircraft they carry, I rarely find any reference to how close the carriers need to be to their target in order to effectively launch a strike and recover any aircraft that might survive the mission. Or, is this another issue ,like the Navy always having complete access to the electronic spectrum, that we should just walk on by?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no set answer to your question. The range depends on the mission, the aircraft route and flight profile (hi-lo), the required loiter time, tanker support, and a hundred other factors.

      Delete
    2. Not to mention whether you're being shot at, heh..

      Delete
  11. It is not that these carriers cannot operate F-35B but cannot fully utilize its capabilities.

    F-35 is a network central fighters (F/A-18 is NOT). A group of F-35s' radar signals are integrated into one thus any one fires a missile, it is guided by the whole network than individual fighter's radar (like F/A-18). Navy likes to integrate F-35 network with aircraft carriers, even the whole combat group. To eject a F-35 on deck, there is no problem.

    F-35 is the first network central fighter jet in US. F-35 itself still has bugs to address. However, this whole new idea needs further test and improve to fully utilize it. China's J-20 and J-16 also has this capability (not sure carrier based J-15).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It is not that these carriers cannot operate F-35B but cannot fully utilize its capabilities."

      As stated in the post,

      "Yes, the F-35C can take off and land on the carriers but the ships lack the communications, data integration, and maintenance facilities to fully utilize the supposed capabilities of the F-35 "

      "A group of F-35s' radar signals are integrated into one "

      I cannot emphasize enough that is wholly untested as far as any public information goes. History assures us that it will not work as advertised. To what degree, if any, it can function is what must be tested and it must be tested under realistic conditions.

      Delete
    2. Skipper, as the Ford Class CVNs have problems reliably launching F-18s and whatnot via EMALS catapults, I'd say the F-35 mis-matches with Ford Class are rather moot. That puppy has been in commission for what, 5 years now? And the 50 year old Nimitz chugs merrily along, heh..This is nothing you folks haven't been kicking around for years now. Much is promulgated from here. Helpful, very.

      Delete
    3. "Ford Class CVNs have problems reliably launching F-18s and whatnot via EMALS catapults,"

      In the very short term, you're correct that the F-35 problems with the Ford are irrelevant since the Ford can't deploy, anyway. The larger, and far more serious issue, is that we're continuing to build Fords. I would hope that we can get the EMALS and AAG issues fixed, given enough time BUT if we can't, we're building an entire class of carrier that can't function. As I said, I assume we'll solve the problems given enough time but we're running a massive risk by continuing to build carriers with equipment that does not yet work reliably enough to be operational. That is one hell of a risk to take.

      Delete
    4. "To what degree, if any, it can function is what must be tested"

      Air Force and Navy do tests but test in real combat environment is not possible unless start a war.

      Network centric warfare is a new idea thus by nature, many are skeptical. However, if it works as advertised, it greatly change how a battle is conducted.

      For each F-35c, it is an information node. Rather than each fighter run its own radar and sensors, information from all radars (turned on) and sensors are integrate into one shared by all. It is like Cloud computing. So, multiple computers on different fighters, UAV, ship,... run together. A missile fired from a F-35c is not guided by itself but the network thus even if the F-35 departs (for instance, after fire all missiles), the missile is still guided by the network. Even a F-35c can fire missile not found by its own radar but others'. This is why it is desirable to have aircraft carrier to be integrated into the system, which is part of upgrade. With this network centric system, if commander wish, he can micromanage battle fields several hundreds miles away down to individual pilot (not preferred).

      Right now, even F-22 doesn't have network centric capability. Like F/A-18 relies on E-2, F-22 relies on E-8 to provide battle field management. F-35c can do this on their own.

      To conduct life tests with foreign forces are difficult. The only other nation has advanced network centric capability is China. How can you test with J-20 unless you initiate an attack which could lead to a nuclear war.

      Delete
    5. " F-35c can do this on their own. "

      Note to readers: This is utterly absurd. I'm not even going to bother refuting it.

      Delete
    6. " test in real combat environment is not possible "

      Of course it's possible. We can test against our own F-22s with full electronic warfare support and see if the concept works. To the best of my knowledge, we haven't done that.

      Delete
    7. I'm not going to relitigate the F-35's failings but I'm also not going to allow unsupported claims to be presented as fact.

      Delete
    8. "It is not that these carriers cannot operate F-35B but cannot fully utilize its capabilities."

      But even if entirely true (and I have seem some information that would tend to contest that), what is the purpose of paying a fortune for all that capability if we have no way to use it.

      As I've posted before, I see the Navy needing a fighter/interceptor and a long-range attack/bomber, and I don't see the F-35 being either one. I still think the Navy needs a carrier-based fixed wing ASW/patrol aircraft, and the S-3 would be a reasonable air frame (if it can be upgraded with new technology). A squadron of 12 S-3s, with 6 set up for ASW/patrol, 5 as tankers, and 1 as a COD, would seem to address a lot of the Navy's current CVW needs.

      Seems to me that the F-35 isn't really that great an airplane, as an airplane, but its one advantage is all of the electronic data assimilate and management capability. I just don't know how well that can work in a contested EW/jamming/EMP environment, and I don't think the Navy or Air Force know either.

      Delete
    9. "I just don't know how well that can work in a contested EW/jamming/EMP environment,"

      There's also the issue of how well it can work under a pilot's combat workload. When the pilot is 100% focused on aerial combat and staying alive, any network/data function that is not 100% automated will be ignored in favor of personal survival.

      Delete
    10. "I just don't know how well that can work in a contested EW/jamming/EMP environment"

      This a real concern and one of my issues with the "loyal wingman" fad.

      Delete
  12. The F-111 all over again. Every single mistake was repeated 40 years later.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Unk, they went for one-size fits all. The wonders of CAD would bring us miraculous things. And, they forgot all that was successful before.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I guess what I don't really understand is the F-35C. Why do we need it?

    I can sort of understand the F-35B if you assume we want some sort of STOVL fixed-wing aircraft to operate off the LHA/LHD "Lightning Carriers." But I don't see what the F-35C adds to the mix. With the knowledge that only some of the LHAs/LHDs have the capability to use all the fancy electronics capability of the F-35, that question becomes even bigger in my mind.

    As far as all that fancy electronics stuff, how much of works--and how well--in a fully opposed EW/jamming/EMP environment? Do we even know? We seem to be hanging our hats totally on the proposition the the F-35 electronics will be greatly transformative, without knowing for sure that they even work.

    Seems to me that the Navy needs 1) a fighter/interceptor with long-range sensors, stand-off weapons, and great visibility and maneuverability in case it gets caught in a dogfight, and 2) an attack bomber with long range, stealth, and a big weapons load. The F-35 is neither of those. It lacks the maneuverability to be the first and the long legs to be the second.

    The Navy could also use a fixed-wing carrier-based ASW/patrol airplane, particularly when there aren't any P-3s/P-8s nearby. S-3 could be that plane if it could be brought back and upgraded. S-3s can also be configured as tankers (with a lot more fuel than anything currently under consideration) and as CODs that can haul those F-35 engines a fair distance. It seems to me that including in the CVW a squadron of 12 S-3s, with 6 in the patrol/ASW mode, 5 as tankers, and 1 as COD, would make a lot of sense.

    The Marines are trying to make the best of the F-35B, but it seems to me that what they really need is a "Marine A-10." That's not the F-35 either.

    I have one other potentially irreverent question, about the P-8. It seems to me that we are giving up a fair amount of P-3 capability to fly low and use things like MAD, when the Japanese P-1 retains those abilities and is also a bunch cheaper. Maybe high-altitude ASW is a great concept, but I wonder if we wouldn't be better off to have a mix of P-8s and license-built P-1s, particularly since the latter is a bunch cheaper. I'm certainly no expert on land-based patrol aircraft, but if we have one of those around I'd like to know why the P-8 is so wonderful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By my count they are within 7 million of each other.

      Delete
    2. Numbers I've seen for the P-8 are 8 for $3.128B in 2013, 16 for $3.654B in 2014, 8 for $2.360B in 2015, and 20 for 2.500B in 2016, total 52 for $11.642B, or $224MM per airplane. And $164MM per P-1 for the first 60 or so. If somebody else has better numbers, please post.

      Looks like the cost of the P-8 is coming down as some of the R&D costs are absorbed. Don't have the detail for the P-1, but would expect a similar trend, and since it was a new design rather that an adaptation of an existing commercial design, I would expect the R&D costs to be higher.

      Can anybody share much with respect to the capabilities of the two aircraft?

      Delete
    3. P-8 2020 budget flyaway is 179.731. I am sure that some of all this is their accounting methods and our own. The P-8 lists a slightly greater range and an additional crew member. It seems the P-1 can carry more ordinance.

      Delete
    4. "Numbers I've seen for the P-8"

      Using the numbers CDR Chip cites, the yearly costs per aircraft and the number of aircraft are:

      2013 $391M 8
      2014 $228M 16
      2015 $295M 8
      2016 $125M 20

      That's some huge variability and also a strong correlation between lower cost and number of aircraft.

      The GAO 2014 Annual Report lists the procurement unit cost as $206M for a quantity of 122 aircraft.

      The FY18 Navy budget doc lists a unit cost of $184M for 10 aircraft.

      The FY19 Navy budget doc lists a unit cost of $191M for 10 aircraft.

      The FY20 Navy budget doc lists a unit cost of $231M for 6 aircraft.

      Quite a range of numbers! This is part of what makes oversight of military acquisition programs so difficult.

      Delete
    5. I guess my major concern is that we have pretty much abandoned low level aircraft ASW. Maybe high-altitude ASW will work just fine. Maybe it will work as well as EMALS.

      Given that the P-1 seems to be cheaper (if only slightly so) it would seem a reasonable proposition to buy some of both, and employ them based upon the strategic and tactical needs of the situation. Yes, you are adding in a second supply chain, but how many different aircraft were we able to sustain in WWII? I think we should let warriors and not bean counters have a bigger voice in our decisions. And I would remind you, that's coming from a bean counter.

      Delete
    6. "The P-8 lists a slightly greater range and an additional crew member. It seems the P-1 can carry more ordinance."

      My understanding is that the P-1 can substantially increase its loiter time, if not its range, by shutting down two engines, much as the P-3s used to do. I think the quoted range numbers are with all four engines turning and burning, so that difference may go away or reverse.

      Delete
    7. CDR Chip, I think if you want to do this comparison more fair, I suggest you to compared the P-1 with the BAMS UAV. This is the Airforce/Navy expected high-low mix for land-based ASW aircraft. As you probably have read, the BAMS is intended to be the cheap complement to aid the P-8. The reason why it is so cheap is because it doesn't have the capability to deploy, just 24/7 awareness. Again, you can see that data is valued over firepower with the UAV.

      Also, just a rule of thumb, I suggest you to double any costs data you came across for foreign nations. I have seen many programs extremely subsidized (and accounting games!) by both their and our government. Doubling it is a fair estimation for even best case scenario and for some countries, tripling or quadrupling the costs.

      Case in point, I think Japan's reported costs number is onl one third of the realistic number. For instance, the Izumo Class destroyer is designed almost similar to the America class but it's $1+ billions compared to $4+ billions.

      Let's take your ASW example as a base, I have looked into history for a cost comparison with the Orions. The US begged the Orion as $36 millions in FY1987 which translate to $82 millions in FY2020. A Lockheed Martin deal in 1976 with Japan to sell 100 aircraft for $1.3 billions at $13 million for an aircraft and that translates to say $25 millions in 2020 dollars. This is compounded by serial costs saving as well if you want to consider that.

      That being said, I tried to search for the actual deal that Japan got their aircraft but it seemed to not exists. All mentions point out a license built deal exists between 1976-1981 but even the House hearing of the Foreign Assistance program in 1981 only mention a small bit of it. I am quite lost and have no idea what is the real unit cost of the P-3C that Lockheed sold Japan.

      Link of the House hearing: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=p8A3knZENfwC&hl=en&pg=GBS.RA1-PA254

      Link of the deal: https://www.nytimes.com/1976/02/11/archives/scandal-costs-lockheed-13-billion-sale-to-japan-scandal-costs.html

      Delete
    8. MQ-4 for 132m flyaway isn't cheap. Take in development cost and per plane is more than the P-8.

      Delete
    9. As far as the cost comparison, it is really difficult to get good numbers. I do find it striking that foreign units are so often priced so much lower than equivalent US platforms. Either they are counting their beans differently or they have more efficient procurement processes. My best guess would be a bit of both.

      But I am not so much concerned about cost as I am the capability comparison.

      High altitude ASW may work very well--or not. I think it has every potential to be another EMALS. Whether it works or not, I think it would be useful to have the capability to employ other tactics in situations where they could be more effective. For that reason, I would like to have a mix of P-8s for high altitude ASW and P-1s for more conventional, P-3 style low altitude ASW. Maybe because I worked with P-3s when in destroyers, and so I have a better feel for their tactics than I do for the high-altitude approach, but I'm not sure that we aren't being too clever by half here.

      Delete
  15. If F-35 is soooo smart that the navy needs to upgrade its CVs to process all the raw data coming from it, then why isn't the AF worried about upgrading its AWACS, J-stars and airbase infrastructure to do the same?

    The AF seems to think that its legacy infrastructure and aircraft can play nicely with the new toy and all its gizmos...

    ReplyDelete
  16. The above arguments are lovely but the fact remains that we're all stuck with F-35 for the forseeable future whether you like it or not. F-15s, F-16s, Hornets etc just don't cut it anymore against a peer opponent regardless of the modifications proposed so there's no point going backwards. F-22s are great but they can't operate off a carrier (especially not off an amphib) and you've seen the re-start costs for the line. A new aircraft will probably cost even more, take 15-20 years and there's no guarantee it won't be even more of a mess. The only realistic solution is to make F-35 work.

    By all means bring back the S-3s and keep Hornets as the back-up bomb truck for low threat/post-SAM phase but something has to get in there and clear the path of Air Defences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "A new aircraft will probably cost even more, take 15-20 years and there's no guarantee it won't be even more of a mess."

      Wrong. See, Build A Better Aircraft

      Delete
    2. "you've seen the re-start costs for the line"

      See, F-22 Restart

      Delete
    3. " the fact remains that we're all stuck with F-35 for the forseeable future"

      Only if we choose to be. We have alternatives.

      Delete
    4. Your ideas under 'Build a Better Aircraft' have merit but the problem is that you're not running the programme. Given that the same sort of people as now will be running it, my assertion that it 'will probably cost even more, take 15-20 years and there's no guarantee it won't be even more of a mess' is correct.

      Delete
    5. " Given that the same sort of people as now will be running it"

      Only if we allow it. It is up to us, as taxpayers, to demand change from our representatives and I've presented a viable alternative. So, get on the phone and start talking to your representatives!

      Delete
    6. "So, get on the phone and start talking to your representatives!"

      This is theoretically correct but very naive, to be fair.

      Delete
    7. It's not naïve, at all. It would be naïve to believe that a single phone call would change our entire military procurement system. It is not naïve to believe that thousands of calls could, in the aggregate, accomplish some small degree of improvement.

      This blog is about improving the Navy. If a reader has zero interest in improvement or zero belief that change, however small, is possible then this is not the blog for them. If all a reader wants is to maintain the status quo then a better site to visit is the official Navy site where they can read all about how wonderful the Navy is.

      Delete
    8. Have to write your Congresspeople or they don't know much at all. You never know, they even need a shoulder to cry on sometimes.

      Delete
  17. Yes, there are alternatives but the people in charge aren't going to choose them so we're stuck with F-35. Therefore we have to make it work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding this, but wouldn't the F-35 and a navalized F-22 be nice compliments to each other on US carriers?

      Delete
    2. They'd be better than F-18 and F-35. That said, the F-35 is just not a useful aircraft for the China-Pacific war. We need a very long range air superiority fighter and that is not the F-35.

      Delete
  18. What a perfect end for a stupid idea.

    ReplyDelete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.