Britain cites overweight JSF

[phrogdriver]

Thing is,today's aircraft are at their design limits. The F-15 and F-14 are 70s vintage, the 16 and 18 are early 80s. Going 30 years off the same design is pushing it. At least JSF is low-observable. I'd say the Navy made a big mistake investing in the super hornet, when it could have stayed with the bombcat variant until JSF came online. If we want to stay ahead of the next threat, we have to make the capital investments in equipment.

 

[vegita1220]

Thing is,today's aircraft are at their design limits. The F-15 and F-14 are 70s vintage, the 16 and 18 are early 80s. Going 30 years off the same design is pushing it. At least JSF is low-observable. I'd say the Navy made a big mistake investing in the super hornet, when it could have stayed with the bombcat variant until JSF came online. If we want to stay ahead of the next threat, we have to make the capital investments in equipment.

Wait, but according to the occasional jet guy who drops in, we needed the Super Hornet as a stopgap b/c the Tomcats were/are falling apart, while Hornet C's have been flying more than planned.

Without the Super Bug the Navy would be without a new fighter-bomber for at least...10-15 years I think, right? And I wonder how much a SLEP would've done for the Tomcat. According to the jet guys the problem is with the basic innards of the a/c, something about really old circuitry and wiring. And you say going 30 yrs with the same design is pushing it, but isn't that what we'd be doing without the Super Bug? Unless you're talking about Tomcat 21 and Grumman's other proposed upgrade variants, or even just brandnew airframes.

 

[VetteMuscle427]

Yeah, the JSF is low observable... but going back to what we're engaged in now... the Super Hornet has longer range and greater payload capacity than the JSF. And aren't the 14s having a hard time with maintenance? The Super seems like a good idea to me; it is just another evolution of the 18... bigger and better

 

[skidkid]

Hmm single engine V/STOVL, you would think we would learn our lesson the first time. I would not be surprised to see "Marines" painted on some super hornets if things start going badly. One TMS for all our tac air needs worries me after seeing how often the Harriers got red striped. Low observable is great but payload and reliability is greater (bring back the A-6 just kidding well sort of). Just an attack pilot who was also a FACs two cents. curious how it all works out

 

[46Driver]

Interesting to compare the Army's Comanche Program. It was cancelled and instead of using the money to buy 121 Comanches, it will be used to buy 796 additional Blackhawks (and other types of helos) as well as upgrade another 1400 helos. Seems like a much wiser use of money.

 

[jarhead]

the Super Hornet is bigger than the legacy Hornet, but better? yea with it's updated/upgraded avionics and "bring back" capability it's better, but the SH's performance is questionable as the legacy Hornet can out accelerate it in most flight regimes and with the new FCS in the legacy Hornet, can manuever just as good, and because of the extra drag created by the SH's canted pylon's, it doesn't have much more range than the legacy Hornet. the Navy/Marine Corps would have been smart to have kept the legacy Hornet lines open because a lot of the avionics upgrades that went into the SH can be put into the legacy Hornet but the money isn't there ... we consently get briefs from China Lake about all this cool high speed avionics & weapons that are either being tested or are already "out", but we will never see them.

the JSF won't be dropped because too many countries have bought into it, unlike the F-22, which could possibly be chopped because it's a US only deal, like the Comanche & Crusader.

s/f

Yeah, the JSF is low observable... but going back to what we're engaged in now... the Super Hornet has longer range and greater payload capacity than the JSF. And aren't the 14s having a hard time with maintenance? The Super seems like a good idea to me; it is just another evolution of the 18... bigger and better

 

[46Driver]

Hmmm, judging from the responses, lets see what programs everybody here would cut / cancel. What would you buy? There is no right or wrong answer, but I would like to see justifications. Our class had to do this with 12 different programs and nobody came up with the same order.

Cancel
1) JSF ($200 Billion dollars?)
2) MV-22 ($85 Million per aircraft?)
3) AAAV (nice to have but how many massed amphibious assaults are we going to do?)

(kinda harsh here on the Corps but the Army has already lost the Comanche and the Crusader)

Purchase
1) More troops (considering how much the reserves are being deployed)
2) C-17's (strategic lift is needed, especially with the C-5's coming apart)
3) More intel assets (UAV's, humint, etc) (with the war on terror, you have to find the enemy first....

 

[VetteMuscle427]

Hmmm, judging from the responses, lets see what programs everybody here would cut / cancel. What would you buy? There is no right or wrong answer, but I would like to see justifications. Our class had to do this with 12 different programs and nobody came up with the same order.

CUT: JSF

BUY: AC-130Us...

The AC-130 seems to be suited for the type of operations going on in Iraq: Long endurance, precision strike and packing a heavy punch. There isn't really much of a threat to them once they are in the air is there?

 

[jarhead]

so how would you give those extra troops the Close Air Support they need? the JSF is a multi national effort and while the whole project is worth $200 Billion, the Corps has invested only in a portion of that cost, and unless other countries begin to bail, i don't think the U.S. will bail out. plus, the Marine Corps needs something to replace it's Harriers ... Marine Hornets could be replaced by Super Hornets (something WSO's are hoping for so they will have a job in 10 years with the Corps). and you want to save money? drop the F-22, that aircraft is costing $180+ million apiece, now you will have the money to for C-17's.

the Marine Corps doesn't need that many more troops, yes we are over-extended right now but we are doing the occupying job that the Army should be doing ... Afghanistan is the only place we (Marines) should be right now. you want extra troops? pull the Army out of Germany ... Russia isn't coming through the Folda Gap anytime soon and the Germans don't want us there, except for our $$. and remember, we wouldn't be relying on reservists if it wasn't for Clinton's brilliant scheme back in the early 90's.

so what would i dump out of the Pentagon budget?

in order ...

(1) F-22 --- at $180+ million apiece, the U.S. could buy 2 JSF's, or 3 SuperHornets, or 3 F-16 Block 50/52's, or 2 F-15C's, or 5 C-17's, or 5 Tankers, for that price

(2) MV-22 --- as delicate as that thing is, it wouldn't last in a Hot LZ

(3) DD-21 --- we don't need a land attack naval platform, CAS will work just as good

(4) AAAV --- this one would be hard to chop because like you said "how many massed amphibious assaults are we going to do?" (unless N Korea crossed the DMZ and we repeated Inchon), but we (Marines) have to offer something different to the Pentagon in order to justify our existance, and the amphibious portion is just that (for the time being)

(5) JSF --- only if other countries bail out, and we decide to buy Super Hornets to replace our legacy Hornets ... it would be tough to dump this though because of the need to replace the Harrier

what do we need to do? as it pains me to say this, we need to R&D UAV's to replace our A-A fighter needs ... they are cheaper, almost invisible to radar, and can loiter for long periods of time ... we still need attack aircraft though for CAS, i don't think i would trust somebody 100nm away sitting behind a PC getting cleared hot with a UAV

s/f

Hmmm, judging from the responses, lets see what programs everybody here would cut / cancel. What would you buy? There is no right or wrong answer, but I would like to see justifications. Our class had to do this with 12 different programs and nobody came up with the same order.

Cancel
1) JSF ($200 Billion dollars?)
2) MV-22 ($85 Million per aircraft?)
3) AAAV (nice to have but how many massed amphibious assaults are we going to do?)

(kinda harsh here on the Corps but the Army has already lost the Comanche and the Crusader)

Purchase
1) More troops (considering how much the reserves are being deployed)
2) C-17's (strategic lift is needed, especially with the C-5's coming apart)
3) More intel assets (UAV's, humint, etc) (with the war on terror, you have to find the enemy first....

 

[cindy]

With loss of overseas basing, would eliminate most tactical Air Force and a lot of Strategic Bombing forces. Place most assets into moveable airfields, the kind that can traverse 75 % of worlds surface, needs no basing rights. Sink the JSF.

Convert 4ID to MEF's. 4ID was bogged down by own limitations in Turkey.

More 50 bmg sniper assets. Everytime is see CNN with photos of goons carrying RPG's in Iraq, I long for a view of a "reach out and touch" sniper scope. If you can shoot em with a camera, we outta be able to ....

Eliminate 4 CVAs, convert assets to LHA (types) Replace most VF squadrons to UCAV units with new Hawkeye platforms to control and direct CO.

Understand the JSF will have about the same radar cross section of the new UCAV's?

More research/development of Helo platform protection, both EW and hard skins.

More intel including direct support from NSA with R/T intel.

Convert SSBN's to tactical and strategic air/missle defense systems.

Follow-on cruise missle systems for Attack boats.

Agree, C130 ramp up.

Get rid of the old foggies that only know ".... boots on the ground ...." tactics.

 

[skidkid]

Ok lets see as a "boots on the ground fogie aviator here is the "if I were in charge"
Cut : The MV-22!!!!!!!! (even if it does what it is supposed to do it just wont work for us)
Cut The B-2 or just keep it to a small number of "silver bullets" and keep the B-52s going maybe re-engine them.

Keep the F-22 (it is still important to have the most dominant fighter in the world and there are some newer ones out there that may not surpass the Hornets / Eagles but the margin is too close.
Keep the AAAV the current ones are too vulnerable
And hurry up the AH-1Z or just buy us some more Whiskeys so we done have to do 7 months deployed seven months back for the next four years.

 

[vegita1220]

Whoa, C-17s?

Those thing cost approx 200M apiece, varying slightly depending on the FY you choose.

In contrast, the Raptor at full rate production is 90-100M isn't it? I'm pretty sure the 180M+ price tag is LRIP only. I'm too lazy to check right now but I'm pretty sure of this.

Again, in contrast, C-141s cost a lot less. I don't know why the AF needs such expensive trash haulers. C-5s are 100M+ also.

 

[skidkid]

141s are old and not very useful. they arel ong but not real wide so they fill up physically before they reach their max payload weight. Strategic lift isnt sexy but it is necessary to everyone even the Navy at time (new engines to carriers and support of P-3s. C-17 has really good rough field capability (can back up) that and the C-130 were the only things that could land at Camp Rhino

 

[phrogdriver]

I don't want to get on the MV-22 tangent too much, but it has been on everyone's list to cut. I think that says a lot, not about the V22, but about the attitude regarding technology. To address an earlier point, the thing isn't fragile--that data says it can take more battle damage than the 53 or 46. The gun thing is also blown out of proportion. For all the hype, I've seen a lot of footage and talked to a lot of guys, and while a lot of bullets came out of door guns of assault helos (no flames from UH1 guys doing CAS, please) while flying around Iraq, plinking stuff as they flew by, no one I've met has know of anyone doing the weapons free into the hot LZ bit. The MV-22 will do just fine with the ramp gun.

Our advantage as a Marine Corps team lies in the ability to execute manuever warfare. As such, tactical and operational mobility are what make that possible. The CH-46 is over 30 years old. THe most widely promoted alternative, the Blackhawk, is over 20 years old. Face it, conventional helicopters have speed and payload limits imposed by the laws of physics. If we stay with conventional technology, we'll be buying aircraft with very little additional capability that will have to last us until the middle of the century.

The MV-22 and, to a lesser extent, the AAAV are key to having a mobility advantage over the enemy. They are the force multiplier. The goal in war is to put your strength against his weakness. You can put more troops on the deck, but if they get caught in a mano y mano slugfest, you play to your enemy's hand.

What would I cut? Start with that idiotic plan by the Air Force to lease tankers when it is cheaper to buy them outright. Second, cut grandma's new prescription drug benefit. That's $450 billion dollars and counting, which is a crapload of MV-22s and AAAVs by any measure.

 

[nittany03]

The problem with "grandma's new prescription drug benefit" is it is exactly what our Pentagon budget is competing with, especially in an administration which wants to cut taxes in order to simulate the economy. When you cut taxes, every government agency has less money to spend, and the political balancing act becomes even harder. Just my two cents.