What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?

[Evanivitch]

Teddy Lop said:

aeropilot said:

Teddy Lop said:

I just look at the QE platform and ponder that a transport able to facilitate refueling/AEW etc with more speed/range than the choppers would really complement it, extend the strike range/payload tradeoff of the F35B and more. I guess if the people who know what they're talking about agreed with me they'd just buy some ospreys.

And this is one of several reasons the UK carriers built the way they are were a pointless waste of money.

Eh-oh, let's not reopen that argument!

In the sense of we have what we have now, an aircraft with this capability would enhance it and probably have others interested, there's a number of countries that have or are looking to operate F35B and heli carriers.

It's not like we've gone alone on F35B. Either collectively several nations have made the same mistake (including the USMC, Italy, Japan, South Korea and Singapore).

[Teddy Lop]

aeropilot said:

Teddy Lop said:

In the sense of we have what we have now, an aircraft with this capability would enhance it and probably have others interested, there's a number of countries that have or are looking to operate F35B and heli carriers.

It would simply be far to expensive to design, build and operate, such an aircraft, for just not enough numbers.

It would be just about ready to go into service when the carriers are going out of service

Well... For a transport that could use a lot of off the shelf kit rather than a frontline fighter it shouldn't have to be.

But yeah you're right.

[Teddy Lop]

aeropilot said:

Maybe, but the Army have probably looked at things like the F-35 being delayed and cost spirals and the main version design compromised massively by USMC and the B version, and the USN not really wanting the C version, that it simply wants control of its own needs and budget.
The USMC have massive clout on Capitol Hill, but there is a view that it really now, in massively reduced force sizes of today, shouldn't be able to justify some of the stuff it still thinks it needs.....although they have made the decision to give up its tanks in recent years.

Would you not say the USMC brief is more relevant in the modern world than the "big war" assets of the trad 3 forces? I wonder how the navy justifies 12(?) Big carriers myself...

[aeropilot]

Teddy Lop said:

aeropilot said:

Maybe, but the Army have probably looked at things like the F-35 being delayed and cost spirals and the main version design compromised massively by USMC and the B version, and the USN not really wanting the C version, that it simply wants control of its own needs and budget.
The USMC have massive clout on Capitol Hill, but there is a view that it really now, in massively reduced force sizes of today, shouldn't be able to justify some of the stuff it still thinks it needs.....although they have made the decision to give up its tanks in recent years.

Would you not say the USMC brief is more relevant in the modern world than the "big war" assets of the trad 3 forces?

Not in the least.
The USMC has no real need for a 5th gen stealth fighter for expeditionary warfare. For a start the USMC are not going anywhere without a CBG for support.....
The USMC have no real need for any aviation element that couldn't be provided by the USN or the USAF....and hasn't really either since end of Korean War.

But, the USMC has a lot of legacy political clout and gets to preserve a lot of its go-it-alone kit. It was a big thing when they gave up their fleet of Abrams tanks relatively recently.

[Ash_]

aeropilot said:

Teddy Lop said:

aeropilot said:

Maybe, but the Army have probably looked at things like the F-35 being delayed and cost spirals and the main version design compromised massively by USMC and the B version, and the USN not really wanting the C version, that it simply wants control of its own needs and budget.
The USMC have massive clout on Capitol Hill, but there is a view that it really now, in massively reduced force sizes of today, shouldn't be able to justify some of the stuff it still thinks it needs.....although they have made the decision to give up its tanks in recent years.

Would you not say the USMC brief is more relevant in the modern world than the "big war" assets of the trad 3 forces?

Not in the least.
The USMC has no real need for a 5th gen stealth fighter for expeditionary warfare. For a start the USMC are not going anywhere without a CBG for support.....
The USMC have no real need for any aviation element that couldn't be provided by the USN or the USAF....and hasn't really either since end of Korean War.

But, the USMC has a lot of legacy political clout and gets to preserve a lot of its go-it-alone kit. It was a big thing when they gave up their fleet of Abrams tanks relatively recently.

Never heard of a Marine Expeditionary Unit then?
And as for the lobbying by only BAE and RR to retain the F-35b for the UK, there was also significant lobbying from the USMC, as without UK buying the B variant, that left USMC (at the time) the only customer and they felt it put that at risk. With the UK buying the B variant the USMC were more confident that the B wouldn't get scrapped. And as has been mentioned a lot of nations are now signing up for the B.

The C variant has always been a bit different, certainly for the UK, as mentioned on here to EMALS has been dogged with all sorts of issues and fixing those issues have cost a fortune. It was always safer for UK to buy the B.

[Mave]

aeropilot said:

Mave said:

RizzoTheRat said:

Presumably UK PLC does quite well out of the F35b as well, with RR making the fan system, so a bit of vested interest there too.

The lift system is built in the US

Yes, by Rolls-Royce.

The RR Lift Fan System was also design led by RR in the UK.

Yes, but the UK activity finished 10 years ago or so. All the ongoing activity, jobs etc. is in the US.

[aeropilot]

Ash_ said:

aeropilot said:

Teddy Lop said:

aeropilot said:

Maybe, but the Army have probably looked at things like the F-35 being delayed and cost spirals and the main version design compromised massively by USMC and the B version, and the USN not really wanting the C version, that it simply wants control of its own needs and budget.
The USMC have massive clout on Capitol Hill, but there is a view that it really now, in massively reduced force sizes of today, shouldn't be able to justify some of the stuff it still thinks it needs.....although they have made the decision to give up its tanks in recent years.

Would you not say the USMC brief is more relevant in the modern world than the "big war" assets of the trad 3 forces?

Not in the least.
The USMC has no real need for a 5th gen stealth fighter for expeditionary warfare. For a start the USMC are not going anywhere without a CBG for support.....
The USMC have no real need for any aviation element that couldn't be provided by the USN or the USAF....and hasn't really either since end of Korean War.

But, the USMC has a lot of legacy political clout and gets to preserve a lot of its go-it-alone kit. It was a big thing when they gave up their fleet of Abrams tanks relatively recently.

Never heard of a Marine Expeditionary Unit then?

I guess you didn't read my post then...?

[Ash_]

aeropilot said:

Ash_ said:

aeropilot said:

Teddy Lop said:

aeropilot said:

Maybe, but the Army have probably looked at things like the F-35 being delayed and cost spirals and the main version design compromised massively by USMC and the B version, and the USN not really wanting the C version, that it simply wants control of its own needs and budget.
The USMC have massive clout on Capitol Hill, but there is a view that it really now, in massively reduced force sizes of today, shouldn't be able to justify some of the stuff it still thinks it needs.....although they have made the decision to give up its tanks in recent years.

Would you not say the USMC brief is more relevant in the modern world than the "big war" assets of the trad 3 forces?

Not in the least.
The USMC has no real need for a 5th gen stealth fighter for expeditionary warfare. For a start the USMC are not going anywhere without a CBG for support.....
The USMC have no real need for any aviation element that couldn't be provided by the USN or the USAF....and hasn't really either since end of Korean War.

But, the USMC has a lot of legacy political clout and gets to preserve a lot of its go-it-alone kit. It was a big thing when they gave up their fleet of Abrams tanks relatively recently.

Never heard of a Marine Expeditionary Unit then?

I guess you didn't read my post then...?

No, I read it fine, you don't understand what a USMC MEU is for, a complete and contained fighting force that can operate without the need of USAF or USN support and still bring carrier strike to the party during an operation, even if it is limited, it is still a capability that they would use. They conduct Ops alone, and without the need for the other services to back them up. That's the whole point of an MEU.