Military Aviation > Military Aviation News

Dutch worry over F-35 costs

<< < (3/6) > >>

shawn a:
And it looks like the Brits have formalized their worries, too--jumping on another horse by switching to the -C model. I wonder how this will affect the USMCs plans? Is this program falling apart because of costs?

Webmaster:
I think the British decision has more to do with the government's need to cut back spending in every area since the country's debt has spiralled out of control because of the wars, bail outs + recession. Big ticket defence procurement programmes are easy targets. So I'd say no to your last question, although the high price tag is of course a factor, it could have been any fighter... so hypothetically, for example if they opted to get navalized Typhoons, they would have cancelled the program or if it would have been Super Hornets in the first place, the number would now be cut back or they would have cancelled the EW capability or something.

By the way... is that the final decision? Because I read a lot of speculation regarding this, but I haven't heard/read the final decisions yet.

USMC still wants to carry on with smaller carriers which can't support conventional carrier landing, right? So I don't think it will affect the USMC's plans for the -B version.

However I do think the USMC should also reconsider. It needs a carrier-borne CAS fighter which can forward deploy, basically it needs a better Harrier, which the F-35B set out to be, however this stealth makes it just overly complicated, and goes beyond their needs. It needs another option for that. For the stealth fighter and interdiction roles it can go with the -C just like the navy, and I think they eventually will. But for CAS, the F-35B doesn't make sense.

Australia is worried that UK cutbacks in JSF number affects the F-35A price tag... that surprised me a bit, I thought Australia was not so worried about costs (M1, C-17, Super Hornet, SH-2G fiasco). Maybe someone explain? I have to say, Australia is the only one with an effective stop-gap solution compared to most others. So it's at least really working on those JSF worries, not just ignoring them as the Dutch government/airforce does, imho. Because Shawn, it's unfortunately not those with the power who worry about it.

shawn a:
Now I hear the Marines just may be rethinking the-B model because of sophisticated short range surface to surface missiles and other "short" range weapons that would bring their forward-based arming and refueling areas under threat.

Webmaster:
On the original subject...

News last week, two thirds of RNLAF F-16 fleet is grounded awaiting maintenance. Reason: shortage of spare parts and/or no money for parts/repairs. Fleet size is 87 atm, of which 14 in the US for training and I think 4 in Afghanistan.
In related news, next year 200 million cut backs on defense (mostly infrastructure/personnel), structurally the budget will be cut back 635 million by 2018 to approx. 7.6 Billion Euros. The title of the associated news story on the MOD website translates to "Radical cut-backs are going to hurt".

Just some more signs that we'll never have 85 F-35s...

Now about the F-16s, it didn't say age had anything to do with it, probably hasn't, but surely fatigue and reaching max hours will kick in as well before the F-35 is fully operable.

shawn a:
Trying to stay on topic, I'll pretend I'm Dutch.
The plane seems to be turning out to be an expensive purebred dog!
Air Forces Monthly has a feature article on it, I suggest everybody to read it if they can.
'Nuff said, I'm off to Vegas for the Nellis show, where Lockheed usually has a public booth.
I'll try to be polite!
Shawn A.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page