U.S. Navy Debates STOVL JSF Futu

DefenseNews (4/30/2007)
U.S. Navy Debates STOVL JSF Future
U.S. Marines, U.K. Worry About Their F-35 Variant
Despite public support by Pentagon and U.S. Navy leaders for the short-
take-off/vertical-landing (STOVL) version of the Joint Strike Fighter
(JSF), debates about the planned acquisition and operation of the
F-35B continue behind the scenes - worrying Marine Corps officials and
potential foreign customers who are counting on the versatile
aircraft.
Navy officials have set no public deadline to settle JSF procurement
plans, but a current Navy briefing document provides a rare window on
the debate. It argues that the STOVL version should not fly as part of
a carrier air wing.
The JSF program is slated to produce three variants: the F-35A, a
conventional takeoff version; the F-35C, strengthened for carrier
takeoffs and landings, and the F-35B, fitted with a liftfan that
allows it to perform the crucial Marine missions of operating from
amphibious ships and primitive bases in forward areas.
The plane's biggest customers - the Navy and U.S. Air Force - are more
enthusiastic about the higher-performance F-35A and C versions. But
the five-year-old practice of including a Marine fighter squadron with
most carrier air wings means putting the F-35B, with its slightly
different shape and maintenance requirements, aboard the carriers.
In the briefing document, Navy tactical-aviation planners argue that
the Marines should drop the F-35B in favor of the F-35C, at least for
carrier-based units. They cite the differing operating characteristics
of the STOVL aircraft and note the C's superiority in range and
weapons load.
"STOVL sub-optimizes CVW [carrier air wing] operations and
capabilities," Navy planners assert in the document, a copy of which
was obtained by Defense News. "STOVL, while capable of CVN operations,
should not be integrated into the CVW as part of a standard
construct."
Shopping Plans
Officials in the Navy Department, which includes the Navy and Marine
Corps, are trying to decide how many of each variant to buy. The Navy
plans to buy a total of 680: 360 F-35Cs and 320 F-35Bs, although the
Marines have a requirement for 420 JSFs.
Early-production F-35As are already five months into flight tests,
while the first F-35B is scheduled to take to the air in 2008, and the
F-35C in 2009.
In the document, Navy planners say the STOVL aircraft will have
"thermal, pressure and acoustic effects more dramatic than models
predict" and refer to issues certifying Marine V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor
aircraft for shipboard operations. Flight deck movement will be
restricted by blast from the aircraft, the planners wrote, and
launching and recovering each STOVL F-35 will add two minutes to the
carrier's flight cycles.
Marine planners are digging in against these assertions, claiming
built-in biases by Navy aviators against STOVL operations. They also
say the briefing misuses and mischaracterizes numerous facts.
In the briefing, the Navy aviation planners list more than a dozen
ways the F-35B short-takeoff-and-landing version will "sub-optimize"
aircraft-carrier operations. Among other things, they say the F-35B
will:
· Offer poorer capability and sustainability at a higher price than
the carrier-optimized F-35C. The Marines say the STOVL aircraft
outperforms the C model in all kinds of missions except carrier-based
ones.
· Reduce flexibility in carrier-deck operations. Marines: That won't
be known until flight tests begin.
· Carry only 70 percent as much fuel as the F-35C. Marines: That
advantage will be reduced by the F-35C's heavier weight, by the -B's
ability to fly from forward bases, and by the fact that the STOVL
version doesn't need to carry backup fuel in case it can't trap aboard
a carrier.
· Not carry a 2,000-pound bomb in its internal bomb bay. Marines: The
F-35B can carry one externally, and weapon is needed for only 15
percent of missions anyway.
· Lack an internally carried, stand-off weapon that can hit enemy
radar. Marines: That could be remedied with the under-development
Small Diameter Bomb.
· Lack an internally carried, stand-off weapon that can hit enemy
ships. Marines: It carriers the Joint Stand-Off Weapon externally.
The use of Marine fighter squadrons in Navy carrier wings is mandated
under the Navy-Marine Corps Tactical Air Integration plan, approved in
2004. By including Marine strike fighters in regular carrier
deployment, each service was able to reduce the number of squadrons
and aircraft. The TacAir plan allowed planners to cut the total
procurement of F-35s and F/A-18 Super Hornets by nearly 500 aircraft,
saving - according to the Navy in 2004 - about $35 billion.
The Marines, committed to an "all-STOVL force," intend to replace the
current crop of AV-8B Harrier jumpjets and F/A-18 Hornets with the
F-35B. Replacement of the Harrier with the JSF is not at issue.
Rather, the problem facing Navy planners is how to manage the STOVL
F-35Bs in a wing otherwise composed of F-35Cs, F/A-18E and -F Super
Hornets and EA-18G Growlers.
The Navy is committed throughout its aviation community to "necking
down" the number of different types of aircraft to a handful of basic
models. Last year, the strike fighter community finished their switch
from the F-14 Tomcat to an all-F/A-18 force. Several observers note
that introducing the F-35 into the -18 mix could strike Navy planners
as counter-productive, and figuring how to use yet another version of
the F-35 would only compound perceived problems.
That notion struck one aviation analyst as silly.
"I've never seen any definitive analysis that says a STOVL aircraft
can't be successfully integrated into a carrier wing," he said. "I
think what you have is this sort of culture in the Navy that says we
just don't do it that way. I'm not convinced [STOVL aircraft] can't
work with air wings."
At the other end of the cultural debate, the Marines argue they didn't
join up to fly from carriers.
"The surface story of blue and green working together is great," said
Dakota Wood, a former Marine officer who is now an analyst with the
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "But the reality is
that [in a carrier wing] you're on Navy time, and the Marine Corps
ground commander is saying, where is my tac air?"
The comparisons of the two JSF versions also struck Wood as "an unfair
comparison. Each version has been optimized for the environment in
which it's to be employed."
"The legitimate argument," he said, "is how you're going to use the
airplane."
Ships Riding on JSF
And while the Navy and Marine Corps continue their debate over the
JSF, at least two members of the 11-nation JSF partnership have a far
deeper interest in the survival of the STOVL plane.
Britain is making an enormous investment - $7.7 billion in ship
construction costs alone - in building two 65,000-metric-ton aircraft
carriers intended to operate the F-35B. Later this year, Italy expects
to commission the 27,000-metric-ton carrier Cavour, specifically
intended to operate JSFs as a replacement for its aging carrier-
capable AV-8B Harriers.
The planned 131-aircraft Italian JSF order - 22 STOVLs and 109
conventional aircraft for the Air Force - is strictly linked to the
need to replace the Harriers, Italian Defense Undersecretary Lorenzo
Forcieri said Jan. 16.
The British are even more dependent on the F-35B, as they have chosen
to build their two carriers without the steam catapults planned for
the French Navy's similar PA2 ship.
Evidence of British concern for the health of the F-35B program was
published by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) April 27. MoD said it
"remained fully committed to the carrier program" but added, "The
department continues to closely monitor the U.S. STOVL requirements
and the performance of the STOVL variant."
With no other STOVL strike fighter in development, loss of the F-35B
would mean British planners could choose to install catapults - early
design work on the ships accounted for this possibility - and decide
between the French Rafale, F/A-18 or another competitor.
British support for the F-35B is seen by many observers as a key
element in the survival of the variant in last year's Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR). Although the QDR was completed over a year ago,
the British carrier program remains a major ingredient in the STOVL
program.
A British government official said Pentagon officials "periodically
seek updates from the British government on the status of the carrier
program - a move that some have suggested has less to do with
Britain's interest in building the ships than whether London is
wavering on the raison d'être for the JSF STOVL program."
Debate Goes On
Inside the Pentagon, Navy and Marine Corps planners continue to debate
the issue, which soon could move to Capitol Hill. Sources close to
service leaders Adm. Mike Mullen of the Navy and Gen. James Conway of
the Marine Corps say both officers are seeking to avoid public
disagreement on the JSF program and other issues and are working to
find common ground.
"This is a 20-year discussion," said an industry analyst. "It's not
going to be over just because the Navy did a briefing."

I wonder if Navy's expeditionary (land-based) squadrons would use
F-35C, or also be equipped with F-35B? It seems there is more inter-
service rivalry in this argument than actual reasoning.

However, I guess USAF F-117A pilots in Desert Storm would not tell
that internally-carried 2,000-pound BLU-109 or GBU had been obsolete
for them, especially in the first days of the war. Then, in such
situations, again Marine guys in their STOVL F-35Bs would have to rely
on their Navy F-35C or F/A-18E/F/EA-18G counterparts as far as deep
interdiction and SEAD are concerned.

Best regards,
Jacek

You may see that you come to way too many variables to cover when you
are dealing with all possible scenarios. What war are you planning to
fight. In Iraq and Afghanistan right now old retired A-4's, A-6's, and
F-4's configured with advanced targeting pods could do just as good as
anything else including the JSF - but the "why" is heavily dependent
upon the fact that there are not sufficient threats (yet) showing up
that would hurt them or any other TACAIR asset that flies and operates
on mission above 5000 feet. Move over into Iran and with the SA-20 and
SA-15's things would change.


wrote in message
ups.com...
I wonder if Navy's expeditionary (land-based) squadrons would use
F-35C, or also be equipped with F-35B? It seems there is more inter-
service rivalry in this argument than actual reasoning.

However, I guess USAF F-117A pilots in Desert Storm would not tell
that internally-carried 2,000-pound BLU-109 or GBU had been obsolete
for them, especially in the first days of the war. Then, in such
situations, again Marine guys in their STOVL F-35Bs would have to rely
on their Navy F-35C or F/A-18E/F/EA-18G counterparts as far as deep
interdiction and SEAD are concerned.

Best regards,
Jacek

In article , Flashnews
writes
You may see that you come to way too many variables to cover when you
are dealing with all possible scenarios. What war are you planning to
fight. In Iraq and Afghanistan right now old retired A-4's, A-6's, and
F-4's configured with advanced targeting pods could do just as good as
anything else including the JSF - but the "why" is heavily dependent
upon the fact that there are not sufficient threats (yet) showing up
that would hurt them or any other TACAIR asset that flies and operates
on mission above 5000 feet. Move over into Iran and with the SA-20 and
SA-15's things would change.

Back in the original invasion in 2003, there were reports of AV-8Bs
operating out of soccer stadiums. STOVL gives you a complete extra
dimension to your operations, proven time and time again.

--
John

On May 2, 10:32 pm, Herbert Viola wrote:
In article .com,

Mike wrote:
· Carry only 70 percent as much fuel as the F-35C. Marines: That
advantage will be reduced by the F-35C's heavier weight, by the -B's
ability to fly from forward bases, and by the fact that the STOVL
version doesn't need to carry backup fuel in case it can't trap aboard
a carrier.

What does this mean?

I think it's suggesting that the STOVL version isn't likely to have
bolters like conventional carrier jets that have to go full A/B and
fly through the pattern again, so the reserve fuel fraction can be
lessened. The old "it's easier to slow down and land than land and
slow down" saw. I'm not sure it's valid, though.

On 3 May, 14:08, Typhoon502 wrote:
On May 2, 10:32 pm, Herbert Viola wrote:

In article .com,

Mike wrote:
· Carry only 70 percent as much fuel as the F-35C. Marines: That
advantage will be reduced by the F-35C's heavier weight, by the -B's
ability to fly from forward bases, and by the fact that the STOVL
version doesn't need to carry backup fuel in case it can't trap aboard
a carrier.

What does this mean?

I think it's suggesting that the STOVL version isn't likely to have
bolters like conventional carrier jets that have to go full A/B and
fly through the pattern again, so the reserve fuel fraction can be
lessened. The old "it's easier to slow down and land than land and
slow down" saw. I'm not sure it's valid, though.

Probably,
ISTR Sea Harriers off an Invincible operating more or less normally
when an accompaning US CVN was completely closed down due to the
weather

guy

In article . com,
guy wrote:
On 3 May, 14:08, Typhoon502 wrote:
On May 2, 10:32 pm, Herbert Viola wrote:

In article .com,

Mike wrote:
· Carry only 70 percent as much fuel as the F-35C. Marines: That
advantage will be reduced by the F-35C's heavier weight, by the -B's
ability to fly from forward bases, and by the fact that the STOVL
version doesn't need to carry backup fuel in case it can't trap aboard
a carrier.

What does this mean?

I think it's suggesting that the STOVL version isn't likely to have
bolters like conventional carrier jets that have to go full A/B and
fly through the pattern again, so the reserve fuel fraction can be
lessened. The old "it's easier to slow down and land than land and
slow down" saw. I'm not sure it's valid, though.

Probably,
ISTR Sea Harriers off an Invincible operating more or less normally
when an accompaning US CVN was completely closed down due to the
weather

I've heard an account of an occasion when that happened from Tim Gedge, so
YRC

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

In article . com, guy
writes
Probably,
ISTR Sea Harriers off an Invincible operating more or less normally
when an accompaning US CVN was completely closed down due to the
weather

In the South Atlantic the Harriers were frequently operating way below
(then) USN minimum visibility.

--
John

wrote:
I wonder if Navy's expeditionary (land-based) squadrons would use
F-35C, or also be equipped with F-35B? It seems there is more inter-
service rivalry in this argument than actual reasoning.

However, I guess USAF F-117A pilots in Desert Storm would not tell
that internally-carried 2,000-pound BLU-109 or GBU had been obsolete
for them, especially in the first days of the war. Then, in such
situations, again Marine guys in their STOVL F-35Bs would have to rely
on their Navy F-35C or F/A-18E/F/EA-18G counterparts as far as deep
interdiction and SEAD are concerned.

The Super Hornet carries exactly as many 2,000 bombs internally as the
F-35B, zero. So it offers no advantage in this area.

Easy prediction: More F-35B delays and the Marines are forced to equip a
few carrier based squadrons with Super Hornets on a temporary basis that
then extends out over a decade.

-HJC

On 4 Maj, 06:33, Henry J Cobb wrote:
The Super Hornet carries exactly as many 2,000 bombs internally as the
F-35B, zero. So it offers no advantage in this area.

I rather meant that a single guided 2,000 lb bomb in the internal bomb
bay in a dense SAM/AAA environment could be very important. Otherwise,
if something to be destroyed is an aircraft shelter or hardened
command post you can send there neither F-35B nor F/A-18E/F, but only
F-35C or at least EW/strike-configured EA-18G.

Easy prediction: More F-35B delays and the Marines are forced to equip a
few carrier based squadrons with Super Hornets on a temporary basis that
then extends out over a decade.

-HJC

The last schedules I heard of we
- 40 carrier-based Navy squadrons, including 22 F/A-18E/F and 18 F-35,
- 360 F-35C for the Navy and 320 F-35B for the Marines.

So, if the Navy really fielded so many squadrons with CVN-JSF, again
more Marine squadrons could return to UDP. I am not sure about the
possibility of Navy-to-Marine F/A-18C/D transfers, however...

Maybe somebody here has any more ideas?

Best regards,
Jacek