Why is the US Navy almost skipping the F-35?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 апр 2022
- Thanks to Keeps for sponsoring this video! Head to keeps.com/binkov to get
50% off your first order of Keeps hair loss treatment.
This video analyzes the current issue of small numbers of F-35C jets that the US Navy is procuring. Why are the numbers so low? How much longer will the F-35C be a rare sight on US aircraft carriers? And why is the Super hornet Navy's plane of choice?
Music by Matija Malatestinic www.malatestinic.com
If you want to watch our videos without ads, if you want quick replies to any questions you might have, if you want early access scripts and videos, monthly release schedules - become our Patron.
More here: / binkov
Suggest country pairs you'd like to see in future videos over at our website: www.binkov.com
You can also browse for other Binkov T-Shirts or Binkov merch, via the store at our website, binkov.com/
Subscribe to Binkov's channel for more videos! / binkovsbatt...
Follow Binkov's news on Facebook! / binkovsbattl...
Follow us on Twitter: / commissarbinkov
Thanks to Keeps for sponsoring this video! Head to keeps.com/binkov to get
50% off your first order of Keeps hair loss treatment.
Hey binkov can you make CHINA VS PHILIPPINES because china is increasing thier naval bases in West Philippines sea
id like to see an episode where its Estonia vs finland
Vietnam Era US Military Forces in WW1
US wish it could send F-35 and other technologies back in time to 1774
@@lorenzventura2978 One Squadron of J-15s can destory every heavy weapon Philipines have.
its money. The USN has new carriers that arent even operational yet being built, new submarines in construction, and new destroyer class being worked on, this while a quarter of the fleet is undergoing maintenance. they just dont have the money left over to buy many new aircraft to sit on a carrier deck thats not operationally ready for them yet. Its like buying new rims for a car you havent bought yet while the bank is repossessing your house.
Hair Los though
There will be enough F-35Cs for all the large carriers.
One of many things missing in this conversation is that USS America and Wasp-class amphibs/F-35B carriers are exercising regularly with the supercarriers.
In war, F-35Bs (US and Allied) and F-35Cs will all automatically network with each other with their long-range sensors to provide a complete common picture to all US and Allied land, air and sea forces in real-time.
Russia can't even get complete air dominance in Ukraine that is right next door.
Money is being wasted and/or worse, how long has 5th gen been in the planning, procurement, integration phases? 30y almost and they need another decade? Look at the abysmal numbers now, three variants when they can’t even produce and procure enough of the first, also still purchasing super hornets/congress pushing that on the military when they decline more is pretty telling itself of what our decision makers mindsets are located. Endless billions of dollars generated and spent and allocated to the military and they’re inefficient more then they have ever been.
Only issue is with the risk of war ever increasing with another world power this could put us at the disadvantage
@@yamadagreg84 😂😂😂😂
A significant issue not mentioned is the extreme difficulty in maintaining LO coatings in a hostile environment. The Marines seem a little less nonplussed by this issue but the Navy has long had grave reservations regarding the ability to maintain LO aircraft in the carrier environment. I don't think this is insignificant.
It's such a pain to properly maintain 5th Gen. Which is why russia only has built like 3 operational 5th Gens lol. They can't afford to maintain even just a few
Came for some f35 info ended worried about my hair loss
The USAF F-117 stealth bomber (it's not a fighter) that was lost over Kosovo was lost because aside from flying a predictable flight routine, it went without the EA-6B jammer that normally covered that area.
Three other big reasons:
1. It was only spotted on radar once it opened its weapons bay
2. The opposing commander had spies who gave him advance warning of the approach.
3. That commander knew to keep moving every 15 minutes or so to try different angles
You nailed it aero z
@@aerozppln …and the opposing commander was competent, diligent, and motivated.
I get the sense we won't know just how effective stealth compared to other traits until the next war happens. So preferably we'll never have an answer to this question.
2000km air-to-ground missiles > stealth.
I know guys in the Navy, they LOVE the F35; seriously love it, their version of the f35 is so different from the airforce/marine's version that there is some "limits" to how many they can buy, also they're limited by number of carriers configured to work with them, but the pilots and brass love the f35. the plane can land without error every time just using the autopilot. taking out almost all the danger of carrier aviation singlehandedly. the problem is they need to retrofit the carrier to operate them properly, which is taking some time, that plus they required some redesigns of the f35 to properly replace the f18 superhornets.
(Asking honestly) What about the one lost near China?
@@charliebrown1006 i think i remember hearing that the landing in that case was on a "normal" carier, meaning it wasn't retrofitted with the propper equipment to allow automated landings, or something to that effect. i'm going by memory here on that one, but I do recall several naval aviators just loving all over the naval edition of the f35. part of their gushing over it is probably because they never really loved the f18 or the superhornet variant, so it probably had a low bar to cross to win them over, but still it did a pretty bang up job doing that.
@@charliebrown1006 One crash occured during a "manual" landing (made for training) because of a pilot mistake, which acted with some commands as if it was an assisted landing. After that I heard that "manual" landing was forbidden, at least for some time, but it should be practiced again sooner or later (or pilots risk to be very lost if one day the equipment guiding them is damaged XD)
Another video suggested something not in this video regarding the Navy's procurement decisions...
That video stated that Navy decision makers placed the highest priority on aircraft "readiness," ie aircraft that can be easily maintained to the point that the aircraft fly and aren't being repaired, updated/upgraded or some other required maintenance. The F-18 Super Hornet is supposed to be superlative, and other competing aircraft just don't have that "uptime" to compare with the F-18. Cost to maintain and fly are the next most important metric and again, the F-18 Super Hornet has a superior track record compared to all other competition.
The Air Force decision makers prioritize performance over everything else, and today there is no answer to stealth. Unless there is a breakthrough in basic physics or some radical, earth shaking discovery, stealth isn't likely going to be overcome. That is why the Air Force is so heavily invested in the F-35A and whatever will succeed the F-22.
Everyone knows of course why the Marines have no misgivings about the F-35B. The Marines highly value STOL/VTOL and the F-35B is the first fully capable supersonic aircraft with short and vertical capabilities.
Bottom line is that every American military service is prioritizing something different to accomplish their mission, and the missions are different enough that the requirements are also very different.
oi!
Performance, quality and effectiveness > Modernity
That's why I respect the Navy.
The situation with the Harrier was so bad that the Marines were reaching out to museums to find replacement parts. When they reached out to some of the museums over in the UK, they were shocked to find out they were still in use.
LOL that is hilarious
The Marine Corps budget is like a starved dog, forced to survive on meager scraps from its better fed compatriots.
This may also explain why they're the fiercest fighters of the branches.
Yup, used to do maintenance on the trainer Harriers and nearly every component was fucked beyond belief.
@@samuelnakai1804 USMC has also outgrown its purpose and has become a redundancy for the Army, Navy and Air Force. The only almost-unique characteristic is that they have an extra focus on expeditionary capabilities.
As far as I'm concerned, DOD should repurpose them into their original role instead of having them be a gimped version of the other branches and cut down the beaurocracy in the process.
"The situation with the Harrier was so bad that the Marines were reaching out to museums to find replacement parts. When they reached out to some of the museums over in the UK, they were shocked to find out they were still in use."
...Yeah, no. First of all, the Brits were still flying Harrier variants up until 2011. Secondly, *_the USMC still operates squadrons of AV-8s right now in April of 2022._* Want to know who else also does? Spain and Italy. The UK actually retired their Harrier fleet and... didn't replace it with anything for years. They still haven't, really, with only just now getting enough F-35Bs to have *_multiple_* F-35B squadrons operational. So for the better part of almost a decade the British were building and putting aircraft carriers into service that they had nothing to put on them with.
Also? The bit about museums? Ehh... Nah. Most Harriers that are in museums are much, much older generation Harriers which really limits what you can use, as well as them being usually high hour (read: old and highly used) flight hour aircraft. Usually anything really useful (as well as sensitive as far as information/security goes) is removed far and well ahead of time before the aircraft goes to a museum. *_There have been accounts of this actually happening, however._* Back in 2016 the USAF was actually calling up museums and places that had static displays of B-1A and B-1B bombers and seeing what they could get on the aircraft. Generally it was incredibly small and significant pieces. Nothing large or critical components of the aircraft or parts of the actual fuselage.
Looking at the designs of the Boeing X-32 and the LM X-35 at 5:35 I cannot possibly imagine how anybody ever thought the X-32 could have a chance at winning.
It looks like it has a “huhuhuhu” laugh
When comparing aircraft use between the services, one MAJOR point always overlooked: Carrier based airplanes have to have beefier suspension to handle the launch and wire recovery (I.e., controlled crash)
There's a pretty cool video on here somewhere showing the difference between USAF landing their planes and how the Navy does it, which shows you exactly why your comment matters. Essentially, Navy pilots slam the plane down and USAF gently glide it down.
10:08 This video brought up an important aspect without going into much detail about it. "Stealth" isn't just about one plane's radar signature, but also offensives against the enemy's electronics so that they can't detect anything as easily.
The very first deployment of a squadron of F-35C was just completed and the US Navy assessment was, Strike group commander Rear Adm. Dan Martin said “This is just a complete change, with a near-peer competitor, with activity that is in the air, on the surface of the sea and below the surface of the sea,” he added. “You have to shape the air wing to best handle that activity.”
Martin said the F-35 squadrons should “get bigger.”
"The very first deployment of a squadron of F-35C was just completed"
In February.
the boeing was just too ugly to win
Just to put timelines into perspective: The Rhino entered USN service in 1999, replacing Tomcats. It wasn't until 2020 when the Rhino replaced all Hornets, creating a Rhino/Growler-dominated fleet.
It never had the payload or range necessary to meet the Navy's mission requirements. They had more than 20 years to realize this and did nothing. It's a real head scratcher.
The navy was forced to buy the f 35. The F 35 is not a navy plane (single engine) it was a political purchase.
I think you're just paroting some piere sprey nonsense.
F-35C can carry more ordinance, and significantly further, than either the F-18E or F-14D.
It is interesting to note that the JSF contract required a single engine in its terms and conditions for a winning bid.
I also thought it was pretty interesting, considering it was my understanding that the Navy prefers twin engine craft for reliability and pilot safety.
@@OneMoreDesu that just means the engines degrade at differebt rates and fly asymmetrically. Planes are more reliable than ever.
@@aaron6268 Not really, no. Any slight difference in efficiency is easily tuned out, either by engine maintenance, or worst case, by throttle control adjustment.
Single engine aircraft fall out of the sky a lot more. But they are cheaper to operate.
Do you have any idea how many F-16's have fallen out of the sky?
That said, the F-35's engine is proving to be 'extremely' reliable.
@@OneMoreDesu Navy didn't think that. What they thought bolts tightening can get confusing.
@@aaron6268 That's why every naval requirement since the Vietnam war has required twin engines up until the F-35? I don't just day things cause I feel it, unlike yourself, clearly.
Every time I read the comments on pop history/military channels like these, I thank God that people with actual brains are running our procurement and R&D.... and they've decided to keep making the F-35.
I suspect the F 35 has a lot of flaws I don’t think it’s ever going to come anywhere near as advertise the fact is I think even at this point by which I mean right now I think that the technology the F 35 has is already been superseded by other nations with certain aircraft. The reason the F 35’s been pushed discuss some company who donated a lot to the coffers of people running for office made a lot of donations so they’re going to keep making a plane that quite frankly it’s a bunch of junk.
@@Americanpatriot-zo2tk Right... which is why there are a mere handful of these "certain aircraft" including SU-57 and J-20, but ~800 F-35 in service with the US. Just saying.
@@YukarisGearReviews "but ~800 F-35 in service with the US."(sic)
~800 in service with 9 foreign operators in addition to the Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy.
@@AA-xo9uw most of which with the US
@@EmperorLionflame ok boomer
Great video. As to "Could Russian military take Japan if it wanted to?", as of, today 20/4/22, I'm going to say no.
yeah, thats a hard no.
@@deankruse2891 🤣
7:19 Lol, imagine saying an Admiral that they're good and parliament just says nah, you need more xD
How many F-18 Super Hornets does it take to down a single F-35? We will never know because that has never happened at Red Flag.
Of course it hasn't. It's not allowed.
Another thing worth noting is the C variant is only used by USN and USMC the B and A are used by many nations around the globe
This is important - it's the reason why the A model is roughly comparable with the cost of the Super Hornet.
France was interested in procuring the C, and potentially India. But India's carrier with CATOBAR is some time away, and IDK what's wrong with France.
@@anguswaterhouse9255 national pride + FCAS are the main reasons
@@logannicholson1850 Yeah, but FCAS is a decade and a bit away.
Then again, not buying something better due to national pride is a very French thing to do.
Those Growlers. Great planes they are. Cheers Binkov.
Love Binkov!
Simple answer, as the Navy learned in the 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s and 1990s, "one size fits all" planes do not serve the Navy well. This is exactly what we are seeing in the F 35C, which is exactly what we said when the F 35C was announced.
It makes no sense to spend more for the same thing you were already flying in terms of initial purchase price, operating cost, spare parts, and production costs when the marginal increase in capability will be surpassed in just a few years by hopefully a much more capable plane designed specifically for carrier operations.
Also another point to the argument is that if the navy is all about projecting power across the world and dissuading others from misbehaving, how important is stealth really especially when it costs billions on the long run
@@OptimisticNihilist15 Especially against China, where most of the Navy's job will be carrying out a distant blockade and hunting down isolated Chinese sea assets. Aircraft carriers would never be anywhere near the coast.
You say that, but this is the Navy embracing their one size fits all F-18E/Fs
If the F-35 is used as some kind of quarterback... you do not really need a ton of those to make a difference.
It is meant to improve the capabilities of everything around it (air, sea, ground) and it also might extend the life expectancy of (advanced) 4th gen fighters.
Those would be used as bomb/missile trucks while an F-35 would be acting like a scout... spotting targets left and right.
My biggest complaint with the F35 so far aside from a mountain of technical problems is that nobody could really decide what it was. I'm sick of people calling it a fighter when it's trying to be everything else at the same time without having at least the decisiveness to call itself a multi-role. I wish the Air Force would make up their mind already.
@@Gamerguy826 its an airframe that can take on a number of different rolls while being true stealth and the ability to be mass produced. it is lightyears better than any 4th gen platform in the scheme of the warmachine. it isn't built to win drag races or maneuverability contests.
@@deankruse2891 "its an airframe that can take on a number of different rolls while being true stealth and the ability to be mass produced."
I didn't think that level of bullshit was possible. The F35 was never designed AT ALL to be mass produced. It was designed to replace the F22 and failed miserably and the world is laughing at us for it. You also just proved my point that the F35 is a multi-role in denial when it's supposed to be a fighter. Oddly enough the F4 Phantom had the opposite problem. It was a shit tier fighter but could have been pretty nice as a strike bomber. The Air Force is retarded.
1 F-35 gives an F/A-18 flight 4x the processing power, more sensors and the ability to have 1 member of the flight charge in headfirst to find targets SAFELY.
The USN just replaced all the legacy Hornets so they aren’t in that big of a rush
If you ever feel stupid, just look at some of the comments people leave on RUclips videos about the F-35. I promise you, you’ll leave feeling more confident in yourself.
Can confirm
ikr, they have so many strawman arguments that aren't even relevan,t and the info they claim is often wrong
EARLY BINKOV LETS GOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
As an ex-Navy carrier sailor, I can say that the very concept of single engine airplanes was soundly ridiculed. When you are in the middle of the ocean, having your one engine quit results in an ejection and crash... you can not land on a carrier with no engine. The F-4, A-6, F-14 and F/A-18 are all dual engine.
Also, the Navy likes the availability of a 2 person crew aircraft, which the F-18 offers in the Growler version. There is no such thing as a two crew F-35 aside for non-combat trainers. In the Navy, because of the limits of a carrier you have to do much more with much less. One aircraft often does the job of 3 or more Air Force aircraft, which is too much for a pilot to do by himself and not become overloaded, hence the 2 seat version.
Rubbish, single engine failure equals crash everywhere. Middle of the ocean isn’t even a bad place for rescue.
didn't the navy adopt the A4, A7, and F8 crusader? not disputing the dislike for single engines but clearly looking at past record the navy is willing and interested in single engine designs.
though, this is looking back a bit far and ALL of these were replaced by 18's for the same reasoning you gave earlier.
There are zero twin-seat F-35 variants.
What you say here is totally understandable.
HOWEVER . . in recent years some important studies have been done, which have challenged the (very logical and obvious) idea of twin-engined safety.
It's a long and complex discussion, but to summarise: Basically in order to make a twin-engined aircraft there are a whole range of complexities and awkward compromises that have to be built into the airframe. The ironic thing about this is that these complexities are more likely to result in a failure than a single engine is to fail.
An important data point for the debate is the fact that aircraft losses in single engined combat aircraft like the F-16 are rarely due to engine failure. There are plenty of OTHER things to go wrong, obviously, but modern high-tech engines don't tend to be the issue.
The two person crew IS an issue.
@@jansix4287 Yes, but you can still carrier arrest a two engine aircraft with a single engine, but you can't even try to carrier arrest a no engine aircraft. In modern aircraft, ditching = ejection, a highly risky event to be avoided.
Cute little Binkov was a MiG-29 pilot during the cold war, claiming to have shot down F-15s, F-18 Hornets and a dragon. During the debriefing the men smelled
alcohol on his breath and poor Binkov got no credit for the dragon.
The adorable frog went on to found the Russian Top Gun regiment but could never shake the rumor that he was just a puppet.
After numerous affairs with young women, thanks to his Rasputin-like abilities, he was transferred to Siberia where he wrote "Quiet Riot on the
Western Front," "War and Peas," and "Anna Karenina Gets a Black Eye."
After his books got bad Yelp reviews he retired and now drives a taxi in New York, muttering that he's gonna have to drive a stupid taxi until he croaks.
Occasionally he gets pulled over by the cops and they beat the stuffing out of him.
These are his 3 favorite books:
- Beyond Science Fiction by Michael Whelan
- The Richest Man in Babylon by George S Clason
- Great Fighter Jets of the Galaxy 1 by Tim Gibson
F-35C vastly outranges Super Hornet, and the stealth is a game-changer and makes it much better than SH, not to mention the much better avionics. And I assume production limitations are a reason too. Lockmart is making some 140 aircraft a year, and there's way more A orders than Cs. This means there's over a decade of orders ahead, so the Navy will be happy to just wait for more advanced Blocks with software upgrades, the Sidekick so it can carry 6 AMRAAMs internally, and other minor upgrades. Then they can either jump on more modern F-35C orders, or F/A-XX if that goes well.
"F-35C vastly outranges Super Hornet"
It does not. The Block III CFTs on the Super Hornet extend the combat radius by 260nm. The previous combat radius of the E/F models was 390nm in a HLLH parameter with 4,000 pounds of bombs, all related TPGs and 2x AIM-9s (meaning an actual useful and meaningful ordnance loadout). Since I can do math and you clearly can't, I'll just let you know this adds up to a 650nm combat radius. The F-35C, on the other hand, has no data for its range with an ordnance payload -likely because it would be rather embarrassing- for national security reasons, of course. But the current combat radius given by the HASC report on the F-35C in 2018 - which is about as good as golden as you can get - is 670nm. Again, without any idea of an ordnance payload. I'll just say that, um, a difference of 20 nautical miles... is not "vastly outranging" in anyone's vocabulary. Meaning that you don't actually believe this, but you just gobbled up the propaganda - hook, line and sinker and just regurgitated it like a parrot without even doing 10 seconds worth of internet searching to see if what you read was even true. Which, of course, it isn't.
"and the stealth is a game-changer and makes it much better than SH"
...Eh... Well... No, not really. First of all, the Super Bug Block IIIs are much more low observable than baseline Hornets, and even further improved over the baseline Super Hornet. Frontal aspect especially. Which is good, because the F-35 is also not full aspect stealth (people have argued against this, and I continue to laugh at their fanboy cope).
For reference:
imgurDOTGOESHEREcom/gallery/cNbMVUi
Now, the slightly more intelligent (well, by comparison) F-35 fanboys might attempt to grow a brain and argue that these figures do not account for RAM. And, well, that's true *_to an extent._* RAM is also not magic, it doesn't just solve issues with your overall RCS problems otherwise we'd be slapping RAM on B-52s and making them into "stealth bombers" instead of spending billions on a B-2 and B-21. I digress. The problem with that is, we've already seen that the F-35Bs and F-35Cs operating on carriers/amphibious assault ships have been having their RAM coating deteriorate and appear "moldy green" (if you don't believe me, go and search for "Aviation18" on RUclips and "F-35 mold" - it's documented and known about). This is actually the RAM being attacked by sea water and spray and oxidizing and doing other fun chemical things. There's a problem with this. Two-fold, actually: 1.) It lets our enemies know our RAM chemical make-up because you can tell what chemicals are making this happen and with what. 2.) That happening on the skin/RAM means the coating is losing so much effectiveness that it might as well not even be there. Anything sticking to, chemically altering or growing on the RAM means it's compromised as much as paint that's peeling off of a rusted car. There's a reason why the B-2 is in a climate controlled hangar whenever it's not flying.
"not to mention the much better avionics"
Yes and no. Part of the problem is that the F-35's sensor suite is internal and so is the TGP system it utilizes. It's not modular. You can't swap things in and out as necessary or how the mission requirements dictate. And upgrading is neigh impossible without *_very_* costly redesigns. Whereas, with the Super Hornet... you just put a newer TGP on the pylon. Is it as stealthy? No. Is it more useful for actually doing what you need to do - like dropping bombs on the enemy? Yes.
All the stealth in the world doesn't matter if what you have doesn't bring to the table what you need. The F-117 was quite the stealthy aircraft, especially for its time. It also had no where near the payload to be useful.
"Lockmart"
Unintentionally correct. Lockheed is like Walmart, only with more scandals, bribery and arms trafficking violations.
@@matchesburn Finally, someone who gets it. There's nothing wrong with the FA/18 Super Hornet. They should never replace it with the F35. I hope it stays in service forever. I love it.
@@matchesburn Incredible how you downplayed almost every massive benefit of the f-35.
“Super hornets are much more low observable than baseline hornets”
True yet almost meaningless when equipped with a standard air to air role which greatly amplifies the RCS. The f-35’s rcs gives it a 10x smaller radar detection range vs the f-18 which is a HUGE advantage, it cannot be stressed.
“The F-35 is not full aspect stealth”
Yes it is - with RAM coatings, edge alignment of the wing and stabilator trailing edges, and the LO RF and IR nozzle. It’s certainly less stealthy on the rear but it is most definitely full aspect stealth.
The avionics of the F-35 are most certainly more advanced than the super hornet, the much larger and more advanced radar which is fused with its EW suite. Not to mention the DAS, which makes it the only aircraft to fully operate in the IR spectrum. It has around 650 parameters to identify a threat, the next aircraft that gets close is F-22 with 216.
The f-35 doesn’t require modular changes to its sensors for mission requirements, it already has everything. A more powerful EW suite , radar, RWR and DAS (which can allow it to see through the plane, and detect missile launches from far away).
Not to mention, The F-35 has various other capabilities that simply don't exist in the F-18. Some, but not all, examples: ELINT, EW, AWACS in contested airspace, J-STAR in contested air-space, imaging recon, electronic recon, co-opted use of distributed weapons systems including land, sea & other air asset weapons, deep strike into defended airspace, close support in defended airspace.
“RAM coatings being oxidised at sea”
Not quite, on glance it looks like some form of corrosion on F-35’s stealth coatings but It’s more likely dirt and grease stuck onto the airframe, something not too rare on aircraft operating from aircraft Carrier as you can see the condition of other F-18s.
And the F-35s newer and more advanced ram coating doesn’t require it to be in climate controlled hangers like the 80s coating on the B-2 Spirit. The same goes for the B-21 raider which will enter service in the next few years. It’s not likely it effects the stealth capabilities to some major degree.
@@Gamerguy826 F-18 super hornet is a solid 4th gen aircraft, may even be the best carrier borne. But it is completely outclassed by the F-35.
@@remulsive9558
"incredible how you downplayed almost every massive benefit of the f-35"
Because they're either non-existent or no where near as large as the F-35 fanboys wish to pretend that they are.
"True yet almost meaningless when equipped with a standard air to air role which greatly amplifies the RCS. The f-35’s rcs gives it a 10x smaller radar detection range vs the f-18 which is a HUGE advantage, it cannot be stressed."
And yet also a moot point given the F-35's limited internal weapons bay. F-35 external pylons are a thing and will be used operationally because as it stands now a Super Bug is able of carrying more ordnance on pylons than an F-35 can internally. Also? Again, the "muh stealth" argument is moot as well due to the corrosion of the RAM coatings happening at sea.
"Yes it is - with RAM coatings, edge alignment of the wing and stabilator trailing edges, and the LO RF and IR nozzle. It’s certainly less stealthy on the rear but it is most definitely full aspect stealth."
No, it isn't. First of all, if you think that engine nozzle is low IR, you're drinking the Lockheed Kool-Aid something fierce. Don't drink that, it's not good for you. Secondly, the nozzle is not low-observable, and if you don't believe me (and you definitely don't, because you are clearly a fanboy), lemme ask you this and give you some wicked cognitive dissonance: what is the engine nozzle? A huge, circular, opening. What is inside of that opening? Tons and tons of small radar reflectors. Notice on actual full-aspect aircraft - like the F-117, B-2, F-22A, YF-23, X-45, X-47B, X-36, Boeing Bird of Prey, Boeing X-32 JSF competitor (and believe me, it takes a lot for me to defend that monstrosity, but yes, it was full-aspect while the F-35 IS NOT) and arguably the Boeing Model 853 Quiet Bird (which has a more conventional engine nozzle like the F-35 does, but is recessed and shadowed by the V-tail to limit radar returns). What do all these aircraft have in common? They don't have an exposed conventional engine nozzle like the F-35 does. Oh, don't mistake what I just wrote - they DO have exposed engine nozzles in most cases - they are not CONVENTIONAL, however, like the F-35's is (read: big, circular, exposed, not recessed).
And because I know that enough isn't proof: imgurDOTHEREcom/gallery/cNbMVUi - enjoy those sour grapes and unease of the crippling cognitive dissonance.
"The avionics of the F-35 are most certainly more advanced than the super hornet"
...Depends on what avionics you're talking about. TGP? Uh... No. SI? Yeah - for now. Radar? Yeah, for now. The problem with your argument is there is nothing regarding the avionics that is not something that could not be adapted to other aircraft - either internally or in pods.
"The f-35 doesn’t require modular changes to its sensors for mission requirements, it already has everything. A more powerful EW suite , radar, RWR and DAS (which can allow it to see through the plane, and detect missile launches from far away).
Not to mention, The F-35 has various other capabilities that simply don't exist in the F-18. Some, but not all, examples: ELINT, EW, AWACS in contested airspace, J-STAR in contested air-space, imaging recon, electronic recon, co-opted use of distributed weapons systems including land, sea & other air asset weapons, deep strike into defended airspace, close support in defended airspace."
Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Yeah. Uh-huh. Say, while you're gushing about your love affair... can you point me to where the ALQ-99 and/or ALQ-249 systems are on the F-35? Just curio- Oh, wait. I guess the EA-18 is still more capable in that regard, then. Oh no...
"Not quite, on glance it looks like some form of corrosion on F-35’s stealth coatings but It’s more likely dirt and grease stuck onto the airframe, something not too rare on aircraft operating from aircraft Carrier as you can see the condition of other F-18s."
LOL, cope. That is not dirt and grease ON TOP OF THE AIRFRAME. That's corrosion/oxidization from ocean spray. And you're smart enough to know that, if the Lockheed Kool-Aid wasn't kicking in.
"And the F-35s newer and more advanced ram coating doesn’t require it to be in climate controlled hangers like the 80s coating on the B-2 Spirit. The same goes for the B-21 raider which will enter service in the next few years. It’s not likely it effects the stealth capabilities to some major degree."
Yeah, it doesn't require it, but it also doesn't work throughout a normal deployment without it being damaged. So... What's the point? Also? Again, *_IT IS_* oxidization of some sort, and oxidization is building and covering the RAM. That COMPLETELY negates the RAM wherever that coating is. And, you're also smart enough to know that just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. Plenty of surface rust can be found on something in cracks and crevices when examined closely.
Worse for your argument, still? Even if that was "dirt," and it isn't, that... would still be compromising the stealth of the aircraft.
Bink looks as fuzzy as the day I first saw him. That seems like a good reason to trust his advice on hair loss products.
The fact is money is always an issue. Like you say the Super Hornets are much newer, and currently cheaper to operate. It makes sense to get a full lifespan out of those planes, and use them for the bulk of day to day flying, while incrementally replacing the oldest examples with the F35C as they age out. As purchase and maintenance costs continue to drop it'll become easier to do that as well, and as you say That leaves room to pivot to the NGAD fighters, rather than at that point replacing relatively new F35s.
Navy normally leans on twin engine airframes.
The Muppet with the Russian General's uniform got me hooked. :-)
Those Super Hornets look gorgeous!
Fun Fact: The Navy must redo the flatop on all their carriers to accommodate the F-35. I work in Seattle media, and when the USS Theodore Roosevelt came into port at Bremerton last summer to dry dock for a refit, I had the opportunity to be there as it arrived. I interviewed the carrier's media officer (a Seahawk pilot with an Army Airborne patch... "I got bored jumping out of aircraft and decided to fly them, so I transferred into Naval aviation"). He told me that the F-35 was the first single jet engine aircraft the Navy has used in decades, and because all that heat and thrust normally coming out of two engines was now concentrated in one, it was damaging the flatops so they all need to be replaced and upgraded to handle it.
Kind of sounds like the AF and the F22-F15 saga where they basically figured the cost of having the entire fleet stealth isn't worth the costs. Growlers definitely make it less of a need for all Navy planes.
I also wonder if the salty operating environment is really harsh on the F35's coatings. I think it's fair to speculate that the next Navy fighter will prioritize more stealth features (internal weapons capability, air frame geometry), it will probably do more so with integrated electronic warfare capabilities.
The USMC is NOT replacing F-18s with F-35Bs. They’re replacing F-18s with F-35Cs. The USMC operates both variants.
"The USMC is NOT replacing F-18s with F-35Bs"(sic)
Yet that's exactly what has happened with VMFA-121, VMFA-122, VMFA-225 and VMFA-242.
Stay tuned, you might actually learn something, pogue.
👍AWESOME AWESOME VID. HAD KNOW IDEA👊
Is navy waiting for a twin engined fighter?
Based on the numbers presented it appears that the USN decided that rather than go all in with the F-35 it would rather continue to justify operating its 11 CVNs. The price differential now between F/A-18 E/Fs and F-35Cs is such that running 50-60 F/A-18s saves enough to keep their target CVN operating strength intact without grumbling from Congress.
I would have made the same decision frankly.
The 11 CVNs is actually mandated by Congress. In fact, when the USS Ford was delayed the Navy had to get specific permission to drop down to 10 active carriers so they could decommission the USS Enterprise at the end of her life.
Many times the Navy has proposed decommissioning whichever carrier is next up for refueling in order to save not only the cost of the RCOH but 25 years of operating expenses. Each time Congress has rejected that idea.
Super Bug production will likely end by the end of CY2023 and the fly away cost of the final 12 new build airframes that Congress just added will likely equal if not exceed that of a F-35C.
Hum, interesting, the drone concept is wining minds and hearts of brass ..
Jets are also A LOT more expensive to take care of over the ocean due to corrosion. And especially for a jet with the specialized stuff the F-35 has, that's a tough thing to do.
I was about to say that, as the Stealth coating would be a challenge to keep intact and harder to get to the carrier without issue
I'd say it has something to do with the maintenance costs too. The navy has to invest in new ships and refits for the existing ones. Now buying expensive planes (don't forget that you get them relatively cheap but the maintenance eats all the money) for ships will push those costs even higher.
For what exactly am I talking about: Operating an F-35 in europe or the US is eating money on maintenance, now imagine it in the desert or ocean. Those two environments require you to replace parts more often and as someone said could also reduce the stealth factor if not maintained properly.
Makes sense. A major reason the Navy retired the F-14 was the maintenance required. It would not surprise me if they want to avoid being in the same situation where only half their airframes were flight worthy again.
I'll tell you why at least in part the "5th gen" will be the shortest lived gen aircraft. The human G factor in current technology is a significant engineering calculus that's why in my opinion the 6th gen will be last human G factor to have to be designed around this performance limiting factor.
Good point
Is all about money. The navy isn’t an Air Force. It’s a Navy, that comes first. Paying for new carriers and other ships comes before the planes themselves.
The Airforce is an airforce. They only have to worry about have the best of the best planes.
Something overlooked is that the C variant would always be the least produced variant. Outside of the US, the only other nation that has a need for a CATOBAR plane that is friendly to the US is France. Other Navies would use the B variant.
And France would definitely not buy US planes.
@@stupidbro2301 true. France has its own carrier based aircraft and is developing new ones together with germany.
One size fits all rarely ever works. Commonality is one thing, but if there are any hold-ups along the way, everything comes crashing down.
Super hornet is a one size fits all
Great video - one correction. You say that its a long tradition that a few Marine units train to operate from carriers - All marine aviators in winged fighter craft train to land and operate off of carriers.
Currently only one of twelve Marine VMFA squadrons are augmented to CVWs - VMFA 314. That doesn't include the F-35B pilots who will embark aboard LHAs/LHDs only. All fixed wing Marine fighter pilots currently get carrier qual'd in flight school in the T-45 but once they get to the FRS few will ever make it to the boat. There's been no plan for the two additional Marine F-35C squadrons to be absorbed into the TACAIR Integration Plan. Only four - VMFA-314, VMFA-311, VMFA-251 and VMFA-115 - will continue to qual to operate aboard CVNs.
Thx bro
Having just one engine ticks off Naval Aviators. They know that mechanical problems happen & while you're over an ocean it's nice to have a backup propulsion system to get you home.
Superhornet might have a career like the A 4
I agree with some only the money comments but some seem to be missing the bigger picture that’s really two fold. Logistics of introducing large number of new planes. (The F-18 is covering almost every small plane role in the navy, to switch out completely has to be a plane that can do more otherwise you have to supply parts and train Mai ten rounds crews for more than one plane.) Also, historically, since the introduction of multi-engine the bevy has NEVER wanted to bet the bank on a single engine plane. At sea in a short range fighter landing sites are very limited and single engine planes simply go down more often. Risking not only the finite resource of an expensive plane but the finite resource of a carrier trained aviator too.
I wish they'd kept the A-6. Absolutely gorgeous airframe.
From what i can gather, I am beginning to think that the US Navy just wants the F-35 to complement the F/A-18 Superhornet.
The USN already asked to halt Super Hornet production last year as they think it's a waste to purchase aircraft that will become obsolete by 2050.
You're not incorrect. I know the channel Battle order has a video of it, but the average USN Carrier will have 3 squadrons SHornets, 1 Squadron F35, 1 Squadron Helo, 1 Squadron Logistics and AWACS. (Ie 36 Hornets, 12 F35s) Helis, attatched
It’s money, the Navy has a fresh-carrier which is having problems along with new submarines in construction and a new destroyer class in the making. Sure they can spend enough money to have enough F-35’s, but having that fully working carrier is simply much more important and because it’s so costly they are being cautious with buying fresh and pretty much non-tested planes. It’s likely that they’ll get cheaper and older but modernized planes, perhaps with a small amount of F-35’s which will just be enough to change the game when a battle comes.
Lol not even remotely true.
F-35Cs will be on every navy supercarrier.
IMO the F-35 will make up 1 squadron on each carrier like how the Tomcats used to, the F/A-18's are cheaper but for tough targets the F-35's will be called upon.
Yeah that logic statement I don't get at the end. Why would the navy bet on an aircraft they won't see in numbers till the 2040s vs capabilities they need probably in 2030s.
The F-35C gives the USN interim capabilites while the FA/XX will their main platform. For now the F-35C helps relieve the stress of out the maxed out F-18 fleet
As much as Boeing's design for the JSF looks goofy from the front, the wing-plan is gorgeous! Especially the 'A' variant.
Right ! It sure looks goofy !
My mind was blown learning the USN has F16's
Yup, for dissimilar air combat training.
well navy already order 273 ish f35c so they would have enough planes to put 2 squadron of 12 planes onto each of there carriers with the rest being superhornet and growler that would deffinitly be enough for the navy for the time being until ngad comes into play.
Long story short: US Navy Super Hornet fleet is younger than USAF or USMC fighter fleets.
So US Navy doesn't need replacement as soon as USAF or USMC.
Only 4 su57. Im dead. Lmao😂😂
I keep thinking the F-35A and F-35C were developed to subsidize the F-35B. The F-35B is an absolute miracle of design and technology. My criticism of the F-35 is that the Air Force and Navy could have designed much different aircraft with greater capabilities at a lower cost had they not been tied to a VTOL frame. The F-35B is exactly what the Marine Corps, the British and Japanese navies need for their small carriers. I just think the USAF and USN can do better. Apparently, the US Navy brass shares my opinion.
perhaps their thinking is to wait on the F/A-XX and not "settle" for an F-35 that doesn't do exactly what they want it to do, and meanwhile the F/A-18 is "good enough"
I say this as an American and a huge fan of aviation period. But the B was kind a a rip off of the Yak-141. Obviously much more modern and better avionics than late area Soviet technology. But the basic mechanics of the lift fan and rotating engine are yak-141
@@dominicsanchez2972 Originality might mean something in the world of art, but when you design a better weapon, you should expect a potential adversary to steal and improve on your ideas. If I remember, the Yak-141 didn't just have a lift fan, but a couple of small turbojets. That was "old hat" even before the Soviets were thinking about building an aircraft carrier.
Fact is, that without F-35B there's no reason, why AF could not fly airframe identical to Navy.
@@piotrd.4850 AF planes don't need the robust landing gear of carrier planes, nor do they need folding wings. This is what makes navy planes much more expensive to AF planes. The USN also has a preference for multi-engine fighters. They say that the USN has been dragging their feet on acquiring the F-35C, because the Brass really doesn't like it.
I think the F-35B is exactly what the Marine Corps needs. I just think the USAAF and USN could have got better aircraft at a lower cost.
Super hornets combined with F35s are a very powerful combination. More powerful IMO than completely replacing the super hornets and without the huge costs it would take
Cause it's not that bad of a design, but it gives out the option on attacking the makers so there needs to be a counter when it evolves in a not too distant allie becoming a foe.
Funny. 2 F35 costs more than my country's entire dafance budget😅😅😅.
Where
@@solariangeopolitics9944 Georgia
@@tornikekhojashvili2432 Dam 🌝
@@adithyabs3410 yahh sucks. We had 1,2bilion $afret the warr with Russia in 2008 but in 2012 pro Russian government came in power and cut our army's bols. Now we just have enough to feed troops and gave good uniforms 😭😭😭
@@tornikekhojashvili2432 isn't Georgia a state
Just guessing, but sea salt and stealth coating are not a good mix.
The airframe life estimate by the Navy/Marine Corps was reduced from 40 years to. 10..!
@@raywhitehead730 Is that based on catapult system or environmental?
Don't know Ben but the source said, US Navy. The last timed out airframe I flew to the bone yard had .2 hours past the 10,000 flight hours. You could stick a pencil with your hand in the landing gear
I’d guess that they are re-examining how many Ford class carriers they actually want to build, given changing naval strategy and tactics.
Some of those planes are so old that it's dangerous to fly them? Nah, don't worry. Poland will buy them in bulk and fly in them for another 30 years.
13:38 I'm not so optimistic that it will take a decade or even more. Let's hope I'm wrong
Meh. Recent development showed the US Navy that drones and loitering munitions can get you the same results with far less cost or storage space.
The F-35 with its sensors and abilities should not be used as a spearhead assaulting element but rather as a stealthy command and control for these drone squads, minimizing the risk for the crews.
Also, you'll need far fewer airframes for such tasks.
In terms of space- you can box hundreds of these drones folded in the place of a single jet, and loitering munition can be stored in hives.
In a confined space of a ship that is a big plus.
Even if the USN pair down their F35C order book, it will take until at least 2050 before the next gen fighters are fully rolled out: because it is a superior platform than the F18, but can ‘quarterback’ much of its capabilities onto 4th gen platforms like the Hornets/Growlers and also team with autonomous planes, the best guess is that the USN navy will still want - at a minimum - one F35C squadron per super carrier over the next 30 years. Even with only 10-12 airframes per CAG, that would still mean a combined USN/Marine F35C order book of in excess of 200 airframes (allowing for shore based training planes, spares and and the like). My best guess is that the combined ~330 airframe plan will remain in tact. The marines might however cut 50 to 100 airframes off their final F35B order (however countries like Korea, japan, Singapore, Australia may actually fill that void), but that’s another story.
Don’t think the F-35B gets enough credit. STOVL is a a fantastic capability to have.
Horseshit. Problem is people are too shy to criticize The Marines, "tradition", and the romantic sexiness of the vertical thing. In practicality, we give up so much functionality for STOVL, and in the end the F35B is marginally more effective in CAS - Marine aviation's primary mission role, and where stealth is little needed - than the Harrier they replaced. The Harrier replacement should have been a completely separate design, or better yet: let the Navy/Air Force do what they do and the Marines concentrate on Amphibious Assault.
@@whyno713 What functionality is the Marine Corps giving up? Also, how is a stealth fight/bomber only marginally better? I don't see a non-stealth jet doing very well in contested air space over China. Then you say let the Marines focus on amphibious assault? Close air support is essential to a successful amphibious assault, and its better that the Marine Corps have its own jets for this instead of relying on other branches that have their own goals.
@@dalanjackson3753 The F35B has a short range it is less nimble it doesnt have internal guns it carries less payloads it is less impressive in dogfights or air to air comoared to other variant. F35B will mostly be on frontlines because they are deployed to Assault Ships and we expect an enemy with an air force not like taliban or isis so thinking that it wouldnt need good air to air capability is a mistake. The competitors are also testing their 5th gen fighters assuming that they can have equal electronics and stealth they would surely prevail because based on designs their aircrafts are already more nimble atleast compared to the B variant of F35.
Yeah F-35B gave the program a worthwhile results (A and C variant could have been a F-22 modernized without much problems).
Having a polyvalent modern STOVL plane is already amazing, for it to have stealth is the icing on the cake.
@@whyno713 I don't care about the Marines or their traditions, but having one of the best fighter jet with STOVL capabilities is just amazing for the US. If this tech was so popular and studied in the past it was because in case of a big war airfields and carriers could be destroyed/damaged very fast, making standard jets useless. Imagine against China in the pacific, unless they nuke airfields it will be impossible to completly prevent their usage by F-35B.
6:19 that is a cool design. A mix between the F-14 Tomcat and F-22 Raptor would fit in perfectly as an experimental aircraft in Ace Combat.
Hell yea, that's badass!!
Its a pretty redundant design considering the swept wings would render the stealth capabilities of the F-22 moot
@@charleslynch340 And better flight control systems.
"...some [Hornets] are so old they're literally unsafe to fly." [Youngest USMC Hornet is 23 years old] *And here I am laughing bitterly in Canadian. Our youngest Hornet was acquired in the early 1980s.
The oldest were from the early 80s. They were acquired starting in 1982 and ending in 1988 or so. There was a mid-life upgrade program too - but that was like 20 years ago! The recent F-35 order should have happened like 4-5 years ago. If it weren't for Boeing's lobbying against Bombardier's C-Series and the resulting tariffs that were the final fatal blow to the company (and Boeing becoming company-non-grata as a result), Canada would have been receiving a bunch of new Super Hornets already, but in the end getting a 5th-gen fighter is better for the long run. Will just have to keep limping until those start arriving.
Close but not quite. The last D was delivered to the Marine Corps in August of 2000.
As someone who was on CVN 72 (USS Abraham Lincoln) I can confirm that they have a pretty decent amount of F35Cs and they had 5-7 tand that's actually how I learned that there was an F35C
Carl Vinson
"As someone who was on CVN 70 (USS Abraham Lincoln)"(sic)
Sure you were. CVN-70 is Carl Vinson. CVN-72 is Abraham Lincoln. Even a bilge rat who rarely sees the light of day during a cruise usually knows the name of the boat that they are on.
"and they had 5-7 tand that's actually how I learned that there was an F35C"(sic)
VFA-147 embarked 10 F-35Cs aboard Vinson from August of 2021 to February 2022.
@@AA-xo9uw sry I misspelled 72 as 70 on my small as phone I also never served in the navy, I was only getting a tour from them also looking back, yeah this comment is cringe as hell and I don't know why I thought this was ever a good idea to write. Guess I felt like bragging like a little bitch
id like to see an episode where its Estonia vs finland
Was that jet floating like a helicopter? Wtf op asf
Well yeah, the F-35 has VTOL capabilities.
F-35B variant. Vertical take off and landing for the USMC.
@@DZ477 its stovl not vtol
It cant do vertical take off with any meaningful fuel or with any weapons
I'm sure 6th gen is making the budgeting and decision making even more unclear and challenging
It certainly does. It is the same problem when you buy any technology, do you want the best you can get right now or do you want to wait until something better comes out and save up for that instead?
It is a guessing game because we can't be sure when the 6th gens comes out or how expensive they will be. The F-35 got seriously delayed and far more expensive then initially planned, mainly because they wanted a VTOL version with the same airframe. Same thing can happen to the 6th gen plane or it could come out in time and actually be cheaper then the F-35.
With so many carriers around there won't be any real need to have enough aircraft to fill them all up.
NGAD is the USAF 6th Gen Fighter Program. The US Navy 6th Gen Fighter Program is the FA-XX Program.
NGAD and F/A-XX were combined.
@@anguswaterhouse9255 "NGAD and F/A-XX were combined."(sic)
Incorrect. They're still distinct programs.
@@AA-xo9uw I'm pretty sure I read that because the navy chose to persue the DDG(x) Congress said they would have to use a navelised NGAD.
@@anguswaterhouse9255 Beware of believing everything you read. NGAD is thrown around rather loosely - even by the Navy itself - but the Navy and air force programs while indeed being next generation are distinct from one another. They're similar in that they are both sixth generation manned platforms that will have the capability to function as airborne controllers of unmanned platforms. How they'll achieve that will be through different means.
Continuing to buy F-18s is going to bite us in the ass eventually. The Navy sacrificed a lot of intercept and payload ability by going with the Hornet alone and the next fight is going to be decided by who can lock who first.
So many in this comment section that clearly have never worked on military aircraft.
and sadly, even less have worked on UFOs...
Don’t forget the USN is to the Battlestar Gallactica what the Cylon Fleet is to the USAF.
Yeah... wait, what???
@@gourmetbanana in battlestar gallactica the armada prefers old tech which is what the navy prefers with these planes. Cylons have the more advanced tech aka airforce stealth.
The Super Bug will never die, might as well nickname it "the cockroach". 🤣
The damn thing will outlive me, i hope...
I have the feeling the reason is maintenance. Apparently, when an F-35 has some sort of issue that makes the jet unflyable, many of the repairs have to be done at a Lockheed factory. The Navy doesn't like not being able to rebuild anything they might need to on board, and I believe they only took them because they had to.
Ah yes the classic corporate greed thing where a product can only be repaired in a specific factory thats across the entire continent.
That model has no place in the military and needs to be weeded out, but it wont!
You are incorrect on all points.
Actually the thrust to weight ratio is slightly better in the F-35C under military power (MP). The single PW-135 produces approximately 2,000 lbs more thrust under MP (28,000 lbs dry to 26,000 lbs dry combined) than the combined thrust of the two F414-GE-400 engines in the Super Hornet. This flips the other way under afterburner with the two F414-GE-400 engines putting out a total of 44,000 lbs to the PW-135's 43,000 lbs of thrust. In 95% of flying situations the F-35C does slightly outperform the F-18 Super Hornet although the difference is negligible. The F-35C can super-cruise for a period of time, which the Super Hornet cannot, giving the F-35C an edge in performance and economy. The new PW-135 is a very impressive engine and is the most powerful low-bypass afterburning turbo fan engine in use in any fighter aircraft today. The F-35C also has a slight advantage in weapons payload being able to carry 18,000 lbs of ordinance to the F-18 Super Hornet's 17,750 lbs. I believe these two weapon systems will compliment each other very well.
The portrait of the old guy in the keeps ad looks exactly like a photo of a teacher from High School and it has me so tilted.
From what I've seen there seems to be two schools of thought around "stealth" aircraft: the best thing since sliced bread, and a specialized tool. The Navy and indeed a number of other nations seem to be going the latter route, and in my non-expert opinion I tend to think that's a more realistic approach.
That's because the uses for stealth aren't uniform across doctrines, and I agree with your opinion. It appears Russia uses it's Su-57 to take out AWACs and other high value targets that require deep penetration, while China and America use stealth for general aircraft capability.
That avenger could be really useful about now.
Payload babeeeeeeee!
@@JoeOvercoat Not just that, but a flying wing can be way way more stealthy then a jet with vertical tails. And range to boot. It's like a miniature B-2. And like you said payload. How many small diameter bombd could that thing have carried. Or JDAM, or whatever. Could it carry a cruse missile? Certainly it could carry SLAMER. Or long range Anti radiation missiles. It's a long range light bomber. Whoever canceled that was a fucking dumbass.
The U.S Navy experts in this comment section.....
There is, of course, plenty of rumors that the Navy is leading in the Gen 6 fighter development.
I also wonder if the Navy is leaning toward more stealth drones/loyal wingman? This could make more sense, as they could have longer ranges and more capability, en mass. A single F-35 can control 6 or so of them. Or even a E-2 Hawkeye from stand off distances.
Scuttlebutt indicates that NGAD is much farther ahead than F/A-XX.
Do carriers have a paint booth where they can re-apply the stealth paint?
Not significantly ... for most repairs they need to be returned to the manufacturer... assuming the manufacturer has not been glassed by a nuke
@@janwitts2688 "for most repairs they need to be returned to the manufacturer... "(sic)
Incorrect.
Well, there will be a 6th generation fighter in a few years for the Navy. That will reduce the demand for the F-35.
What if that gets delayed though, just like the F-35 and most other defence projects? It's probable. I think in that case we will see the USN buy more F-35s to replace at least some super hornets, just like how the SH has replaced legacy hornets that were originally intended to be replaced by F-35s.
Unit costs for F-35s are coming down and operating costs will probably come down at least a bit to.
F-35C is more tied to new Ford class carriers. Nimitz class steam catapults are harder on fighters. All services want to preserve longevity on the F-35's. Navy has the luxury of waiting because Super Hornets have many hours left on them. The Navy also has greater focus on building new frigates and destroyers ASAP.
Yeah like if EMALS works😂
"F-35C is more tied to new Ford class carriers. Nimitz class steam catapults are harder on fighters."(sic)
And yet VFA-147 and VMFA-314 flying the F-35C have both deployed aboard Nimitz class boats and the Ford is still not certified to embark the C.
F-35 for the immediate is a forward air dominance fighter. the navy has a almost "spam" approach to air dominance. which means having a lot of F-35 is bad, but having a handful gives them the ability to use a stealth plane when needed. the F-35 in this capacity is a "first strike" or "wild weasel." so I never expect them to ever have more than a handful. the navy probably could have done better by taking the F-22. however because they skipped out, the should probably take up its replacement, and like the F-35 only get a select handful.