New Report Says the Navy Should Ditch the F-35C And Buy Drones Instead

[unhappycamper]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a17838/navy-f-35c-drones-jerry-hendrix/

Canceling the F-35 will save money and increase carrier striking range, the Center for New American Security think tank argues.

New Report Says the Navy Should Ditch the F-35C And Buy Drones Instead
By Kyle Mizokami

We know all about the troubled and controversial development of the F-35. But now, one military think tank is suggesting that the U.S. Navy would be better off forgetting the billions invested in this plane entirely. ​A new report by the Center for New American Security suggests that the Navy should cancel the F-35C, its carrier-borne version of the Joint Strike Fighter, and replace it with killer drones.

Retired U.S. naval aviator Captain Jerry Hendrix​, author of the report, argues that the range of current carrier strike aircraft, and the upcoming F-35C, are insufficient for modern threats. New advances in Chinese weapons necessitate the ability to sit farther off the Asian mainland in order to keep carriers out of harm's way. A carrier air wing built out of new drones rather than the Joint Strike Fighter and older manned planes would be cheaper, larger, and—most importantly—have a longer striking range.​
More From Popular Mechanics

In 1943, the report points out, ​the average fleet carrier could carry 90 aircraft with an average of 758 nautical miles of range, each carrying an average 1,800 pounds of bombs. The range of aircraft increased even more during the Cold War, and bomb payload increased sixfold. So one might assume that by 2006, carrier performance would continue to rise. But it hasn't. The Navy's standardization on the F/A-18 Hornet and retirement of tanker aircraft has cut the size of the carrier air wing to 60, and the striking range down to a mere 496 miles.

~snip~

To keep U.S. carriers out of the range fan of enemy missiles, Hendrix proposes canceling the F-35C and instead developing a long-range strike aircraft. He proposes an aircraft with "a wingspan of approximately 60–70 feet, a gross takeoff weight of 60,000–70,000 pounds, and an internal bomb load of 4,000–6,000 pounds. It would also have an unrefueled combat radius of over 1,500 nm, a refueled mission endurance measured in days, and broadband, all-aspect RCS reduction." A tanker variant would support the so-called "strikers", pushing their range well beyond 1,500 nautical miles. Altogether, the carrier air wing would rise to 84 aircraft.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. If our own military wants to dump F-35s, why SHOULD the Canadians, Australians, or anyone else

want to buy them? Sheesh.

[tech3149]

2. Pretty much no reason

I had read a statement from a retired line office who spent most of his career in procurement. He stated plainly that pretty much no weapon system we ere sold since the 50's was what we needed or worth what it cost. I think the F-35 is the pinnacle of that problem.
I consider the UAS's (drones) to be an effective tool but it is still being oversold as some magic bullet solution to all our problems. I don't really know the true capabilities of the systems employed but even commercially available systems are pretty impressive.
My problem with UAS's is that they make it easier to do stupid shit. We can't afford to keep doing stupid shit.