# F-35: Death spiral is closing in **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 21, 2016, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-death-spiral-is-closing-in/766493 "2016-09-21T11:23:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-death-spiral-is-closing-in/766493/241 "2019-04-25T15:07:06Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > But the Air Force and Navy wouldn’t have built a plane with space for a big fucking hole in the middle. The point about the program working out for the Marine Corps is well taken, although ISTM that the Marines field far smaller numbers of aircraft than the other branches anyway. The Marines should probably have been told that if they wanted something, they should ask the Navy, like usual. It might make complete sense for countries that don’t have aircraft carriers or in-flight refueling to have VTOL fighters although I doubt the US was thinking about that when designing it. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-death-spiral-is-closing-in/766493/242 "2019-04-25T15:12:15Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > But the Air Force and Navy wouldn’t have built a plane with space for a big fucking hole in the middle. The point about the program working out for the Marine Corps is well taken, although ISTM that the Marines field far smaller numbers of aircraft than the other branches anyway. If not for the jointness of the program, my opinion is that the Marine Corps would have gotten out of the business of having jets on big deck amphibs. It’s hard for me to believe that the Marine Corps would have invested in their own unique fixed-wing strike platform during the same period they were making large investments in the V-22, two new amphibious fighting vehicles, a new tactical wheeled vehicle, a massive heavy lift helicopter, a recap/modernization of their H-1 fleets, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-death-spiral-is-closing-in/766493/243 "2019-04-25T15:13:28Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > The Marines should probably have been told that if they wanted something, they should ask the Navy, like usual. > > It might make complete sense for countries that don’t have aircraft carriers or in-flight refueling to have VTOL fighters although I doubt the US was thinking about that when designing it. Eh? The primary purpose of VTOL fighters is to operate from carriers (though they were originally envisaged as a hedge against the vulnerability of airfields). ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-death-spiral-is-closing-in/766493/244 "2019-04-25T16:06:59Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Eh? The primary purpose of VTOL fighters is to operate from carriers (though they were originally envisaged as a hedge against the vulnerability of airfields). I should have said: “The C version is sufficient for a military that has _fullsize_ aircraft carriers whereas the B version would have a lot of value to countries that don’t have carriers or only small ones.” If you’re going to have a 100 000 ton and 1000 feet long carrier anyway, why does it need to be vertical TOL as opposed to short TOL? Perhaps the B version would be worth it if you could get rid of fullsize carriers and replace them with small ones or even by having a “distributed aircraft carrier array” where a group of 5000-20 000 ton ships carry a handful of airplanes each. I suppose that will eventually happen when they’re unmanned. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-death-spiral-is-closing-in/766493/245 "2019-04-25T16:13:03Z")
I’m not following what you’re talking about. The STOVL variant was designed with ~40,000 ton carriers (in U.S. terms, large deck amphibious assault ships) in mind. That’s it. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-death-spiral-is-closing-in/766493/246 "2019-04-25T18:00:23Z")
My bad: I agreed with RNATB that it wasn’t worth it to compromise version A and C for the sake of version B since the Marines didn’t need to have their own stealth fighter deployed from LDAAS, they could have relied on in-flight refueled F-35As from the Air Force and aircraft carrier-deployed F-35Cs from the Navy’s fullsize carriers. The F-35B might be worth it in other circumstances, though, like for other countries or if the US wanted to replace its fullsize carriers with smaller motherships. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-death-spiral-is-closing-in/766493/247 "2019-04-25T18:45:18Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > The F-35B might be worth it in other circumstances, though, like for other countries or if the US wanted to replace its fullsize carriers with smaller motherships. Or for F-35Bs to operate from amphibious ships – since that is 100% the plan from the beginning, and there is no plan (in the next few years at least) to replace CVNs with “smaller motherships.” It’s just strange to me that you’re jumping to this “replace supercarriers sometime in the future” logic while skipping over the factual matter that we already have smaller aircraft carriers and the F-35B was literally built to operate from, and currently is operating from. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-death-spiral-is-closing-in/766493/248 "2019-04-25T18:55:25Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Or for F-35Bs to operate from amphibious ships – since that is 100% the plan from the beginning, and there is no plan (in the next few years at least) to replace CVNs with “smaller motherships.” > > It’s just strange to me that you’re jumping to this “replace supercarriers sometime in the future” logic while skipping over the factual matter that we already have smaller aircraft carriers and the F-35B was literally built to operate from, and currently is operating from. Do you think it was worth it to include the B variant in order to gain the capability to operate from Marine LDAAS, given the design compromises and the value of LDAAS themselves? I get the impression it wasn’t but you may well know something I don’t since you often do on these matters. I offered the last part as a possibility in which it might make sense in other circumstances. Maybe that muddied my message too much. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-death-spiral-is-closing-in/766493/249 "2019-04-25T19:05:05Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > Do you think it was worth it to include the B variant in order to gain the capability to operate from Marine LDAAS, given the design compromises and the value of LDAAS themselves? I get the impression it wasn’t but you may well know something I don’t since you often do on these matters. … I know the question wasn’t addressed to me, but I definitely think it was “worth it”. It’s not just the Marines that get a carrier-lite out of the deal. A whole bunch of our allies (that could never have afforded a “supercarrier”) will now have the option of real serious naval airpower: Japan, South Korea, Australia, Italy, Spain, etc. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-death-spiral-is-closing-in/766493/250 "2019-04-25T19:29:04Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I know the question wasn’t addressed to me, but I definitely think it was “worth it”. It’s not just the Marines that get a carrier-lite out of the deal. A whole bunch of our allies (that could never have afforded a “supercarrier”) will now have the option of real serious naval airpower: Japan, South Korea, Australia, Italy, Spain, etc. I agree that it could be worth it in that way, especially for Japan and South Korea when it comes to dealing with China. That might have been what the US was thinking or what US allies asked for in the early design phase. Looking at the cost on Wikipedia, the F-35B costs about 116M and the F-35C costs 108M. An extra $8M/plane and 25% shorter range might be a lot cheaper than getting a fullsize carrier, especially considering how tempting a target fullsize carriers are and the fact that South Korean and Japanese carriers would be within range of Chinese ballistic missiles and hypersonic glide vehicles. The more I think about it, the more it seems it was worth it less for the Marines than for allies, especially Asian ones. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-death-spiral-is-closing-in/766493/251 "2019-04-25T20:13:49Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > Do you think it was worth it to include the B variant in order to gain the capability to operate from Marine LDAAS, given the design compromises and the value of LDAAS themselves? I get the impression it wasn’t but you may well know something I don’t since you often do on these matters. > > I offered the last part as a possibility in which it might make sense in other circumstances. Maybe that muddied my message too much. It was worth it to include the B variant because many of the partner countries who bought into the program wanted them. So it wasn’t just for the Marine Corps. Japan is planning to buy several for their smaller helicopter carriers, and the UK is planning them for their new carriers. My guess is they won’t be the only ones. ---
**Author:** ![dba\_Fred](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c37758/32.png) [@dba\_Fred](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dba_Fred)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2019, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-death-spiral-is-closing-in/766493/252 "2019-04-27T07:33:14Z")
Having VSTOL aircraft means never having to say you don’t have options. Use them from a standard air base/airport and take off/land conventionally to save fuel/best range; Use them from a big deck carrier and launch with catapults/recover with arresting cables to save fuel/better range; Use them from an amphib ship for air cover/protect the landing force. After securing a defendable area, have the helos bring in some Marston matting and you have a landing zone to operate the VSTOLs/helos/V-22 Ospreys from. I like options. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2019, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-death-spiral-is-closing-in/766493/253 "2019-04-27T15:31:50Z")
> [@dba\_Fred](#): > > Having VSTOL aircraft means never having to say you don’t have options. > Use them from a standard air base/airport and take off/land conventionally to save fuel/best range; > Use them from a big deck carrier and launch with catapults/recover with arresting cables to save fuel/better range; > Use them from an amphib ship for air cover/protect the landing force. > After securing a defendable area, have the helos bring in some Marston matting and you have a landing zone to operate the VSTOLs/helos/V-22 Ospreys from. > I like options. I don’t think the F-35B is compatible with catapults or carrier arresting gear. They could still probably operate from a CVN in a pinch, but they would probably do it in STOVL mode, not utilising the catapults or arresting gear. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2019, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-death-spiral-is-closing-in/766493/254 "2019-04-27T18:59:49Z")
Yeah, the Lightning II B variant was STOVL but they couldn’t make it VTOL - apparently just not thrust-y enough to take off vertically with full fuel and weapons load weight. ---
**Author:** ![dba\_Fred](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c37758/32.png) [@dba\_Fred](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dba_Fred)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2019, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-death-spiral-is-closing-in/766493/255 "2019-04-27T21:24:05Z")
My bad, I would swear I put that in the Suggestion Box 🙂 (But are you really sure, not even “Hold my beer and watch this” once?) ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-death-spiral-is-closing-in/766493/256 "2019-05-01T20:19:18Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Yeah, the Lightning II B variant was STOVL but they couldn’t make it VTOL - apparently just not thrust-y enough to take off vertically with full fuel and weapons load weight. Yup, the [Rolls-Royce LiftSystem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_LiftSystem#Operation) is rated for a maximum thrust of 41,900 lbf while hovering (18,000 lbf from the main engine nozzle swiveling down, 20,000 lbf from the lift fan, and 3,900 lbf from the roll posts). The [F-35B](https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/documents/F-35/f-35_fast_facts_june_2018.pdf)’s empty weight is 32,300 lbs, and it has internal capacity for 13,5000 lbs of fuel and a few thousand lbs of weapons (2x GBU-32 & 2x AIM-120 I believe). External stores increase the weapons capacity to a total of 15,000 lbs. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-death-spiral-is-closing-in/766493/257 "2019-05-01T20:21:42Z")
BTW, the F-35A, based in my neck of the woods at Hill AFB, yesterday got to drop bombs in a combat air strike for the first time: [U.S. Air Force F-35As conduct first combat mission \> U.S. Central Command \> News Article View](https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/NEWS-ARTICLES/News-Article-View/Article/1831452/us-air-force-f-35as-conduct-first-combat-mission/) ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2019, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-death-spiral-is-closing-in/766493/258 "2019-05-11T21:43:11Z")
> [@](#): > > The crash of a U.S. Marine Corps F-35 that temporarily grounded the entire fleet of next-generation jets in 2018 was caused by a manufacturing defect in a fuel tube made by a United Technologies subcontractor, according to congressional investigators. > > The defect “caused an engine fuel tube to rupture during flight, resulting in a loss of power to the engine,” the Government Accounting Office said this week in a report on major weapons systems that referred to the September crash in South Carolina. The Pentagon told the watchdog that it identified 117 aircraft – about 40 percent of the worldwide F-35 fleet at the time – with the same type of fuel tubes that had to be replaced. [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-11/f-35-s-first-crash-was-caused-by-manufacturing-defect-gao-says](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-11/f-35-s-first-crash-was-caused-by-manufacturing-defect-gao-says) ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2019, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-death-spiral-is-closing-in/766493/259 "2019-05-27T20:03:23Z")
Despite the crash, Japan is now going to buy another 105 Lightning IIs. > **[Trump secures major F-35 deal on state visit to Japan | Taiwan News |...](https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3711679?fbclid=IwAR0qxUdEJFgXi1jOpXfqY4FvlQLyXwkmU7fqYV0o_FW-3l8RfyQXHjKKkgs)** > > Japan has agreed to buy another 105 jet fighters from the U.S..U.S. President Donald Trump announced on Monday (May 27) that Japan will purchase 105 F-35 jet fighters, making it the U.S. ally that boasts the largest fleet of the stealth warplanes. |... ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2019, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-death-spiral-is-closing-in/766493/260 "2019-05-27T22:16:20Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Despite the crash, Japan is now going to buy another 105 Lightning IIs. That looks more like a formalization of the intent they [announced last December](https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2018/12/18/with-massive-f-35-increase-japan-is-now-biggest-international-buyer/) before the crash. At the time the numbers they were looking at increasing their purchase by added up to 105. > [@](#): > > Tokyo previously planned to procure 42 F-35A models. However, a source close to the program confirmed that Japan will be adding 63 F-35A models, as well as 42 F-35B models, for a total of 147 F-35 fighters. A [look](https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/18/the-japanese-air-force-needs-an-upgrade-f35-f22-china-fighter-jets-fifth-generation/) at Japan’s air power situation in comparison to the Chinese threat from a couple months ago. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-death-spiral-is-closing-in/766493.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-35-death-spiral-is-closing-in/766493.md?page=14)