Daan Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Picked it up from the KeyPub fora. What do you think? Is this is real and feasible move? http://today.reuters.com/business/n...ryID=nN18155456 By Jim Wolf WASHINGTON, Nov 18 (Reuters) - The Pentagon is seeking to cancel the Air Force version of Lockheed Martin Corp.'s (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) F-35, the world's biggest fighter program, a leading defense consultant said Friday. Gordon England, acting deputy secretary of defense, "is pushing to eliminate one of the three aircraft versions, and the Air Force version is his preferred kill" as a short-term economy measure, said Loren Thompson, citing discussions with senior Pentagon and industry officials. Thompson is chief operating officer of the Arlington, Virginia-based Lexington Institute, a research group with close ties to the defense establishment. Loss of the Air Force variant would be a blow to Lockheed which expects to export that version, in particular, for decades to come. Eight countries have joined the United States to co-develop the F-35, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter. With a projected total program cost of more than $250 billion, it involves what would be the Pentagon's most expensive acquisition to date and a symbol of international cooperation. The co-development partners are Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway If cut, the likely beneficiaries would be France's Rafale fighter, built by Dassault Aviation (AVMD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research); Eurofighter, a product of Finmeccanica (SIFI.MI: Quote, Profile, Research), BAE Systems (BA.L: Quote, Profile, Research) and EADS (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research); plus Gripen, built by Saab and BAE Systems. The radar-evading F-35 was designed to serve the U.S. Air Force with a standard model; the Navy, with a sturdier one for aircraft-carrier landings; and the Marines, with a short take off and landing "jump jet"-style variant. England wants the Air Force to buy the Navy version instead of getting its own, said Thompson. In an Oct. 19 memorandum, England ordered military leaders to find $32 billion in cuts over the next five years and said they might have to dig even deeper as President Bush's fiscal 2007 budget proposal takes shape. No final decisions would be made until a high-level meeting on Monday, England wrote at the time. The White House is due to send its final budget goals to this session. Navy Capt. Kevin Wensing, a spokesman for England, declined to comment on belt-tightening measures under study in the so-called Quadrennial Defense Review, a strategy analysis done every four years and due to go to Congress in coming months. A knowledgeable Pentagon official noted that England, as secretary of the Navy, had integrated the Navy and Marine Corps aviation programs starting in 2002. Consolidating a number of air wings, he has been credited with saving "billions of dollars," said this official who asked not to be named. Lockheed Martin has not been notified of any changes to its programs, said John Smith, a spokesman in Fort Worth, where the fighters are being assembled. Apart from Britain, which plans to buy the vertical-takeoff variant, all international partners plan to buy the Air Force model, said Richard Aboulafia of Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia, aerospace consultancy. Aboulafia said a decision to scrap the Air Force version would save a "couple billion" in development costs but eat into U.S. dominance of fighter-export markets for years to come. Christopher Bolckom, top warplane expert with the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, said he expected any push to kill the Air Force version to meet resistance in Congress and among co-development partners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOE BRENNAN Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 (edited) Similar article in WSJ on Friday, so I guess it is being seriously considered and "officials" are leaking it either to give it momentum or get those against it geared up to oppose it. It's my favored compromise as I've said before. It would cause ruffled feathers among intl partners but the F-35C as advertised would still be preferable to last generation solutions like Rafale, Typhoon, F-16 etc. Those articles are written from general press POV that the CTOL version is somehow unusable as a land based fighter. Its not optimal but still better than last gen, the next F-4 potentially (if it works out reasonably on cost and performance, which nobody can gtee). And the AF already made noises about buying a few wings of STOVL B's. Joe Edited November 20, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Cunningham Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Sounds OK. I think the F-35 is too much technology crammed into a tiny airframe. It will make a great replacement for the Harrier. As a replacement for any type of medium or heavy attack aircraft it will be woefully underpowered and small. It is all probably irrlevant. C-UAV's are going to be the wave of the future anyways. They are far cheaper, and can be produced rapidly and without a lot of human engineering or BS. I think we are in the last generation of manned aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macarthur Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 probably not, We might be looking at the last generation where manned fighters are dominant but manned fighters will probably continue to provide abilities that unmanned fighters cannot for a few more generations at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swerve Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Apart from Britain, which plans to buy the vertical-takeoff variant, all international partners plan to buy the Air Force model, said Richard Aboulafia of Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia, aerospace consultancy. Well that ain't true. Italy is planning to buy both the air force & STOVL versions. Australia is keeping its options open over a STOVL buy, & Spain (which isn't a partner, so technically isn't covered by his statement) intends to buy the STOVL variant. There are at present no prospective export customers for the CTOL naval variant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daan Posted November 20, 2005 Author Share Posted November 20, 2005 Well, some international partners (like my own country) would certainly feel screwed over by such a decision. The government already faced a lot of criticism by opting for a level 2 partnership in an American project with all the strings attached and the expected industrial offsets only partially materializing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swerve Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Sounds OK. I think the F-35 is too much technology crammed into a tiny airframe. It will make a great replacement for the Harrier. As a replacement for any type of medium or heavy attack aircraft it will be woefully underpowered and small. Really? Estimated empty/max T-O weight /max thrust F-35A 12000/>22700/16000AV-8B 5900/14100/9600 F-15C 13000/30800/21500F-16C 8400/19200/10800F-18C 10800/25400/16100F-18E 13900/30000/20000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Werb Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 I can't understand why the Navy can't have a 'navalised' air force version - after all, everyone knows navalising a fast jet just involves bolting-on an arrestor-hook, slapping-on a coat of matte grey paint and stencilling the word 'NAVY' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rickshaw Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 I can't understand why the Navy can't have a 'navalised' air force version - after all, everyone knows navalising a fast jet just involves bolting-on an arrestor-hook, a coat of grey paint and stencilling the word 'NAVY' 248755[/snapback] Well, considering there is little real difference structurally between the land and naval (CTOL) versions of the beast, you'd be right. Even the VTOL version is pretty much the same, with the exception of the left-fan, I recall. I think cancelling the F-22 would make more sense - its too specialised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swerve Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Well, considering there is little real difference structurally between the land and naval (CTOL) versions of the beast, you'd be right. Even the VTOL version is pretty much the same, with the exception of the left-fan, I recall. Humour bypass alert! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brasidas Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Humour bypass alert! 248769[/snapback] It was the lowest form of humor, and therefore the hardest to detect for the lofty BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gewing Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 What are the differences in Performance, range, etc between the Navy version and the Air force version. IIRC the Navy version has a larger wing to lower the approach speed, but were there other significant changes? More fuel> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 The AF version was to have an internal gun, with the other two variants carrying the gun in an external mounting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burncycle360 Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 (edited) I think cancelling the F-22 would make more sense - its too specialised. That's just silly. Edited November 21, 2005 by Burncycle360 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pfcem Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 I can't understand why the Navy can't have a 'navalised' air force version - after all, everyone knows navalising a fast jet just involves bolting-on an arrestor-hook, slapping-on a coat of matte grey paint and stencilling the word 'NAVY' 248755[/snapback]This comment is directed at me because Chris (among others) seams to think it is near impossible to successfully navalize a land-based aircraft. See Boeing trying to peddle more F-15Es thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5150 Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 This comment is directed at me because Chris (among others) seams to think it is near impossible to successfully navalize a land-based aircraft.248818[/snapback] Replace the word successfully with economically, and you may be in the unusual position of being correct! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingCanOpener Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 I can't understand why the Navy can't have a 'navalised' air force version - after all, everyone knows navalising a fast jet just involves bolting-on an arrestor-hook, slapping-on a coat of matte grey paint and stencilling the word 'NAVY' 248755[/snapback] Almost lost a bowl of soup on that one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rickshaw Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 That's just silly.248807[/snapback] Why? It is optimised to be a fighter. What is needed is a more jack-of-all trades aircraft capable to fulfilling several roles equally well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pfcem Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Replace the word successfully with economically, and you may be in the unusual position of being correct! 248819[/snapback]Since you continue to miss my point, I will restate it for you. It would have taken less money & effort to navalize the F-15E than it took to develope the "essentially all new" F/A-18E/F & a navalized F-15E would be a better aircraft to replace the A-6 & F-14 than the Super Bug. Plus, what you & others have been argueing is not the economics navalizing the F-15E but that it could not be done at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smitty Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 It's my favored compromise as I've said before. It would cause ruffled feathers among intl partners but the F-35C as advertised would still be preferable to last generation solutions like Rafale, Typhoon, F-16 etc. Those articles are written from general press POV that the CTOL version is somehow unusable as a land based fighter. Its not optimal but still better than last gen, the next F-4 potentially (if it works out reasonably on cost and performance, which nobody can gtee). And the AF already made noises about buying a few wings of STOVL B's. I agree, it's the best compromise. (though I still vote for canning the whole JSF program) Plus, it would make the entire F-35 fleet carrier-capable, with suitable USAF training of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smitty Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Why? It is optimised to be a fighter. What is needed is a more jack-of-all trades aircraft capable to fulfilling several roles equally well.248839[/snapback] The F-15 was originally "optimized" for A2A, and yet it turned in to a capable striker with the F-15E. The same can be done with the F/A-22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burncycle360 Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 (edited) Why? It is optimised to be a fighter. What is needed is a more jack-of-all trades aircraft capable to fulfilling several roles equally well. Your JSF is optimized as a ground attack platform, both in performance and stealth. It's not particularly jack of all trades. The F-22 far exceeds the JSF in strike potential. The F-15 was originally "optimized" for A2A, and yet it turned in to a capable striker with the F-15E. Bingo. It had (and still has) more potential than the F-16 as a strike platform from the very beginning. The F-16XL was a step in the right direction for it, if they're going to use it as a bomb truck Edited November 21, 2005 by Burncycle360 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasyE Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Jack of all trades. hmm the Grumman Tomcat 21 proposals woulda fit this bill very well.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burncycle360 Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 (edited) Jack of all trades. hmm the Grumman Tomcat 21 proposals woulda fit this bill very well.. I've always liked the thought of an ASF-14 multirole, and a small stealthy multirole* Hi-Lo mix. This combination compliments each other, and would be decent for both carrier based and land based combat aircraft.Course, it would have had to have been in the works in the early 90's for it to be applicable now... *Think single engined F-23, wide spectrum stealth and supercruise instead of optimized for ground attack like JSF Edited November 21, 2005 by Burncycle360 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dekmetzian Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 (edited) Personally i don't so much see the logic. With the amount of airframes the USAF is planning to buy, the costs in R&D would be realised over the production run. I read recently that the C version would be around $15 mil more expensive than the purely land based variant. As long as they buy more than say 130 (which theres no question they will), then it will end up being cheaper than the $2 bill than they'll spend in R&D. Or am i missing something ? Edited November 21, 2005 by Michael Dekmetzian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now