JSF under attack

[MKSheppard]

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007301
by Master Sgt. Scott Elliott
Air Force Print News

3/26/2004 - WASHINGTON -- A senior Air Force official told lawmakers March 25 that the service would not be interested in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter if a technical glitch could not be overcome or if program funds were cut off.

Lt. Gen. Ronald E. Keys, deputy chief of staff for air and space operations, bluntly told members of the House Armed Services Committee subcommittee on tactical air and land forces, “If we can’t build it, we’re not going to buy it.”

The general’s comment came in response to subcommittee chairman Rep. Curt Weldon’s question about Secretary of the Air Force Dr. James G. Roche’s testimony March 24 before the Senate Committee on Appropriations subcommittee on defense.

In referring to chronic weight problems with the short takeoff and vertical landing version of the JSF, the secretary said, “… (R)isk reduction on the STOVL becomes one of the paramount things to do … because if we cannot build the STOVL aircraft, then we really cannot proceed with the F-35 program.”

Being overweight is especially troublesome for the close-air support variant of the F-35, because its primary feature is the short takeoff and vertical landing capability. The STOVL JSF uses a shaft-driven lift fan propulsion system that allows the aircraft to hover and land like a helicopter.

Lockheed Martin originally contracted with the U.S. Marine Corps to build the STOVL variant of the F-35 to replace the AV-8B Harrier. The Air Force will take over the program in June, as part of the service’s commitment to improving close-air support, officials said.

“If it doesn’t meet specifications, I don’t think my Marine colleagues would be interested in an airplane that wouldn’t meet their qualifications,” General Keys said.

While Secretary Roche did acknowledge concern over the JSF’s weight problem, he also said the problem was to be expected – it is in only the second year of an 11-year development program.

“Is the weight a terminal problem? We don’t think so, but because it most severely effects the short takeoff and landing, we believe it’s prudent and right, and our responsibility, to work the problem,” Secretary Roche said in his previous testimony.

John J. Young Jr., assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, agreed.

“There is nothing we see that says the JSF will not work,” he said. “The JSF enables concepts of operations that none of today’s legacy aircraft can accomplish.”

The JSF is expected to fly and fight into the 2040 to 2050 timeframe. Mr. Young said that without the JSF, the services would be forced to fly 1980s- era technology for another 50 years.

Even if the JSF can beat the weight problem, Representative Weldon said the plane might not be out of danger. Extreme competition for defense budget dollars may force Congress to ask the service to choose between the JSF and the F/A-22 Raptor.

Several Raptors have already been delivered to the Air Force and are undergoing rigorous flight and system tests. In one recent test, four Raptors engaged eight F-15 Eagles in simulated combat. General Keys said the Raptors cleared the sky of F-15s before many of the Eagles could even get off a shot.

“The F/A-22 is a reality … it is not, to use an expression, a viewgraph presentation,” said Dr. Marvin R. Sambur, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition. “The F/A-22 is here, but we’re not pulling away from our commitment to the JSF.”

Representative Weldon said the service might not have a choice.

“If financial pressure in tactical aviation continues to grow the way it has, something’s got to give,” he said. “The most likely candidate, if you look at political pressure, will be something that doesn’t exist yet.”

Dr. Sambur told the lawmakers that despite the growing cost and lengthy research and development time, it would be impossible to choose one system over the other because both aircraft are essential to America’s future military operations

“You’ve given us the choice of cutting off our right arm or cutting off our left arm,” he said. “I want to make sure you understand that the F/A-22 and the JSF are complementary … and they are both needed. We are committed in the Air Force to both planes.”

[Crown]

Scar tactics to russel up more funding? Or are they just trying to ditch the F-35 for more F-22?

I don't know, there is a lot of international interest in this bird, I doubt they would just pull the plug on the program.

[Vympel]

?If it doesn?t meet specifications, I don?t think my Marine colleagues would be interested in an airplane that wouldn?t meet their qualifications,? General Keys said.

Yeah right. They'll just lower their qualifications.

[Rubberanvil]

For the sake of current and future U.S. weapon sales, it'll be better to cancel the F/A-22 instead of royally pissing off our allies and partners in the JSF program.

[Vympel]

For the sake of current and future U.S. weapon sales, it'll be better to cancel the F/A-22 instead of royally pissing off our allies and partners in the JSF program.

For the sake of current and future US dominance, it's better to cancel the JSF. The F-35 simply can't do what F/A-22 can.

[The Kernel]

For the sake of current and future U.S. weapon sales, it'll be better to cancel the F/A-22 instead of royally pissing off our allies and partners in the JSF program.

For the sake of current and future US dominance, it's better to cancel the JSF. The F-35 simply can't do what F/A-22 can.

F-22's are a little pricey for a mass produced fighter.

[Howedar]

They're in production. They're a known quantity. The final final F-35 design hasn't even been drawn up yet.

[Rubberanvil]

For the sake of current and future U.S. weapon sales, it'll be better to cancel the F/A-22 instead of royally pissing off our allies and partners in the JSF program.

For the sake of current and future US dominance, it's better to cancel the JSF. The F-35 simply can't do what F/A-22 can.

I'll all for cancelling the F-35, but it isn't solely developed by the U.S. which is the problem.

This post lists some of the problems with cancelling the JSF, may or may be worth a read.

[Vympel]

F-22's are a little pricey for a mass produced fighter.

I 100% agree, the price is absolutely outrageous, but you get what you pay for- the F-22 will slaughter current and near-term future aircraft without serious effort. The F-35 won't- it maye have low-RCS, but it doesn't have the flight performance. Heck, the F-35 was *designed* that way- so the F-22 wouldn't be threatened.

Also, the JSF program tends to be viewed as the "holy grail" of aircraft procurement- i.e. it's assumed that it's going to be on time, on budget, on weight, and purchased in the numbers they expect to purchase it in. There is absolutely no good reason to expect this to be true. It's already had it's first flight delayed by a year, there's already weight problems, the purchase numbers (for the USN) have already been significantly cut, and you can bet that the cost is going to go through the roof. Frankly, that anyone thinks that this fighter is going to be cheap is ridiculous (I'm not saying you are, just thinking out loud). I'm thinking at least $90-100 million per plane. Mark my words.

[Howedar]

We just ought to put in a big buy of KF-1... er F-18E/F's for the USN. God knows our shrinking airwing problem will not be solved by JSF.

[Crown]

<fanboy>The F-35 designed to not be an air superiority fighter? Surely you jest Vympel, it will blow everything out of the sky!!!</fanboy>

Sorry I couldn't resist, you wouldn't believe how many times I hear this arguement and it gets me angry every single time.

But as for the JSF arguement for the UK/Spanish/Italian navies, while the next generation carrier has been designed around the JSF, I think it is roughly the same size as the CdG, which would mean that a navalised version of the Typhoon would work. It would limit the amount of planes being carried, no doubt, but it would get there.

Though I don't know where this leaves the Italians and the Spaniards though.

[Howedar]

The Spanish already have a substantial number of F-18s.

[Crown]

The Spanish already have a substantial number of F-18s.

True dat.

But I don't think they can operate from their carrier(s) though, can they?

[Howedar]

Not the ones they have now, no. I was still thinking about CdG and CVF. Spain is kinda SOL if we cancel JSF, they'd be stuck with Harrier 2+ (still a capable aircraft, mind) for the forseeable future.

[Vympel]

We just ought to put in a big buy of KF-1... er F-18E/F's for the USN. God knows our shrinking airwing problem will not be solved by JSF.

Buy pure Sukhoi-fodder? Blech. Bad idea. At least the F-35 has *some* advantages.

[Vympel]

If JSF was cancelled, just watch the Dassault Rafale eat up the European CV aircraft market.

[Howedar]

Indeed. Which would be sad because frankly the Rafale is a piece of trash compared to most other modern aircraft.

[Rogue 9]

The F-35 won't- it maye have low-RCS, but it doesn't have the flight performance. Heck, the F-35 was *designed* that way- so the F-22 wouldn't be threatened.

Who the hell came up with THAT idea? Do we plan on fighting someone who's in on the JSF project? If we're selling them to potential enemies that's dumb anyway, and if we're not then who cares? Best to make the aircraft be as good as it can be for its mission profile. Of course, it is the Joint Strike Fighter, so I'd imagine it'd focus more on air to mud than air to air.

[Vympel]

Indeed. Which would be sad because frankly the Rafale is a piece of trash compared to most other modern aircraft.

It's got nice avionics and weapons, flight performance is meh.

[Crown]

The F-35 won't- it maye have low-RCS, but it doesn't have the flight performance. Heck, the F-35 was *designed* that way- so the F-22 wouldn't be threatened.

Who the hell came up with THAT idea? Do we plan on fighting someone who's in on the JSF project? If we're selling them to potential enemies that's dumb anyway, and if we're not then who cares? Best to make the aircraft be as good as it can be for its mission profile. Of course, it is the Joint Strike Fighter, so I'd imagine it'd focus more on air to mud than air to air.

It was made that way for two reasons; 1 it used a lot of the avionics that the F-22 program came up with anyway and 2 it was to stop the purse pinchers from saying; 'why buy the F-22 when the F-35 is going to get us air superiority anyway?'

Of course this is ignoring the fact that the US has never actually been challenged in the air ever since the Korean war, but there you have it.

[Howedar]

Indeed. Which would be sad because frankly the Rafale is a piece of trash compared to most other modern aircraft.

It's got nice avionics and weapons, flight performance is meh.

I really don't see any reason to go for the Rafale over the F-18, particularly since the F-18 is a vastly more proven design.

[Crown]

If JSF was cancelled, just watch the Dassault Rafale eat up the European CV aircraft market.

Not even the UK MoD would be that reprehensible (okay they already are), a strengthened Typhoon airframe with arestor hooks would do nicely.

[Vympel]

Who the hell came up with THAT idea? Do we plan on fighting someone who's in on the JSF project? If we're selling them to potential enemies that's dumb anyway, and if we're not then who cares? Best to make the aircraft be as good as it can be for its mission profile. Of course, it is the Joint Strike Fighter, so I'd imagine it'd focus more on air to mud than air to air.

You misunderstand- not threaten the F-22 per se ... threaten the F-22 program. Because a fighter planned to be built in the thousands is much more attractive to Congress than a fighter that's going to be built in the hundreds, especially when the latter is a known horrible cost performer and the JSF is sufficiently far enough away that they can delude themselves into thinking everything is just peachy. Not to mention explaining the difference between an F-22 and JSF to them is hard (becase they're uninterested laymen). So now you see them resorting to tricks like 4 F-22s vs 8 F-15Cs, with the 8 F-15Cs all dying before they got a shot off.

[Rogue 9]

Didn't the Iraqis try to challenge us in the first Gulf War? For about five minutes?

[Howedar]

Oh hell no it wouldn't. Haven't you guys learned your lesson yet? YOU DO NOT CONVERT A LAND AIRCRAFT FOR CARRIER OPS. It will result in Bad Things (TM).