Pentagon about to cancel one JSF version? or "The JSF Gap"

[Vandervahn]

******* (http://today.*******.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nN18155456)

WASHINGTON, Nov 18 (*******) - 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.


For months and years there have been discussions (http://www.air-attack.com/news/topic.php?topic=budget) about cuts in the program. The Airforce JSF variant is also the most likely variant to be cut because it doesnt fill a gap that HAS to be filled via the JSF. But this would a huge blow against Lockheed-Martin because this was planned to be the workhorse of future aircraft export - the question is if they would develop it regardless of US contracts, solely for the export market. But still there are lingering problems of weight, delays (even the 2010 introduction date isnt very likely anymore) and rising costs, already scratching the $50 million fly-away price

In addition to that, if the basic variant of the JSF is cancelled altogether, then this will be a drawback to the US geostrategic plans for the next 20 years. This plan consists partly of complete elimination of independent western based fighter production capabilities, creating a monopoly for Lockheed-Martin. Although the idea of granting "work shares for purchase" is appealing, these countries would ultimately be dependent on the decisions made in Washington.


It could be said that JSF is as much an industrial strategy as it is a fighter, both for the export-hungry U.S. and for the potential target markets themselves.
Teal Group (http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/Article.cfm?issuetocid=173&ArchiveIssueID=23)
US politicians, ambassadors and Lockheed managers have desperately tried (and in some cases succeeded) to take away potential Typhoon, Dassaut (more the Mirage 2000 than Rafale) and Gripen customers (and the potential Sukhoi sales in other parts of the world) by offering used and/or cheap F16 or shrink-to-fit F15 variants aircraft with the idea to replace them with the JSF from 2015 onwards.



“What the U.S. does in the coming few years, particularly with F-35, will ultimately determine the shape of everything else,” Aboulafia wrote in “The Last Great Decade,” a February report about the fighter market. “This market is theirs to lose.”
Source (http://www.dedefensa.org/choix.php?link_id=5575&comm=1)

Many countries, even those already partaking in the JSF programme, are still not decided on which way to go, watching the JSF progress closely. Every month the JSF gets pushed back, every sign that indicates further delays or cancellation of parts or the whole programme will increase especially the success prospects of the Typhoon, which has the largest domestic base of the western breed. The greatest fear of the Lockheed Martin bunch seems to be a successful move towards a Typhoon Tranche 3, which will incorporate many improvements (currenty under evaluation) clearly positioning the Typhoon ahead of the older US 3rd and 4th generation aircraft. Austria alreay has decided to go for 18 Typhoons, with an option for more. Other interested nations are Turkey, Greece and Norway.

Pheew, my fingers hurt p-)

[crazyman]

anybody else figure we oughta focus some more on the **** we really NEED now? replacing M4s, getting more level 4 sapi plates to iraq, etc

[JoaMei]

Doesnt sound that unlikely, they can export the Carrier version. They also found customers for the F-18 that havent even a coastline like Switzerland.

[DeltaWhisky58]

Britain is already the main partner for either the STOVL/Carrier version. Our preference is currently for the STOVL version, however this is looking a bit "iffy" at present owing to its current inability to operate with the specified weapon/fuel load. Fortunately our new "CVF" carrier programme allows for use of either version, the only main differences being provision of a ski-jump for the STOVL version or catapults/arrestor wires for the conventional carrier plane.

It would certainly help our future plans if the DoD/Lockheed-Martin got their act together and decided what the heck they were doing.

[JoaMei]

Britain is already the main partner for either the STOVL/Carrier version. Our preference is currently for the STOVL version, however this is looking a bit "iffy" at present owing to its current inability to operate with the specified weapon/fuel load. Fortunately our new "CVF" carrier programme allows for use of either version, the only main differences being provision of a ski-jump for the STOVL version or catapults/arrestor wires for the conventional carrier plane.

It would certainly help our future plans if the DoD/Lockheed-Martin got their act together and decided what the heck they were doing.

However, this benefits the Eurofighter, Gripen and Mirage 2000/Rafale sales.

[Limeyfellow]

I just hope the JSF doesn't turn into another fiasco like the Chinooks and Apaches have. You would expect more of Lockheed Martin who for some reason can never keep to limits. Imagine if they were forced to sell the planes at what they original said for. The whole company would s**t itself.

[Oddbod]

I'll bet that some are looking back to the cancelled "Supersonic" Harrier studies with nostalgia.......

[GazB]

Forgive my ignorance, but it was my understanding that there were to be three variants of the JSF. One for the airforce to replace F-16s, Mirage 2000s, Tornados, Mig-29s, Jaguars, etc etc... ie the light strike fighter role, and two for the navy... one catapault launched with folding wings and a tail hook and strengthened undercarriage for carrier landings but otherwise a conventional aircraft, and the other Naval variant was the vertical takeoff harrier type version, which lockheed martin like to describe as the first supersonic vertical takeoff aircraft in the world... ignoring a French and a Russian aircraft both of which flew quite some time ago.
Jumping back a generation the equivelents to these JSF types would be the F-16, F/A-18, and the AV-8II. If this article is dropping the F-16 then that is actually no big deal. As shown by the use of the F/A-18 a carrier plane can do a great job from land bases, which are much easier to operate from than aircraft carriers. The reverse is not true without a lot of work and alteration. (The naval Su-33 and Mig-29K are quite different from their landbased equivelents of the Su-27 and Mig-29B.)

The F-16 certainly sold better than the F/A-18 because the latter was a more complicated and expensive fighter AND strike aircraft. The F-16 started out as a cheap light day fighter but has evolved into a fighter and a strike aircraft (and has gotten just as expensive as the more ex*****ve aircraft it was supposed to replace).

[Greek soldier]

I'll bet that some are looking back to the cancelled "Supersonic" Harrier studies with nostalgia.......

Wow, you mean the Stealth Harrier (or Harrier III) that was designed back in 1990? The good thing is that BAE Systems has the plans but not the funds...

[Vandervahn]

...
Jumping back a generation the equivelents to these JSF types would be the F-16, F/A-18, and the AV-8II. If this article is dropping the F-16 then that is actually no big deal. As shown by the use of the F/A-18 a carrier plane can do a great job from land bases, which are much easier to operate from than aircraft carriers. ...

No, its not so easy, one of the features of the A version is that it is planned to be cheaper than the F-18. But the price tag is dependant on a number of things: The Airforce recently projected to buy more than a thousand F-35A, the sales of the B and C are COMBINED not as high as those planned for the airforce. Moreover, the JSF was thought to sell more than 5000 times on the export market until 2040. Good parts of the program are based on the assumption that that many planes are sold.

But a pullout of the F-35A would result in: Higher costs, both the per-piece costs and the maintenance costs; less export probability, Jets without a solid homebase are less likely to be sold; it would open the market for other contenders that managed to survive the "F-16 wave" - and were planned to be swept away by the JSF sales. All this would happen REGARDLESS of if Lockheed MArtin would develop the F-35A on their own without contract from the Airforce.

[Little J]

Wow, you mean the Stealth Harrier (or Harrier III) that was designed back in 1990? The good thing is that BAE Systems has the plans but not the funds...


Or is he on about the original 1960's supersonic VSTOL P.11xx (?), remember what we know as the harrier was a test airframe fudged into an operational aircraft (in the same way that the English Electric Lightning was a high speed research plane adapted to be an ADF)

[corran.pl]

Forgive my ignorance, but it was my understanding that there were to be three variants of the JSF. One for the airforce to replace F-16s, Mirage 2000s, Tornados, Mig-29s, Jaguars, etc etc...

This is A variant for the Air Force to replace F-16. (F-35)


catapault launched with folding wings and a tail hook and strengthened undercarriage for carrier landings but otherwise a conventional aircraft,

This is C, it also has bigger wing space and more hard points (it closer to F/A-18E then F-16 / F/A-18ABCD), i think it should be consider more like assault variant. (I think that they should name this variant F/A-35)


and the other Naval variant was the vertical takeoff harrier type version, which lockheed martin like to describe as the first supersonic vertical takeoff aircraft in the world... ignoring a French and a Russian aircraft both of which flew quite some time ago.

This is B, LM is trying to make it as close as they can to the A variant (it will have less fuel space and will be heavier then A because of equipment (extra rotor) allowing him to go vertical. This variant is for Marines to replace their F/A-18ABCD and AV-8, and for Royal Navy to replace their Sea Harriers. (I think that they should name this variant VF-35)


Jumping back a generation the equivelents to these JSF types would be the F-16, F/A-18, and the AV-8II. If this article is dropping the F-16 then that is actually no big deal. As shown by the use of the F/A-18 a carrier plane can do a great job from land bases, which are much easier to operate from than aircraft carriers. The reverse is not true without a lot of work and alteration. (The naval Su-33 and Mig-29K are quite different from their landbased equivelents of the Su-27 and Mig-29B.)

That is not a point, AF is looking for an cheap and light aircraft fo replace F-16 - C variant it is not simply aircraft carrier version of A variant. C is heavier and bigger - the difference is more like the F/A-18ABCD (F-35A) and F/A-18EF(F-35C).


The F-16 certainly sold better than the F/A-18 because the latter was a more complicated and expensive fighter AND strike aircraft. The F-16 started out as a cheap light day fighter but has evolved into a fighter and a strike aircraft (and has gotten just as expensive as the more ex*****ve aircraft it was supposed to replace).

This is very importunated for LM - US can pay millions of $ for aircrafts like F/A-22, but most smaller countries are looking for smaller and cheaper aircrafts like F-16, JAS-39, Mirage or MiG-29. If LM wont have this type of aircraft in ofert this country's will buy them in France, Sweden or Russia.

I think that canceling the A variant is the stupidest think they can make.

Think about this in that way:
A- Basic, cheap, variant for US AF and for export.
B- Version of A capable of going vertical.
C- Bigger, heavier, assault version of A.
If you delete A variant, B and C will have very little in common.

[akd]

Cancelling the Air Force JSF would be unfortunate. A far more important program than the Cold War, wetdream F(/A?)-22. Bear in mind that we are exporting more advanced versions of the F-16 than the Air Force currently has in its inventory. F-16 is rapidly reaching the end of its life cycle. Then what?

[Flyboy]

S**t, they should produce more F16s. I know it's not that easy, but it should be. Everyone in MXS barely has any work on the 16s. It's all the A10s that get worked on the the -16s barely get any work.

[Durandal]

Well, after cutting back on the number of F-22s going into production, we are going to need something to replace aging equipment.

And we have a "future war with China" to prepare for. p-)

[Arty]

As an Australian, it ain't all that bad. We might now have to buy the F-22.

[Kekkonen]

As an Australian, it ain't all that bad. We might now have to buy the F-22.

Does US even want to export the F-22? And if so, it surely must be an export version that is very much downgraded in capabilities. But still with a mighty pricetag.

[Vandervahn]

The following Quote is from "intelgurl", a trustworthy source of DoD and Aeronautic News from another Forum. I quote it here because apparently her info has only been released on paper and not online as of now.


F-35A CTOL Not to be Cancelled!

11/28/2005
Here’s a news flash that is sure to impact a few ongoing threads…
In the the Quadrennial Defense Review that is currently taking place in DC, acting Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England has given up on his plan to cut the F-35A CTOL version of the Joint Strike Fighter!

Instead, it has been determined that total numbers of F-35A’s to be acquired for the USAF will drop from the original goal of 1,763 units to 1,100 to 1,200 units.

Lockheed has now apparently decided to slowly ramp down the end of the Raptor production and slowly ramp up the beginning of the F-35 production thus bridging the gap between the 2 programs and securing employment for their specialized fighter-building workforce.

Source: DoD Press Release; 11/28/2005

Still the reduced numbers (which could be lowered even more, its still a few years until introduction of the F-35, and who knows what can happen unto then) could result in a cost increase that some participating countries might consider not bearable.

[Limeyfellow]

Just hope it doesn't turn into another Comanche/Crusader/XM8/XM29 travesty. Its not been a good few years or so of trying to get new tech in the military.

[Durandal]

Just hope it doesn't turn into another Comanche/Crusader/XM8/XM29 travesty. Its not been a good few years or so of trying to get new tech in the military.

Yeah, they need to add Osprey to that list.

[Tony Williams]

According to today's news reports, the British are getting seriously pissed with the US refusal to provide technical information about the F-35 (to the development of which the UK has already contributed around 3 billion USD), and is exploring a navalised Typhoon for its new carriers as a fallback (the carriers are being designed for STOVL, but with the capability for CTOL conversion).

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[Vandervahn]

Related news update to that:


The JSF is a versatile plane aimed at replacing several types of aircraft currently in use, and could achieve total sales of more than $300 billion, according to some forecasts.
While the development is being driven by the Pentagon, it is being built by a multinational team in which Britain is the sole “Tier One” partner. The government has already provided $2 billion in development funding, and had been slated to buy 150 aircraft for the RAF and Royal Navy.
But Britain is now threatening to withdraw after rows over the Pentagon’s reluctance to agree to the transfer of technology, and because of likely increases in the price of each plane.
According to senior Ministry of Defence officials, instructions have been given for alternative strategies for projects affected by American technology- transfer problems, the most important of which is the JSF.
Dropping the JSF would stun the defence industry, but a senior official told The Sunday Times it was time to “think the unthinkable”. “I know how the Americans negotiate,” said the official. “They will not do a deal unless they know the other side has a serious alternative. It’s like a high-stakes poker game . . . it’s essential to have a Plan B because it’s very important not to travel in hope.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2095-1902806,00.html

[JoaMei]

According to today's news reports, the British are getting seriously pissed with the US refusal to provide technical information about the F-35 (to the development of which the UK has already contributed around 3 billion USD), and is exploring a navalised Typhoon for its new carriers as a fallback (the carriers are being designed for STOVL, but with the capability for CTOL conversion).

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

So they would never buy the french Rafale? p-)

[Vandervahn]

Regarding the budget:

Pentagon Weighs Personnel Cuts To Pay for Weapons

Smaller Air Force, Reduction In Army's Plans for Growth Are Among Ideas Considered
As the Defense Department scrambles to finalize its budget for the coming fiscal year, the Air Force is looking to secure much of its savings by cutting active and reserve forces, instead of slashing weapons purchases.


http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113375156217213824-oPaL6D0OtfBQrfLvKmqwidSnwWE_20061205.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top


Regarding future equipment strategy:

For fighters, a moment of truth
BY: John A. Tirpak, Air Force Magazine
12/02/2005

The Air Force must soon answer basic questions about the future size and composition of its fighter force. Defense leaders have long postponed decisions about whether the bulk of USAF’s fighters should be replaced or, alternatively, rehabilitated. They can’t delay much longer, however. Unless USAF takes decisive action—and soon—the capability of its fleet will suffer, and the Air Force may not be able to discharge its commitments.

http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=8147