Posted on 09/15/2004 1:47:15 PM PDT by Spackidagoosh
The U.S. Air Force plans to buy "hundreds" of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters in the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) configuration, a key general said Sept. 13, adding further clarity to the service's plans for the JSF variant.
The specific figure remains under review, said Gen. John Jumper, Air Force chief of staff.
"I can't give you an exact number, but it's going to be more than a handful," Jumper said at a press briefing at the Air Force Association's Air & Space Conference in Washington.
Current budget plans call for the Air Force to buy all 1,763 of its JSFs in the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) configuration, but Jumper and Air Force Secretary James Roche announced in February that the service would like to buy the STOVL variant as well to provide close air support, particularly for Army ground troops (DAILY, Feb. 13, Feb. 17). The Air Force has said since then that the number of STOVL JSFs it buys could result in a corresponding reduction in the number of CTOL F-35s it acquires.
Roche said in May that the Air Force's revised acquisition strategy for the Lockheed Martin JSF could be finalized by the end of the year (DAILY, May 17).
Also during the press briefing, Jumper and Roche said they are becoming increasingly convinced of the need to acquire an interim long-range strike system to serve as a bridge between the current bomber force and a next-generation platform, which may not enter service for more than two decades.
The Air Force asked industry for ideas on interim capabilities earlier this year and is evaluating the responses to that request for information (RFI). A bomber version of the Lockheed Martin F/A-22 Raptor has been mentioned as one option the Air Force might pursue (DAILY, May 20, May 24).
I figure that so many have spent so much on it, we and our development/production allies will have to buy a few. Besides, it might not be too bad in the CTOL configuration, especially if gets an engine up grade. But then, what can't be improved with just a bit more power?
Actually they can, so long as they are not armed. C-21, OV-1, OV-10 are Army fixed wing aircraft. Observation, artillery spotting, and VIP transport are their duties. The airforce tried to make that rule stick concerning rotor-wings during the vietnam war but lost the battle.
When one B-2 with 10 JDAMS can achieve what it took a 50 B-52 missions to accomplish 25 years ago, why should it grow?
A link to a thread where you've already explained would be fine (I sorted by your handle but didn't see any recent postings to the topic).
Thanks.
In which case a STOVL aircraft would have not changed things much. In Gulf I and Gulf II, thousands of sortes were generated daily, and without the hard infrastructure of a permanant base for maintenance, refueling, and rearming, you can't sustain that kind of air campaign. In limited combat situations, where you need short term close air support, then you do need to be forward based, and that is what the Marines are for. If you don't have access to a hard base, that is what the carriers are for. Why do you think there is a carrier variant of the F-35? Theoretically, the Navy could just buy STOVL vairants, but that would be as questionable as the Air Force buying a "significant number" of them.
Our AF is going to be significantly reduced. A couple of wings of F-22's to provide air dominance, a lot of JSF wings to replace the aging fleet of F-16S, more B-2s. These will hold us over until we start producing the new generation of pilotless attack craft. The Buffs and the Warthog will be around for awhile.
Our Air Force was significantly reduced prior to Gulf I. It was reduced even further prior to Gulf II. We will still have F-15Es for air to ground, we will still have F-16s for wild weasel, close air support, air superiority, air recon, and strike package jamming. The F-35 will replace the older F-16s in the air superiority role, while the newer F-16s will be reassigned to the other roles.
Pukin Dog is right, however, in that the F-35 will end up being cancelled. We learned from McNamara's day that you can't design one aircraft for widely different roles. The F-111, which I worked on when I was in the Air Force, is the prime example. It eventually worked out to be a decent ground attack aircraft, but it was never the air superiority aircraft either the Air Force or the Navy wanted it to be. (The Navy never wanted the damn thing in the first place.) The result was the F-15 for the Air Force, and Pukin's beloved F-14 for the Navy. I'm seeing the same thing with the F-35A, B, and C variants.
Picky, Picky, Picky. ;^>
OK, fixed wing combat aircraft. Satisfied now, Colnel Billy Mitchell?
Obviously you're right (and more knowledgable about this than I am, though I love the design of the Bronco). Point still stands, though.
c#29
1. it is too fat, and cannot lose another pound 2. the Navy does not want any aircraft with a single engine 3. it cannot carry enough fuel to perform its primary mission at acceptable performance levels 4. we don't need it
fox news actually has done a few reports recently, even took greta van sustern up in the air to see one in action.
f-16 pilots that have flown the f-16 for years have taken one ride and said if they had to go to war tomorrow, they'd choose the f/a-22
Why do have the feeling that Russian or Chinese ground-based pilots using relatively inexpensive robotic drones (maybe even kamikaze-style, anti-aircraft drones) would have little trouble bringing down a whole squadron of JSF's? Or almost any other fighter plane in our arsenal, with the possible exception of the F-22 Raptor?
Best. Headline. Ever.
I wasn't trying to be picky, just trying clarify things. I agree with your point though on why the AF is probably going with the VSTOL F-35. They hate having an aircraft that has no other role than to support ground-pounders. Even though the pilots that fly it swear by it.
Even so, the Warthog will be around for a while yet. They AF committed to a major upgrade program for them. Besides, before the AF will be allowed to get rid of them, they will have to prove that the F-35 can do what it does as well as the A-10. The Warthog has too strong a following.
And I, for one, love the Warthog. My son is just committing to 5 years in the Marines (2 more years of college at A&M then minimum of 5 as a Marine officer) so I want the ground pounders to have all the assetts they can get to call on. I want A-10s around for damn-sure. The Marine Commendant officially said that if the AF decides to drop the A10 the Marines want to pick up the program and all of the inventory. I like that attitude!
Neither the AF or Navy wanted a air superiority aircraft.
The Air Force wanted a long rang strike aircraft to sit in hardened bunkers in Western Europe ready to head out a low level in the general direcrion of East carrying a "special store".
The Navy wanted air dominance. A slow flying patrol aircraft orbiting the carriers carrying a six pack of big long range missiles to take out Tu-16s before they got within Kennel/Kitchen/Kipper launch range.
Then came Strange McNamara and his vision of "commonality". The result: the F-111 got the worst of both worlds, the low-fuel consumption patrol {but not quite fighter throttle response) engine, mated to the high structural weight low altitude gust resistant airframe.
I know a little about the design. Some of the electronics had to move to mitigate gunfire loads, some of the sub-contractors took a lot of time to accept the "economy of scale" mandates, etc... so flushing out weight is just now being worked.
Typically, Designers concentrate first on getting systems to work. Bench-testing (for lack of a better term) eventually proves a design and the weight is attacked later.
I agree "later" has come; I disagree there is no margin. While there are critical areas fat, there are other areas still to trim. I don't expect weight issues to be resolved anytime in the next 12-18months.
The Navy didn't want on board from the start, right? ...as I understood it. But they continue to be present, talking the details at every review.
I'm not privy to the fuel situation; is this a product of being overweight or poor engine performance?
The engine is a monster. Very powerful and efficient. Take a look at the airframe; notice that there is almost no room for gas. That big engine, while efficient as it gets, still sucks gas like all big turbofans, which is considerable.
What you have here is the Harrier fiasco all over again. Some jokers in the Pentagon fall in love with STOL, regardless of the fact that there is no tactical advantage to be gained. It just has a "cool factor", which does not hold up under combat conditions. The survivability rate for the Harrier (and I believe is also true of the JSF) is terrible, to the point where one could argue that you could bring down a Harrier with a well placed rock.
JSF is a nice air-show airplane. When you hang heavy ordinance on it and fill a couple of wing tanks, it becomes a single-engine slug, looking for a mission.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Printable story
E-mail story
