© Lockheed Martin
Posted on 04/16/2010 6:39:29 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
US lawmakers push for back-up plans after F-35 cost increases
By Stephen Trimble
As cost estimates for the Lockheed Martin F-35 continue rising, some US lawmakers are pushing military officials to increase spending on fourth-generation fighters as a back-up.
Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut says he considers the F-35 a "really extraordinary aircraft", but is concerned about the military's projected tactical aircraft shortfalls.
"There will certainly be pressure to sustain the fourth generation and improvement of aircraft because the fifth generation is coming on more slowly and more expensively than we hoped for," Lieberman told a Senate hearing on the tactical aircraft budget on 13 April.
The US Navy has projected a 243-aircraft shortfall by 2017 and the US Air Force estimates a fighter gap of 800 aircraft after 2020.
Lieberman says the military should invest in a "combination of fourth and fifth generation [fighters] to keep us where we want to be". His concerns were echoed by Illinois Senator Roland Burris, who expressed his doubts in a question to the panel of military officers assembled for the hearing.
"What is the back-up plan in case we get to the point where the software won't really do what the engineers or all of the planners have anticipated and we run into a problem then of trying to scale back or make adjustments?" Burris asked.
Lt Gen George Trautman, deputy commandant for aviation for the US Marine Corps, suggests that the tactical aircraft shortfall may actually be less than currently projected. "It's almost impossible to predict, frankly, eight years from now specifically how many shortfall airplanes we're going to have, even if the ramp on [F-35s] stays precisely as we think it's going to occur today," he says. "And that's doubtful. Lockheed has been incentivised to beat the ramp that's laid out now, and they think that they can give us more [F-35s] between now and [2018]."
Senator Saxby Chambliss, an ardent Lockheed F-22 supporter, however, challenged Trautman's positive outlook on the F-35's future, pointedly questioning the progress achieved so far by the USMC's short take-off and vertical landing F-35B.
"I think you've tested your variant on the F-35 and I don't know what kind of confidence you have in that variant right now, but that's probably going to continue to be an issue," Chambliss says.
Meanwhile, navy and air force officials are starting to consider back-up strategies to compensate for the F-35 delays acknowledged so far. The USN is working on plans to upgrade parts of its Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fleet with 9,000h and 10,000h service life. Meanwhile, the USAF has started assessing a new structural upgrade for the its Lockheed F-16 Block 40/42 and 50/52 fleets.
It remains clear that officials from both services still consider the F-35 their most important budget priority for tactical aviation.
"We absolutely need the requirements brought by the fifth generation of the [F-35]," says Vice Adm David Architzel, a principal deputy for the USN's acquisition office. "And so we are committed to that as we go forward."
© Lockheed Martin
Somewhere, the Pukin Dog is thinking “I told you so.”
Heres to you, Pukin.
Comes with free matching Barry space shuttle replacement.
Backup plan: Cancel the F35 program, restart the F-22 program. Shift remaining funds from the Lightning to the Raptor, allow our allies to buy ‘export’ versions of the F-22. As for the Navy’s need, update and buy Super Hornets and/or drones.
Maybe the F-22 can be adapted for carrier ops but at considerable costs however we could pursue that in a separate order.
Ideal? No but it’s a hell of a lot better than what we have now.
And the Marines get out of the V/STOL business?
We actually need both fighters and we need to sell F-35's to keep the assembly lines running.
I am for restarting F22, but F22 can not be adapted for carrier ops and the Marines still need STOVL.
The backup plan needs to be a govt wake-up that you get what you pay for and if you want to get the best it costs more. Stop spending money on welfare and bailouts, and put people to work building the things our military needs to do its job.
The govt is the best example of blame shifting you could ever ask for.
Why not pursue the V/STOL program separate like they have with the Harrier? Let’s face it, even if they can get a V/STOL version of the F-35 working it’s going to cost so much that not many will be procured Personally I think the Marines should get a newer version of the A-10 Thunderbolt that is purpose built for ground-support. It’s arguable as to how effective the F-35 in a ground-support role but it is a single engine fighter and the V/STOL abilities will come at a cost, (reduce ordinance/fuel/range.)
Again, not ideal but the route we’re going down now will mean at best a handful of F-22’s, a handful of F-35’s and a bunch of older Gen IV fighters facing Gen V fighters from Russia (Iran, Venezuela, NK, etc.) You don’t have to be a AF strategist to see the coming disaster we’re heading to.
We WILL have some sort of conflict with China over Taiwan in the next 25 years as well as countless Iraq/Iraq/Afghanistan adversaries. All of our military doctrine is based upon air supremacy, take that away and we’re in big, BIG trouble!!!
ping
I agree with you but it’s not going to happen until at least 2012. Even then *if* we can convince the voting public to give up entitlement programs to build weapons the money simply won’t be there. Face it everyone, we’re going down the road the the U.S.S.R went down in the 70’s and early eighties. We cannot continue to sustain the massive spending and eventually we’ll have to cut EVERYTHING including defense programs just to pay our debt. The only way I see the voting public accepting a shift from entitlement programs into weapons is another war on the level of WWII.
If it were up to me I’d replace every Gen IV fighter we have with F-35’s and F-22’s but it’s simply not possible. A AF friend of mine who was a F-22 skeptic convinced me that we need as many of these things as we can build. The F-35 can’t do anything that a F-22 can do better except the V/STOL. Event that isn’t a done-deal for the F-35 so again I ask at what cost do we pursue one single role?
Correction; AN AF friend.....I need more coffee.
An A-10 has a cirtical runway length of 4,500 feet (2500PA and 25C temp) loaded.
Not a real STOL kinds A/C.
Ahh thanks for that, I understand the V/STOL is a critical item but I’m concerned that the justification will make matters worse. From what I understand, the Harrier isn’t really a capable air-air system which the F-35 V/STOL will improve on but wouldn’t be better to pursue that as an independent platform?
F22 is not carrier aviation adaptable
The Marine Corp has a very unique set of needs and requirements for its aviation arm. Harrier, while having some limited air-to-air capability, was intended for the close-air-support (CAS) mission, not air-to-air. F35 alone gives the Marines the CAS capability with improved air-to-air, while retaining the STOVL capability needed for them to deploy on small deck ships like LHA’s, ships smaller than full deck CV’s and CVN’s.
STOVL is a done deal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcC7Ps9cHsY&playnext_from=TL&videos=zdwBnuFiAJY
Sure it is. All it takes is time, money, and willpower. Sadly, we seem to be out of all three.
Cool but i read a story a coue day ago about problems with the F35 exhaust. Seems in V/STOL config, the exhaust it too hot for decks, it was posted in FR I think.
Sounds like a much better plan than the one they have now.
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.