Posted on 11/24/2010 11:37:28 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Joint Strike Fighter Delayed? Not a Big Deal for the U.S. Navy
The U.S. military’s largest tactical aviation program, it’s safe to say, will not be terminated.
Beyond that, a cloud of uncertainty still hovers over the Joint Strike Fighter. Doubts persist about key aspects of the nearly $400 billion program, such as how many airplanes will be produced and when; and most recently, whether the Marine Corps’ vertical-takeoff variant will even survive.
Of all the services, the Navy has been the most aggressive about hedging its bets by shoring up its fleet of Super Hornets and older Hornets. The Marine Corps continues to champion its short-takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B and so far has refused to buy into the Navy’s Super Hornet backup plan.
JSF, more than any other Pentagon weapon system, symbolizes the unsurpassed military might of the United States and the American way of war that is dominated by air power. The program includes nearly 2,500 high performance fighter jets for the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and several allied nations that have made tentative commitments to buying it.
The development phase of JSF already has slipped by nearly two years, to November 2015, and the military services already are drawing up contingency plans. If all goes as currently envisioned, the first fleet-ready aircraft would not be available until 2017 or later. It will be up to each individual service to determine when its F-35 variant will be ready for real-world operations.
The Pentagon’s Defense Acquisition Board met Nov. 22 to assess the current data on the program, but they did not issue any report or statement. A spokesman for prime contractor Lockheed Martin said it would be “inappropriate to discuss the specifics of the DAB at this time.”
Of the three JSF models, the Air Force’s F-35A appears to stand on firmer ground than the other two. Air Force officials have discussed possible upgrades to the F-16 and F-15 fleets, and have even leaked rumors about possibly extending the production of the F-22, in anticipation of F-35A delays.
Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz says the Air Force will be ready to deal with any setbacks in the program. "If the airplanes are not ready to put on the ramp, we'll work alternatives,” he told reporters at a Defense Writers Group meeting in Washington, D.C. “It's not the preferred solution to be sure, but we'll do what's required."
Schwartz' comments suggest that it is still too early for F-35A supporters to panic. "Software appears to be a potential pacing item here and that has me concerned in terms of deliveries," he says. The Air Force is now beginning to study options for reburbishing current F-16 fighters.
The path that each service is taking to fill potentially a years-long gap before JSF arrives speaks volumes about one of the reasons this program has been so tough to manage and keep on schedule, industry insiders say. Just because the program is called “joint” does not mean the services are united behind it.
Marines for years have blamed the Navy for not standing firmly behind JSF and, by doing so, jeopardizing the prospects of the STOVL variant. Another devastating blow to F-35B has been the U.K. Royal Navy’s budget-driven decision to back out of the STOVL program. The British government may still acquire a reduced number of F-35Cs, the U.S. Navy’s carrier-based variant.
Navy officials, for their part, publicly have reaffirmed their commitment to F-35C, but have already kicked off a plan-B alternative. In what was seen as a sign of confidence that the Navy will not be replacing their Super Hornets with F-35s any time soon, the service awarded Boeing a $5 billion contract this year for 124 new aircraft.
In addition, the Navy will be embarking on what could be a multibillion-dollar project to revamp its fleet of more than 600 aging Hornets and the earlier generation of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. The Navy has more than 400 E/Fs. The older ones are being retrofit with new technology that could put make them JSF-like, officials contend.
Analysts estimate that it will cost $26 million per aircraft to extend the life of the Hornets from 8,000 to 10,000 flying hours. That is about half of what it costs to buy a new Super Hornet.
The F/A-18 E/Fs are being updated with improved data-links and radios, “look-and-shoot” helmets to cue weapons more precisely, air-to-air AIM-9X missiles, and new avionics and displays.
The older F/A-18A-D Hornets will require extensive renovations. The Naval Air Systems Command is conducting a “service life assessment program” and a “service life extension program.” A SLAP is an “extensive evaluation of opportunities to extend service life design limits,” says Marcia Hart-Wise, spokeswoman for Navy tactical aircraft programs at NavAir.
“The assessment for the legacy Hornet fleet is a two-phase effort,” says Hart-Wise. “Phase 1 focused on reaching extended goals for catapult, arrested landings and total landings. Phase 2 focused on extending the life of the F/A-18 A-D models from 8,000 to 10,000 flight hours.”
The first SLEP phase was completed in 2008. The second step — to categorize and prioritize aircraft structure based on its condition — began in December 2008 and is expected to wrap up by spring 2011, according to Hart-Wise. A third phase — scheduled to begin in mid-2011 — will provide justification for what the Navy will consider necessary structural modifications. “A SLEP Phase C request for proposal has been issued,” says Hart-Wise. A yet-to-be-determined number of F/A-18 Hornet A-D aircraft will undergo SLEP modifications between 2012 and 2018.
Early models of the Super Hornet are receiving new AN/APG-79 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar to replace mechanical scan AN/APG-73 radar.
In light of JSF delays, radar manufacturer Raytheon also is trying to persuade the Navy to expand AESA upgrades not just to Super Hornets but also to older Hornets.
“We’re pitching it to the Navy,” says Michael “Ponch” Garcia, a reserve Navy pilot and manager of business development at Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems.
This is a way for the Navy to keep flying “fourth-generation” aircraft and elevating their performance to quasi “fifth-generation” level as would be the case in F-35, Garcia says in an interview.
“You can put the AESA into an old jet without making major modifications, not going outside the weight confinements, not adding power or cooling requirements,” Garcia says. “The radar that will be on JSF is equivalent to the APG 79 in the E/F and the APG 82 that will be on the Air Force’s F-15E.”
The Navy’s tactical aviation fleet has a “significant obsolescence problem,” he says. That means that are no spare parts available for the older APG 73 radar. Raytheon is trying to make a case that the Navy could keep those Hornets “operationally relevant” for several more years if it equips them with new AESA radar. “Instead of trying to fix and buy spares for the old 73 radars, we are asking them to look at the business case of buying new radars,” says Garcia. “Every APG 73 radar that you displace now becomes a full set of spare parts for your legacy fleet.”
For both Boeing and Raytheon, there is a silver lining from JSF continuing to slip to the right.
The fourth-generation aircraft has been in service for 10 years, says Garcia, “but you know it’s going to be around for another 20,” he adds. “That’s the market we’re chasing right now.”
In times of declining budgets, he says, “One of our tag lines is you can get 90 percent of your fifth-generation capability at half the cost.” An AESA equipped Super Hornet is “generation four-and-a-half,” he says. “All the sensors are fifth generation. You won’t have super cruise. You won’t have 360 stealth. You lose that. But you’re getting it for half the price.”
While the layed-off and broke American taxpayer tries to
figure out how to pay for Christmas........ The F-35 project
managers at the pentagon are busy working out how many planes
they can afford to buy........... And where to go on vacation.
nice.
“1984/88 Chevy Cavaliers/Celebrities” not going to happen. That would be like fying Sabre jets. Maybe ‘91-95 S-10’s.
“1984/88 Chevy Cavaliers/Celebrities” not going to happen. That would be like fying Sabre jets. Maybe ‘91-95 S-10’s.
ping
I had read your comments to Sukhoi30MKI (some days back) on your car analogies, as well as the ones you have used above. The problem with what you are saying (if you allow me to use your rubric) is as follows:
Yes, you can use your old Ford Explorer to move to and fro. It does the job, and does it ok. Sure, it will not win any beauty contests, or auto shows, or anything for that matter ...but that is not what you got it for. For you, it is a commodity that is used for transportation.
That is fair.
However, now imagine that you need to participate in a drag race ....and your Explorer is up against some a Subaru WRX. You will have no chance.
Or imagine that you have to participate in a NASCAR competition ....using your truck! Again, no chance.
Or, to go at the highest level, you need to compete in a Formula One race, where the other drivers have the latest F1 cars from Ferrari and BMW ....and you have your old (but working) Ford Explorer.
That is the problem with your analogy. The rest of the near-peer countries in aviation (e.g. Russia, China, France, UK/Germany/Spain, even Sweden) are operating Subaru WRXs at the low end (e.g. the J-10B, and at the higher low-end the Gripen NG), NASCAR vehicles in the higher mid-end (e.g. the Eurofighter Typhoon, the SU-35 SuperFlanker, and Rafale), and full functioning F-1 supercars at the high end (e.g. the upcoming stealthy Pak-Fa). Yet you are still thinking about fielding the Ford Explorer.
Now, the US has not fought against a real adversary in many decades. The current list of US victories has such 'luminaries' as Somalia, Bosnia/Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Grenada, Panama, Guam, bombing of Tripoli in Libya, etc. Against such 'mighty' enemies your Ford Explorer analogue is more than perfect! It will do the job and do it very well, because your competition either has no vehicles (e.g. Somalia and Afghanistan) or have even older less capable vehicles driven by 8 year old girls (e.g. the old Soviet planes in Iraq ...if you have some time check out the combat record of the F-15 ...almost 200-0 ....then check out the planes it has brought down. More specifically, check out the combat record of any USAF plane after Viet Nam, and look at what planes were brought down. Monkey-models .....it is like you bragging that your Explorer can haul more than a man pulling a rickshaw).
Anyways, if you are competing against girls in tricycles, then your Explorer is alright. And maybe that is what the US will be doing always when it comes to who it fights.
However, if some day the US has to go against a near-peer (e.g. China) then you will quickly realize using your Ford Explorer will mean unnecessary loss of life.
That is why the US needs Subaru WRXs at the low end (e.g. Block 52 F-16s ...hopefully in the future retrofitted with AESAs, either like the ones in the Block 60s sold to UAE, or the RACR and SABR AESAs coming to market), NASCARS at the mid-level (e.g. the F-35 falls here, as well as blocl upgrades of the SuperHornet, as well as any upgrades of the Eagle like the 'Golden Eagles' with AESA or an analogue of the F-15K sold to Korea, or maybe the Silent Eagle concept), and at the high end ONLY the F-22 Raptor belongs here (forget the hype ...the F-35 is NOT here).
That way you can have the F-16s knock the block out of the 'usual' set of foes, yet still have some Raptors to maintain air dominance (not air superiority - or at the worst case air-parity, which is where the US would be with Ford Explorers) should China decide to be 'interesting.'
I will be retired by the time this jet finally enters service.
I remember when a USMC pilot handed me a poster of the new F-35 program back in the early 1990’s.
Its a shame that military procurement programs have turned into decades long time lines for one weapon system.
I worry about the overall performance of the Hornet and Super Hornet. The Hornet suffers from a decided lack of range and endurance. It flies great. Very manoeuverable with great acceleration. The Super Hornet has better range and endurance, but its performance cannot compare to the latest generation of Sukhois or maybe even what ever the Chicoms come up with due to stolen technology. Heck the Super Hornet is inferior in almost every performance parameter to the Hornet and to the aircraft it replaced, The F-14D Tomcat, which was a much better pure fighter than the Super Hornet. It’s great that the Super Hornet is going to get all these advanced, next-generation avionics, but it would be even better if the Super Hornet’s performance was as advanced.
As I understand it, the F-35C isn't supposed to replace SuperHornets. They are supposed to replace the older Hornets.
BTW, we do need to develop a fighter equivalent to the Chevy Cavalier, low cost but hard to kill. I'd like to add that it would be nice if it can be simple enough that a monkey could fix it but I think that's asking too much, even for a skinflint like me. B-)
The USAF already has that 'Chevy Cavalier', the F-16 Fighting Falcon. Best Fighter since the F-86 Sabre (they look like Fighters standing still). But that's because actual Fighter Pilots had input into the F-16 Falcon's design (I read that somewhere years back). So what we need IMHO is a new 'F-16'. Cheap to build and easy to fly. And it can carry a boatload of external ordinance too.
This F-35 'Joint Strike Fighter' reminds me of the 'all purpose' F-4 Phantom. Not exactly the best of 'fighters' (no gun in original design) and it didn't exactly have a stellar record in Nam. (The Kill Ratio sucked, and Top Gun was born)
BTW, I support the F-15SE to cover the gaps.
BTW, Happy Thanksgiving to all!
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
“There is absolutely nothing that the F-35 does that AESA-equipped F-16’s and Super Hornets can’t do better. We should kill this white elephant, and continue to build Supers for the Navy (with the newer F414’s that GE are offering with 20 percent more thrust than older F414’s... at the same price as well). “
OK, that’s not an 84 cavalier. 84-88 cavalier and celebs are junk today. I have no problem w f-16’s its the comparison to cavaliers that bothers me.
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.