Posted on 01/26/2010 8:31:24 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
F-35 To Dominate Future Fighter Market
By Douglas Royce
Forecast International/www.forecastinternational.com
During the past decade, world fighter production totaled only around 2,500 units, but over the next 10 years, annual deliveries are set to rise. Unlike the 1970s and 1980s, when large numbers of dedicated ground-attack aircraft were produced in addition to fighters, the modern market for combat aircraft is focused almost exclusively on multirole fighters that can handle both the air superiority and attack missions. The U.S. Air Force recently proposed building a new bomber, but this program is not expected to deliver an aircraft until the 2020s.
Enter the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. With the Obama administration ending production of the F-22 Raptor at 187 aircraft, the Air Force is relying on the F-35 to give it the quantity of fighters needed to rejuvenate its aging fleet of F-16s, A-10s and even F-15s.
Lockheed Martin is now developing the F-35 under a $19-billion system development and demonstration (SDD) contract with the Pentagon. Three variants are being produced: The F-35A conventional-takeoff-and-landing (CTOL) version will replace the Air Force’s F-16s and A-10s. The F-35B—a short-takeoff/vertical-landing (Stovl) version—will replace the U.S. Marine Corps’ AV-8Bs and F/A-18s. And the F-35C is a carrier-capable version for the U.S. Navy.
The F-35 program also has an important international component. Unlike the F-22, which Congress has prohibited for export, the F-35 was designed with an eye to international customers. The program includes a partnership arrangement through which allies participate at one of three levels, depending on the amount of money each country contributes to the development phase.
The U.K. is the sole Level I partner in the SDD phase, having committed $2 billion under plans to replace its fleet of Harriers with F-35Bs to serve on two new aircraft carriers. Seven other nations are involved at lower levels of participation—Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Turkey. Despite their roles in the SDD phase, none of the eight partner nations is locked into ordering production F-35s. Firm commitments are not likely to be made until they are confident the aircraft can be delivered on time and within its projected unit costs.
If Lockheed Martin can bring the F-35 to market with a flyaway price below $60 million (at today’s prices), customers will be lining up for a relatively affordable, low-observable strike fighter that can replace F-16s, F-4s, F-5s and other 1970s and ‘80s vintage aircraft in their inventories. If unit costs end up significantly higher, the potential pool of customers will shrink.
Even the U.S. military would need to cut back on the number of F-35s it acquires if unit costs grow too high. However, as long as USAF sticks to its plan for an all-stealth fleet, the F-35 must be manufactured in large enough numbers to allow the retirement of a fighter fleet that is being worn out in active service. The Marine Corps is also firm in its need to have a Stovl aircraft to provide close air support to Marine expeditionary forces during operations.
Only the U.S. Navy has an alternative to the F-35. Unlike the Air Force, it has not focused exclusively on stealth aircraft and is acquiring a large fleet of Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets as it waits for the F-35C to arrive. The total Navy program requirement for the Super Hornet has risen to 494 aircraft from 462 in recent years. Production for the Navy can be expected to run at least through 2014 and may be extended should the F-35C enter service later than expected.
The F-35’s progress will have a big impact on the shape of the modern fighter market. The nine partner nations involved in the development program represent a substantial portion of the traditional demand for Western-made fighters. Even without a single export order in hand, the program’s mere promise has hurt competing manufacturers by reducing the size of the available pool of customers. Fighter contests in Brazil, India and Switzerland have thus taken on huge importance to other companies that are looking at shrinking backlogs and wondering how they will keep their lines open through the next decade.
The Eurofighter Typhoon managed to secure further orders in 2009 from the four partner nations that developed the aircraft—the U.K., Germany, Italy and Spain. They were slated to acquire 620 aircraft under an umbrella contract that involved orders in three separate tranches. The first two tranches totaled 384 firm orders. Tranche 1 is complete; Tranche 2 production began in 2008 and will run through 2013. Tranche 3 is being split into two parts. Instead of the 236-unit order initially envisioned, in mid-July the partners ordered only 112 aircraft. Whether the remaining 124 will be built later in the decade remains to be seen.
Complicating the production outlook is whether Britain will deduct from its commitment under the umbrella contract the 72 Eurofighters ordered by Saudi Arabia through the British government. An export order from Austria has already been fulfilled through a mix of new and ex-German aircraft.
In Asia, the F-15 beat out the Eurofighter for orders in South Korea and Singapore several years ago, but these two countries are currently the only customers for Boeing’s large twin-engine fighter. The last delivery of an F-15 is forecast to occur in 2012 unless Boeing secures additional orders. In March 2009, Boeing announced a “Silent Eagle” configuration that adds new stealth features to the design, but the new version cannot be considered a true low-observable platform. Japan and Saudi Arabia, existing F-15 users, are considered potential customers, along with South Korea.
In the spring of 2009, Dassault announced that Rafale production will be cut sharply in 2010, dropping to an annual rate of 11 aircraft from 14. Company managers noted at the time that production will be slashed even if the Rafale is bought by an export customer because the French government will use the new order as an opportunity to slow its own procurement of the Rafale even further. The total number of Rafales to be acquired by the French military will reach only about 250 under current plans.
Lockheed Martin’s F-16 and the Saab Gripen have seen success with nations looking to buy new fighters at relatively low cost when compared with larger twin-engine competitors. Saab’s marketing efforts are complicated by the Swedish air force decision to consolidate its 150-plus fleet of Gripens to 100 upgraded aircraft. This will result in a number of early-model ex-Swedish JAS 39A/B models being offered for sale on the used-aircraft market. Saab is developing an upgraded “Next Generation” Gripen with a more powerful engine and active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, and has made generous offers of technology transfer and industrial offsets to Brazil and India. It is also one of three competitors for a Swiss order, but these sales efforts may not be enough to keep the line open over the long run.
Meanwhile, the Gripen’s best chance for survival is if F-35 costs skyrocket; the type has often been mentioned as a likely alternative for any European nation deciding that the F-35 is too costly.
One interesting aspect of the post-Cold War market is the frequency with which Russian-made fighters are going head-to-head against Western aircraft. Sukhoi’s Su-35, the latest iteration of the Su-27/30 series, faced five Western fighters in Brazil but did not make it past the initial cut. In India, the MiG-35 is facing off against the Eurofighter, Rafale, F-16, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Gripen. The MiG-35 is a derivative of the MiG-29, a fighter that was heavily exported in the 1980s by the Soviet Union but has since largely fallen out of favor among buyers. Sukhoi’s Su-27 family is now the pre-eminent Russian export fighter. India and China—both rapidly becoming the largest growth markets for fighters outside the U.S.—have invested heavily in the Sukhoi Su-27 family while working to build their own fighter development skills.
China’s investment in Sukhoi aircraft has already paid off. The Chinese developed their J-11B through knowledge gained from licensed production of the Su-27. The J-11B is essentially an Su-27 with new Chinese-made components and weapons, but it emerged outside the licensing deal with Russia. While Russian industry is unhappy about the development, it has done little to stop it. Although Russia has found it difficult to fund purchases of new aircraft for its own armed forces, in the summer of 2009 the air force ordered 48 new Su-27SM2/Su-35s to boost the new variant’s export potential.
China’s Chengdu Aircraft Industrial Group also has developed the single-engine J-10 to replace hundreds of J-7s (a MiG-21 clone) in its inventory. Chengdu is working on an export version and also developed the single-engine FC-1 in cooperation with the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex. The Pakistani air force is expected to become the major operator of the FC-1, which it calls the JF-17, after announcing plans to acquire 250 of the type. The aircraft is being marketed by an agency set up by China and Pakistan, which will handle after-sales support.
The missing ingredient in offerings for the Russian and Chinese aircraft market is a stealth fighter that can compete against the F-35 and F-22 Raptor. Russia is developing the T-50 PAK FA for this purpose. Russian officials had announced plans for a first flight in 2009, but this is likely to be only an early prototype. Service entry is penciled in for 2015, and funding will likely be an ongoing headache. China is also reported to be working on a stealthy fighter, but Chinese designers are far behind their Western and Russian counterparts. It is difficult to imagine a true stealth aircraft emerging from the nation’s aerospace industry over the next decade.
Data Snapshot
China’s J-10 fighter is set to break into the export market.
Manufacturer: Chengdu Aircraft Industry
Engine: Salyut AL-31F
Max. weight: 40,000 lb.
Max. speed: Mach 1.9
Max. range: 2,100 nm.
Weapons load: 9,900 lb.
to expensive, to fat, to behind schedule... use the block 60 f-16 instead save everyone money and no new pilot training.....
I flew my F 35 for 6 years. Had a hard time getting it ti 12,000 feet. OK it was a Bonanza :-)
Like anything could replace the A-10.
We need to provide endless freebies to illegals, Haitians and ACORN members. We cannot afford jet fighters.
Between this and a couple of other things I’ve read on FR lately, somebody is lying.
we need to cut that as well.... buy block 60 f-16 saves everyone money.
I think that for the foreseeable future, modernized versions of the F-18 in particular could meet most needs at a far cheaper price. I understand that it can be given some stealth characteristics and a new engine could turn the plane into a rocket. As far as I am concerned, the only thing that the F-35 can offer is escalating costs, buggy software, and delayed deliveries.
No doubt, given its steadily increasing price tag due to delays, etc., its price tag alone is going to “dominate” the future fighter market. lulz =.=
They all are fun to watch and MUST be much more fun to fly for all the testosterone jockeys . . . particularly what with many Navy pilots experiencing literal ejaculations on catapult launches . . .
However, various UFO type plat forms have made them rather obselete for at least a decade or 3 . . . or more.
So, what will happen to all those fancy expensive diversions and their jockeys when all that is public knowledge?
Brilliant idea except that the Block 60 F-16 can't operate from this:
or this:
or this:
Neither can the jsf..
Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation team triggered recent hysteria over JSF when it projected a 50 percent chance JSF could fall as much as two years behind schedule and cost up to $16 billion more than the roughly $80 billion budgeted over the coming six years.
and is to fat, to slow, and not proven..
Brilliant observation.
But good news from the same source: EB-52 “Megafortress” Becomes Reality
When are managers ever going to learn that manufacturing technology is more precious than design? If you can't build it, what good is knowing what it looks like? If you can build it, new design ideas become possible.
The world isn't short of ideas; it's short on people who can deliver reliability.
See post 11. Those acft on the forward port cat of the USS Reagan can’t possibly be F4’s. Sure do look like them though.
Those aircraft are clearly F/A-18s.
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.