<i>The Air Force STOVL may not be a good idea after all.</i>
<b>Opposition Stiffens to STOVL Version of F-35 for USAF </b>(Posted: Monday, October 04, 2004)
[Aviation Week & Space Technology, Oct. 4, 2004
Pg. 34]
By David A. Fulghum and Robert Wall, Washington
<u>The prospect of a fourth version of the Joint Strike Fighter specialized by the U.S. Air Force for close air support is probably dead for at least a decade. Informal talks between Pentagon planners and congressional staffers have quashed the idea.</u>
The service had been exploring the idea of modifying the Marine Corps F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) variant with an internal cannon, more versatile refueling system and possibly the larger wing designed for the Navy's F-35C. Staffers say they won't support any initiative that would add cost or schedule delays to the existing program.
The concerns were raised during meetings between program representatives and House and Senate staffers to present the new Joint Strike Fighter program plan that reflects a weight reduction strategy devised in recent months for the F-35B (Stovl). Both House and Senate staff used the opportunity to caution against any deviation from the fundamental three-version JSF approach, according to some of those involved.
However, there is no opposition so far to Air Force plans to buy three wings of F-35B Stovl versions, provided the aircraft are exactly the same as those ordered by the U.S. Marine Corps. Adding to F-35B production should lower the average cost of the aircraft (now about $55-60 million) to the Marine Corps. What's not certain is whether the extra aircraft would add or subtract from the 1,760 conventional takeoff F-35As (at $45 million each) the Air Force says it wants to buy.
Aerospace officials contend USAF may be positioning itself to add an expeditionary close air support capability about 2015 when the aircraft is more mature. While civilian researchers are looking at Lockheed Martin F-35 derivatives, at this juncture there is little latitude for the services to improvise because of the aircraft's joint nature. The opportunities for such derivative work are "way out there [after the Air Force] can see the advantages of the technology more clearly," a Lockheed Martin official says.
Congressional staffers fought funding of the Stovl version of the aircraft for several years in the late 1990s, but a staffer with insight into current budget maneuvering says, "We won't go there again" due to the Marine Corps considerable influence with lawmakers. He also pointed to the Congressional staffers' awareness that once a program gets momentum, meddling with it "doesn't fix anything. It will only make it more expensive. At some point, it becomes like Comanche [the Army's recently canceled RAH-66 scout helicopter]. It either has to fly or crash on its own." Staffs have instead turned their attention to nascent programs like Boeing's Future Combat System that analysts say needs help with rationalizing more realistic schedules and costs.
This informal bargaining on Stovl JSF is set in the context of what is expected to be a year of bloody defense budget cutting in 2006. Some of those who have been party to the negotiations so far believe both of the Air Force's prize fighter programs could be hard hit. Some believe the F/A-22 will top off its production at 200 aircraft despite the service's call for 400 to replace its 750 F-15Cs, F-15Es and F-117s. Others are more optimistic, pointing out that USAF is also expected to ask Congress to waive an F/A-22 production cap that would limit the program to 218 fighters. So far program officials are optimistic they will get that approval, betting that the fighter's operational test report being written now will satisfy all but the staunchest critics.
Others contend that it's the F-35 that's in jeopardy.
A second influential staff member warned program representatives that turmoil could be ahead. Congress gave the program "a pass" this year, fully funding JSF, he says. However, that may not be repeated in the next budget cycle as F-35 budget requests grow and the focus on the program increases while other large aviation programs that so far have taken the heat (notably the F/A-22) become less controversial.
Staffers have indicated concern to program officials over whether the promised weight savings will materialize, arguing that there is a fear it's only smoke and mirrors. Program representatives, however, are trying to assuage those worries by pointing to the meticulous engineering effort that generated the weight savings.
Signals from the services also are confusing. The U.S. Navy and Air Force are both expected to reduce their requirements for F-35Cs and F-35As. However, the Air Force is expected to ask for 300 F-35Bs and Congress to approve only 250 based on the fighter's anticipated improved reliability that should keep three wings of 72 aircraft operational.
"Right now it is just talk," the staffer said. "The Air Force doesn't have the money for everything it wants, and it has not been willing to make choices. We continue to question the need for or utility of anything involving Stovl." Complicating the issue is an analysis of how useful Stovl technology was in Afghanistan and Iraq. The study is still being stonewalled by the Joint Staff, he says.
JSF could also suffer from the fallout associated with other programs. "The Air Force has another problem in that their trials and tribulations with the tanker lease have not left them with a lot of credibility on [Capitol Hill]," the first staffer said. "They will have to show us analytically their need for Stovl aircraft. Our general inclination is to fund these programs, but we're trying to show the members reality and present them with options. However, nothing will mean a lot until we see [USAF's] budget."
ANOTHER, LONGER-TERM variant of the F-35 program that also may be doomed is a specialized Marine Corps electronic attack aircraft to replace the EA-6B Prowler. It is envisioned as a two-seat version of the Navy's larger F-35C (designed for full-size aircraft carriers) with a fuselage plug to carry additional electronics equipment internally. However, the cost would likely climb to the point that the Marine Corps aviation budget will no longer support the mission. The Marines do not want to buy the EF-18G electronic attack aircraft because it would add a new type of aircraft to its fleet with all the associated costs. The Marine Corps is then expected, with some relief, to turn the airborne electronic attack mission over to the Navy and Air Force.
USAF is beginning to rebuild its electronic attack capability starting with a B-52 jamming pod. That system is to be supplemented with jamming from the F/A-22 and F-35's active electronically scanned array radars supplemented with wider spectrum add-on packages, electronic attack payloads on various remotely piloted aircraft (including the Joint Unmanned Combat Air System) and new directed energy payloads for various cruise missiles.
THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
