WT Forums

DBC (Designed by commitee). The F-35B STOVL is tuning into a STOSL (Short Takeoff Short Landing) for the Air Force now. Are they insane? They admit they will need to give up at least one third of the number of jets to get this short field capability. I'll be willing to bet that the Navy F-35C version is very competitive in airport performance carrying the same useful load (especially if it is de-navalized for the Air Force), and it will have double the range/payload when operated from normal runways. Let's not kid ourselves, they will use normal runways for 75% of combat operations and 90% of training operations. The big wing version will have so much range it will not be necessary to base it close to the enemy anyway. The Pentagon leadership is buying this vertical thrust <img src=newicons/anim_bs.gif border=0 align=middle>. And Does the Navy leadership think they can get the budget for a complimentary STOVL AEW aircraft, or will they rely on helicopters for this function like the Brits (V-22 AEW anyone?) Or, maybe the JSF will double in the AEW role too like the Harrier does sometimes? (a real multi function radar) IMHO Big decks are the way to go. It makes the aircaft design much simpler and cheaper. We all know they would end up with 11 small decks, not 29. Even 29 small decks can not do what 10 big ones can. What are they thinking? I tell you, this F-35B has the potential to kill Naval aviation altogether because after they commit to go that way and the real capability is assessed, it will be so useless that they might as well kill it altogether.

And another thing. Is it nepotism of some sort that General <b>Jumper</b> is promoting the <b>Jump</b> Jet F-35B? Somebody call Michael Moore. I think a whisleblower film is needed here.

<i><b>Aviation Week: JSF Decisions To Shape Future USAF Budget</b> (Posted: Monday, September 19, 2005)
[BY: Aviation Week & Space Technology, Aviation Week & Space Technology, 09/19/2005]

The intertwining debates over the upcoming defense budget and the sweeping Quadrennial Defense Review are expected to expose the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter--now four years into development--as the aviation program to undergo the most radical surgery.

In turn, the impacts will ripple through a host of military aviation programs and affect changes in the C-5, C-17, follow-on tanker, F/A-22 and unmanned combat aircraft programs. These issues were hotly debated this week by senior U.S. Air Force and aerospace officials assembled here for the annual Air Force Assn. conference.

"I have virtually no insight into the QDR," admits Rear Adm. Steven Enewold, program executive officer for the JSF program. But he has been asked to project "everything from 'kill the entire program' to 'accelerate the entire program' [including options to] cut one variant, cut two variants."

Nevertheless, he offered a prediction based on comments from military officials about declining force structure and future budget reductions.

"I think the Air Force [numbers] for JSF are going to come down some," Enewold says. One factor will be how many F/A-22s the Air Force can afford. A second will be how many of the 33% more expensive Short-Takeoff-and-Vertical-Landing (Stovl) variants of the F-35 the service will buy at the expense of the cheaper Conventional-Takeoff-and-Landing (CTOL) version.

"Joint Strike Fighter is a much bigger battleground than we may have realized," says John Hamre, CEO of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. He notes the Navy, Air Force and Britain's Defense Ministry all have crucial JSF decisions to make. Former Navy Secretary Gordon England, who is now deputy Defense secretary, pushed the Navy to consider building smaller carriers that are sized for vertical landing and short takeoff aircraft.

"That way it's not a Navy of 11 carriers, it's a Navy of 29 carriers [when LSDs and amphibious assault ships with flight decks are added to the mix]," Hamre says. "So there's a tug of war going on inside the Navy because of that question."

A similar battle is going on inside the Air Force where just-retired chief of staff Gen. John Jumper had been looking closely at the Stovl version of F-35 to extricate its service's operations from long runways. Gen. T. Michael (Buzz) Moseley is the new chief of staff.

"Gen. Moseley told me that they are interested in Stovl," Enewold says. "The Air Force doesn't have the vertical landing requirement, so we've run some [tests with] rolling vertical landings." By doing so, the jet is able to take on additional weight including the cannon desired for the Stovl design. However, the requirements aren't firm.

Although final numbers are subject to changes in the QDR, Air Combat Command chief Gen. Ronald Keys took a stab at the needed end strength for Stovl. He says the final number will likely be between 200-300 of the jump jets, based on a variety of studies.

The British need quick answers about the JSF design so they can decide whether to invest in a new-generation of big deck carriers with catapults or the smaller jump jet carriers (see p. 36).

"The British have to know by the end of the year about what the JSF is going to look like because they have to make a carrier decision," says a longtime Pentagon official.

"They have, I think, enough data to do that," Enewold says. "They have gone through the variant selection at least twice and picked Stovl. But they're still looking at the CV [catapult and trap] capability." The CV version is the least mature design, although officials have enlarged the wing, improving approach speed performance. "On paper it's a better performing airplane, but there's uncertainty," he says.

An Air Force decision to buy the Stovl version of JSF would likely also indicate a trim on the total number of F-35s it will buy, funneling resources to the F/A-22, which is already in production.

"While Jumper wasn't saying this publicly, [in private meetings he] is being increasingly vocal that the JSF is not worth it," the official says. "In a meeting of 20 civilians in the Air Force orbit, he pointedly said that if we're going to make this investment, let's make it where it's needed. Let's make it a jump jet. A number of people on Capitol Hill and in the Defense Dept. believe there is a very active campaign by the Air Force to minimize their [financial] exposure on JSF." </i>

It ain't the heat it's the humility.

Edited by - a10stress on Sep 19 2005 11:59 AM

Edited by - a10stress on Sep 26 2005 08:03 AM

_________________
????