| Warthog Territory Forums http://www.warthogterritory.net/forum/ |
|
| QDR to reccomend more F-22, less F-35? http://www.warthogterritory.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9795 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 14 Oct 2005, 14:35 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Analysts Predict QDR Will Bring JSF Cuts By MICHAEL FABEY A Pentagon tactical aircraft study being done for the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) likely will recommend fleetwide reductions that will lead to a cut in domestic F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) purchases, said Lexington Institute analyst Loren Thompson. The QDR team in the Office of Net Assessment “is likely to recommend a 30 percent cut in tactical air forces,” Thompson said. That would likely mean the Air Force would return to its earlier plans to buy about 400 F/A-22s Raptors and 1,000 F-35s. “In the case of the Navy, that cut could result in elimination of the carrier-based variant of the F-35,” he said. The JSF program office did not comment by press time. In June, the Pentagon’s quarterly Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) noted its plan to buy 2,458 JSFs to replace Air Force F-16s, the A through D models of the Navy F/A-18, and Marine AV-8Bs. But JSF program officials in September acknowledged that the Air Force ultimately will buy fewer than its planned 1,760. The Teal Group, which tracks the military aviation industry, also says JSF cuts are coming. It believes the Air Force purchase will drop to about 1,200. John Kent, the JSF spokesman for prime contractor Lockheed Martin, said, “If there was a single-service, U.S.-only program, talk of reductions by the OSD [Office of Secretary of Defense] might be more damaging.” Should the program be cut, however, it would be the second time since it was launched in 2001. The Navy buy, now slated to be about 480, used to be 548. The cut helped boost the per-plane cost between $5 million and $10 million. A congressional analyst said that could devastate a program that has made affordability a key pillar. As numbers drop, unit prices would rise. Christopher Bolkcom, aviation analyst for the Congressional Research Service (CRS), said major domestic cuts could boost the cost per fighter past the $100 million cited in the current SAR, a number that includes research, development and construction costs. Teal’s Richard Aboulafia said the JSF fly-away price tag needs to be about $45 million to be competitive. Initially, the export plane was planned to cost $30 million to $40 million in fiscal 1994 dollars. Domestically, per plane fly-away costs for each service was estimated at about $35 million for the Marines, $31 million to $38 million for the Navy and $28 million to $31 million for the Air Force. After a rebaselining of the program announced in 2004, the 2005 per-plane fly-away costs rose to about $55 million to $60 million for the Marines and Navy, and $45 million for the Air Force. Lockheed executives said there will be enough orders to make the plane affordable for domestic and foreign buyers. “We have always believed the numbers would be floating,” Kent said. “But they would always remain big.” Despite cuts, Aboulafia added, the JSF program would survive. “With 1,000 for the Air Force, and as long as the Marines keep their 400 or 500 planes, that should make for a manageable program,” he said, “providing the exports come through.” Despite gloomy forecasts, Bolkcom said, the JSF likely will get the volume it needs to be a viable domestic and export program. As a stealthy multimission aircraft that serves different services — not to mention different world militaries — the JSF would seem to fit the bill for what the Pentagon says it’s been wanting, he said. “This is multinational,” Kent said. “There are a whole lot more customers.” <b>There are two kinds of soldiers. Snipers...and targets.</b> <img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0> |
|
| Author: | Tritonal-05 [ 15 Oct 2005, 17:33 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>... “In the case of the Navy, that cut could result in elimination of the carrier-based variant of the F-35,” he said. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> I always knew that NAVAIR might 86 their variant. |
|
| Author: | chadrewsky [ 15 Oct 2005, 18:40 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Which makes me skeptical of this logic...The F-35C to me, is the most critical of the three. What should happen is a complete cancelation of the VTOL variant, and more F-35C's procured since it seems to be the most capable of the three. If the Brits balk, sell them some of our convential CV's since we seem to want to cut the number of CV battlegroups anyhow. An armchair defense analysis. |
|
| Author: | M&M [ 15 Oct 2005, 19:36 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Just out of curiosity chad....why do you think the "C" is more critical? <img src="http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/457/bgnrjsiiw81q1gc.jpg" border=0> Gravity....its not just a good idea, its the law. |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 15 Oct 2005, 19:40 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Because it fills a huge performance gap in the navys big carrier air wings, and for the first time...gives the navy an all weather long range multirole stealth capability. The F-35C promises to do for the USN what the F-22 is about to do for the USAF, and what the F-117 and B-2 did years ago. The Navy wants a stealthy platform pretty bad. Who can blame them? <b>There are two kinds of soldiers. Snipers...and targets.</b> <img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0> |
|
| Author: | chadrewsky [ 15 Oct 2005, 20:05 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I could be way off here Mark, but the USAF had pretty good success with both the A-7 and the venerable F-4 Phantom II, why could they not use the F-35C? From what I have been reading STOL performance is now becomming a a pretty important criteria, which the F-35C can offer. Aside from performance I honestly do not know which variant is more capable, but it seems that the F-35 could be the more flexiable option of the three, not to a mention a quantum leap in maritime air power for the Navy, who direly needs it. |
|
| Author: | BenRoethig [ 16 Oct 2005, 20:14 ] |
| Post subject: | |
The A model is a better fighter, while the C model is a better bomber. The B isn't really good at either, but gives the brits an excuse not to buy real carriers. My motto: pacis per vires |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 17 Oct 2005, 01:21 ] |
| Post subject: | |
the A is cheaper, not better as far as fighting goes. With it's larger wing the C might have the better wing loading to go with it's better stealth. A 9mm MAY expand, but a 45 will NEVER shrink! |
|
| Author: | Old Chief [ 17 Oct 2005, 04:46 ] |
| Post subject: | |
As I recall, the acquisition of the F-35 was a key piece of the puzzle in making the A-10 survive to the new projected service life as well as part of the decision process in determining how many A-10's get re-engined. Anyone have a guess as to how this affects those numbers, if at all? OC |
|
| Author: | a10stress [ 17 Oct 2005, 13:51 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Contrary to all the media hype, the F-35C is the most versitile of the three variants. It has 19000 lbs of internal fuel. Yes all you pilots out there, you wouldn't have to leave fuel in the tanker truck any more. It gives deep strike capability back to the Navy. CV's would have strategic relevance again. Trading the weight and space of internal weapons/fuel for electronic equipment, external stores, loiter, or airport performance would give opportunity galore for Air Force and Marine variants (in the tradition of the F-4 and A-7, only better). But the F-35B can operate from short runways, you may say. Can anyone explain the obsession with this feature when it costs you so much in initial cost, maintenance, range and payload? It ain't the heat it's the humility. |
|
| Author: | mattlott [ 17 Oct 2005, 16:23 ] |
| Post subject: | |
does this mean the hog will be like the buff flying, flying, flying, flying, into old age and then some? |
|
| Author: | BenRoethig [ 18 Oct 2005, 15:43 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> But the F-35B can operate from short runways, you may say. Can anyone explain the obsession with this feature when it costs you so much in initial cost, maintenance, range and payload? <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> Here's RonO when you need him? Well, thankfully on Warships1 and not here. STOVL is one of those technologies where the theoretical potential outweighs what it can actually do in real world situations. A fighter that can take off and land like a helicopter is the holy grail of aviation technology. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that in real life. My motto: pacis per vires |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|