|
Aviation Week & Space Technology Login|Subscribe |Register
USAF Has Big Weapons Plan
By Robert Wall and David A. Fulghum
February 22, 2004
FLYING WISH LIST
The U.S. Air Force will be making critical choices in the next few months as planners try to fit a growing desire for new weapon systems into the Fiscal 2006 budget request.
In addition to their renewed interest in the FB-22 (a bomber-derivative of the F/A-22 fighter) and the F-35B Stovl (short-takeoff and vertical-landing) version of the Joint Strike Fighter, U.S. Air Force leaders want to find money in the next few years for new combat search-and-rescue helicopters, enhancements to A-10 ground-attack aircraft and upgrades to existing fighters.
In laying out their ambitious agenda at a recent Air Force Assn. gathering, the service's top military and civilian representatives showed few concerns that mounting federal budget deficits would curtail long-term military spending. Air Force Secretary James G. Roche argued that the service has to clarify needs, particularly in light of the upcoming presidential elections and next year's Quadrennial Defense Review. Both could inject uncertainty into military planning.
The Stovl F-35B would let the Air Force operate closer to ground forces by opening up air bases that it currently can't use because of short runways and limited ramp space, according to senior USAF advocates of buying the short-takeoff aircraft. Proponents include Roche and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John P. Jumper.
A beaming U.S. Marine Corps commandant, Gen. Michael W. Hagee, later voiced his approval, and probably relief, at the Air Force's interest. If that interest were followed by substantial purchases, they could spread out any cost growth in F-35B development and perhaps even lower unit cost. By contrast, the conventional-takeoff F-35A designed for the Air Force is below its projected weight goals. As a rule, additional weight equates directly to added cost.
"I think it's great," Hagee said. "Obviously, if we purchase more aircraft, the cost is going to go down. Both the Secretary of the Air Force and John Jumper talked with me before that occurred. We obviously support that. If both forces have [the F-35B], it's going to make us much more compatible.
"The Stovl version is going to be important," Hagee said. "Look at what the [AV-8B] Harriers did in Operation Iraqi Freedom. We had five squadrons in the Gulf during major combat operations. They flew 45% of the tactical air sorties that were flown in support of the Marine division. They were able to go into forward arming and refueling points--small spots in the road in the desert--rearm and refuel and go back up and provide close air support to those troops. That allows you to generate a lot more sorties. The Joint Strike Fighter Stovl version is going to give us that capability plus longer legs and stealth."
The idea was floated once before when then-USAF Chief of Staff Gen. Ron Fogleman suggested buying four wings of Stovl JSFs, but it died after his retirement. The initiative comes at a critical time for the Stovl design that has been embattled because added weight could impact performance. It also could ensure continued British commitment to the program. Lockheed Martin officials say that a plan to resolve the weight problem should be finalized in April, about the same time as the critical design review for the F-35A conventional-takeoff and landing version of the fighter.
Decisions on what mix of conventional and Stovl F-35s the Air Force will buy are likely to be made in coming months--soon enough to support the Fiscal 2006 budget process, says Gen. Hal Hornburg, commander of Air Combat Command. The next budget plan goes out to 2011, so the Air Force will likely have to start laying in money for the Stovl aircraft.
JSFs will eventually take on the Air Force's close air support mission, although in the interim some A-10s will be enhanced to continue the role. Other A-10s will be retired to free up funds to upgrade the remaining aircraft. Hornburg says creating the A-10 "on steroids" would involve upgrades: new avionics, new engines, precision strike capabilities (only some of the ground-attack aircraft currently carry a targeting pod) and data link additions. The exact components to be added may not be known for some time, but Hornburg says that over the summer the plan should exist at a macro level.
THE A-10S' ENGINES will likely be General Electric TF34-100Bs, using parts from the existing powerplants but adding 33-35% more thrust, according to industry officials. The aircraft also would be slated for a self-protection boost, with the common missile warning system and Raytheon's Comet pyrophoric flare pod considered the likely devices to be installed.
The FB-22 would have a larger wing, a 600-naut.-mi. range, a super-cruise capability (although somewhat less than the fighter version) and carry 30 or more small-diameter bombs. Plans for the FB-22 are still some way from finalization, Air Force officials said.
The service also is quietly drawing up contingency plans in case its modernization strategy to field F/A-22s and F-35s in the coming years unravels or encounters delays. "I have no design to buy more legacy airplanes," Hornburg stresses, while conceding that "we have to have a mitigating strategy" if the new fighters don't show up as planned.
That could involve buying new F-15Es and F-16s. Boeing says it has provided the Air Force information on 144 more F-15Es, although Hornburg says there has been no such request and that back-up plans are still embryonic.
Additionally, the service is eyeing upgrades to its existing fighter force, such as upgrading F-15Es with active electronically scanned array radars, and adding more modern APG-69(V)9s to F-16s. Air-superiority F-15Cs may also get radar enhancements to allow them to conduct air-to-ground missions.
A key to avoiding the contingency upgrade plan is to keep F/A-22 testing on track. Lockheed Martin officials insist initial operational test and evaluation will commence in the spring. Software reliability is topping the 5-hr. error-free-run level required by the Pentagon, a Boeing official says. However, a Lockheed Martin executive was more cautious, noting that new software is being introduced so quickly that it is hard to get a firm assessment on software stability.
The company's aircraft deliveries have lagged slightly. But Lockheed Martin officials note that's because upgrades are now being incorporated at the production facility, rather than delivering the fighters to the service and modifying them there.
The focus is not just on the fighter force.
Roche also argues the service needs to move forward with a long-stalled plan to replace HH-60 combat search-and-rescue helicopters. The 2006 budget "is the right time to begin this modernization," he says, noting that there are commercially available platforms to meet the mission. Sikorsky's S-92 and the Lockheed Martin-led US-101 team have already targeted the program for more than 190 helos called personnel recovery vehicles. In fact, industry officials suggest the program may start even earlier.
JUMPER ALSO SAID the next budget drill will serve as an opportunity to address standoff jamming requirements, the EB-52. The electronic attack bombers would retain their strike capability, with the jamming equipment to be fitted into the under-wing fuel tanks, he added. Industry officials note there is money already in the current budget submission to work on the electronic warfare system.
The E-10A multi-sensor command and control aircraft has completed a requirements review, but it could be endangered by the indefinite suspension of the KC-767 tanker program. Without the tanker buy, Boeing's 767 production line could become difficult to keep open or it could drive up E-10 costs. If the proposed lease-buy of Boeing KC-767s falls through, the service would be forced to address the replacement of its KC-135s through regular budget means which entails spending more money sooner or stretching out the buy.
The long wish list comes with some efforts at fiscal restraint. For instance, the Air Force is resisting congressional pressure to return to service 23 B-1B bombers. Hornburg agrees with lawmakers that some of the bombers should be "unretired," but he believes the right number is seven or eight. Some of the others have already been stripped of components, making it cost prohibitive to return them to flying status, he argued. B-1B advocates reject that notion, saying most of the components are available to make the bombers airworthy again.
The Air Force also wants to retire 10 of its remaining F-117s, arguing that during conflicts only a few see service. Moreover, the Air Force's oldest stealthy aircraft is increasingly expensive to maintain, Hornburg says. Lockheed Martin officials argue the fleet could stay in service through 2018 and that the projected savings from the USAF move would be only $25 million over five years--a figure Hornburg couldn't confirm but said wouldn't be trivial.
The Air Force also is investigating whether a gray paint scheme might allow F-117s to operate during the day. The move would be possible since F/A-22s, once fielded, could provide air-to-air support for the F-117s. The Air Force's fleet of B-2s may also get shifted into a day-attack mission, Hornburg suggested.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
