WT Forums

<b>Navy-Marine Leaders Urge No Delay in JSF Program </b>(Posted: Saturday, March 20, 2004)
[Congress Daily, March 18, 2004]

<i>Navy-Marine leaders urge no delay in Joint Strike Fighter Program

Warning that every year of delay adds $1 billion to the cost of the program, Navy and Marine Corps leaders Wednesday pleaded with Congress not to impose further delays on the Joint Strike Fighter.

The officials also strongly defended the short takeoff and vertical landing -- or STOVL -- versions of the proposed fighter, which is intended primarily for the Marines.

Navy Secretary Gordon England, Adm. Vern Clark, the chief of naval operations, and Gen. Michael Hagee, the Marine Corps commandant, found themselves defending one of their highest priority programs from challenges coming from two of their usually strongest supporters during a hearing of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee.

Defense Appropriations Subcommitee ranking member John Murtha, D-Pa., questioned the health of the JSF program, which has been delayed one year to resolve engineering and weight problems, and asked, "Would it hurt if we had to slip it again?"

England said additional delay would mean the naval services would have to keep flying older aircraft, which are getting increasingly expensive to maintain. "I very much encourage you to keep the program on schedule," he said.

Clark echoed that concern, noting that the one-year delay already initiated "cost me at least $1 billion." He noted that the early model Navy F/A-18 Hornets that the JSF would replace are getting old and their operating costs increase 13-20 percent each year.

"Those costs will impact my ability to transform the Navy," Clark said.

Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif., a former Navy fighter pilot, said he was concerned that the JSF was not advanced enough to outfight the best Russian-made fighters. And he suggested it would be cheaper if the program were limited to just the conventional aircraft, designed for the Air Force, and the carrier version planned for the Navy.

England, a former aerospace engineer and executive, said the JSF "is designed for future threats and is definitely superior to anything we have today." And he said the STOVL version was considered "vitally important," not just by the naval services but also the defense secretary's staff.

Hagee also strongly supports the short takeoff aircraft, noting the valuable role played by the AV-8B Harriers -- the Marines' current STOVL plane -- in the Iraq war. Flying from amphibious ships in the Persian Gulf and rearming and refueling from crude bases in Iraq, the Harriers were able to provide more support for the ground forces than fighters that had to make the long trips from the carriers, he said. </i>

I'm confused. They need the (production) delay in order to regroup and solve serious problems. It is going to take more time and money to make the F-35 realize its promise. Randy Cuningham is only voicing the concerns of many others behind the scenes, that is, the the STOVL has the potential for sucking the budget dry and that could cancel all three versions. Is Gen. Hagee overselling Harrier performance? I don't know. I don't remember hearing anything spectacular about them that couldn't be handled by another type.

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif., a former Navy fighter pilot, said he was concerned that the JSF was not advanced enough to outfight the best Russian-made fighters.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Gee...and the F-18E/F can? Are we getting a bit hypocritical as we become more of a politician and less of a sailor "Duke"?

Duke was a firm F-14 advocate untill the future of that program reached the point of no return. Why not root for the second string QB if you are commited to him, because you cut the proven winner due to salary constraints?

he was an F-14 advocate until he actually flew a SuperHornet.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Get real Boomer...If you really want to believe that b.s. it's your story and you can stick to it.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The USN quite frankly needs more, not some low-cost mass produced platform less akin to the philosophy of the original Hornet and more among the likes of the F-22.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Thats a compromise that cannot be met, and exactly what the USN is attempting to do with the Super Hornet...In the end you get the worst of both worlds.



Edited by - chadrewsky on Mar 22 2004 5:26 PM

USN and AF are chucking specialty aircraft left and right, as are most of the other air forces. F-14 is dead, was dead, will be dead.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

The F-14 is a specialty aircraft????

"US Snipers, Providing surgical strikes since 1776"

name every type of mission the F-14 performed before about 1990 when the axe started to fall on it's neck.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Before 1990?

Fleet recon, air superiority, and fleet defense.

The U-2 and SR-71 are specialty aircraft. The F-4G and RF-4C are specialty aircraft.

The F-14 is a true multirole weapon.

PS--- the F-15C....specialty.

"US Snipers, Providing surgical strikes since 1776"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Then again, maybe he is referring to the F-35C for the USN and I would be all for the axing of that platform. The USN quite frankly needs more, not some low-cost mass produced platform less akin to the philosophy of the original Hornet and more among the likes of the F-22.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

BigVette...What's bugging you about the F-35C? It's got competitive (OK not superior) up and away performance, staggering range/payload and good airport performance. Among other good qualities, it can put the Navy back into the deep strike business. I'm not familiar with its equipment but I'm pretty sure it will have some good nav/com/fire control/EW electronics. In the end, I doubt if the F-35 will be the mass produced, low cost product that has been hyped, unless they build only F-35C's for everybody.

_________________
????

The F-14 is the truest multirole aircraft in the world...Name one aircract in any airforce in the world that can encompass more with less compromises??? Want me to make a list of what that jet can accomplish? I don't care how much it costs, it is a bargain when you consider the capability's. Its growth potential was never realized. Don't tell me for one second that it was.

The Romulans don't even have anything that comes close...

Prior to 1990 the F-14 was tasked with the following...

Maritime Air Superiority
Fleet Air Defense
Deep Interdiction Bomber Escort
Deep Interdiction Air Superiority
Tactical Recon (The only one in US inventory capable of low altitide high speed photo runs)

F-14 Today...
Maritime Air Superiority
Fleet Air Defense
TARPS
Deep Strike
FAST CAS
FAC
Precesion Strike
Bomber Escort
Only aircraft that loiter on station in CAS configuration with comparable peristance is the A-10. The F-14 is the only aircraft that can do this and provide its own air superiority.

Also note the STOL capabilitys of the F-14, it can operate from short bomb damaged runways...This was an important criteria for the Shah when he purchased them in the 70's.

No points for second place...








Edited by - chadrewsky on Mar 23 2004 09:17 AM

"In the end, I doubt if the F-35 will be the mass produced, low cost product that has been hyped, unless they build only F-35C's for everybody."

By the time the powers that be get done screwing up the F-35 program, they'll be lucky if any are built at all.

It's the F-111 all over again. No surprise since Rummy is the closest thing to McNamara we're likely to ever see.

The USAF won't go for the C model, it's too expensive and does too much for what they need, and what they want to spend. The C doesn't do what the jarheads need, and the B is useless for anyone that isn't flying from a gator carrier. The A is great for the AF, useless for the other two branches.

I predict that if the F-22 is cancelled there will be a bubble canopy F-35D with the big wings proposed by the USAF.

PS....the 2008 IOC of the JSF(any model) is a total joke. NO CHANCE IN HELL. Look at Commanche and F-22. Both had a development period in the 20 year range....and the Commanche is cancelled, with the F-22 right on it's heels. IF JSF ever enters service, it will probably be 2020 at the soonest. Hope the Navy is as fond of the Stupid Bug as they keep claiming to be...it'll be the only show in town for a very long time once the dumbasses retire the Tomcat.

Just think, were it not for DICK Cheney, the USN would be operating 2 sqdrns of F-14Ds per flattop right now....they were already bought and paid for by congress.

Whoops...

"US Snipers, Providing surgical strikes since 1776"

Nobody in the USAF is in dire straights right now, they are comfortable with the capabilty's of the F-15C...

The navy should be sitting pretty with the F-14D in the same regard, as these "model" procurement programs are allowed to work themselves out...good farmers never bet their fiscal future on nexts years crop, maybe more people within the defense department should read the farmers almanac...

Yes, well unlike the F-14D's, the F-15C fleet is WHOOPED.

Still a great airplane, but also a very tired airplane.

The USAF has the whole block series F-16 thing going though, so they won't be nearly as screwed as the USN when(ooops, if) JSF ever gets shitcanned.

"US Snipers, Providing surgical strikes since 1776"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The F-14 is the truest multirole aircraft in the world...Name one aircract in any airforce in the world that can encompass more with less compromises??? Want me to make a list of what that jet can accomplish? I don't care how much it costs, it is a bargain when you consider the capability's. Its growth potential was never realized. Don't tell me for one second that it was. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Agree with every bit of that (not so much with the bargain part but..).But potential or not, the F-14 hasn't been USED for multi-role till lately (Maritime Air Superiority, Fleet Air Defense, Deep Interdiction Bomber Escort, Deep Interdiction Air Superiority are NOT mulit-role). My point is that it's TRUE capabilities were wasted and never used or exploited (untill the storm clouds began to gather after the F-14 didnt have much to do in ODS). Instead the Navy went for a "one of these and one of those" approach to the point where the decks got cluttered with a lot of frames and a LOT of logistics to take care of all those different planes. Pilots, parts, mechanics, training, tools many of them non interchangeble with the different airframes( all costs go way up ). On "game day" the CAG was left with just a few planes to do any particular job.

Now imagine just the opposite, Tommy IS developed and exploited to it's max! Interceptor F-14s guard the fleet as Fighter F-14s do a sweep and escort for heavily loaded Strike Toms and F-14s carrying Jammers and extra fuel and buddy pods just in case. Returning Strike Toms are met by F-14s with buddy pods and Phoenix or AMRAAM just in case the package is bringing some unwanted puppies home with them. The second wave of Fleet CAP has taken off and the first has landed, refuled and is getting its recon pods and bombs to mop up after the first strike and to check for enemy movement and damage control. Yes the F-14 requires more maintainance and always has, but with a deckload of them, nearly ALL the crews can work on the birds and a good % can always be ready with the added bonus of canex when absolutly nessesary( aint it ALWAYS nessesary on a ship lol ). Who knows with THAT much going on maybee the maintainance efficiency would make it reasonable cost wise and with experiance, so goes efficiency (IE they would just get better at doing the work due to familiarity with doing it many times). Maybee the numbers would even be large enough to ease costs on the supply side for parts. Apparently we dont even need Viking anymore ( I dont think I agree). So E-2s, SH-60s and flocks and flocks of F-14s but with a smaller total number of planes embarked. What could have been, but didnt happen.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

I agree Snipe, the C's have been rode pretty hard, but atleast Boeing still has F-15 tooling...

Boomer...Peace bro, I see your point...Lets do a Hannity and Combes (sp?) type F-14 F-18 TV talk show...wait, isnt that WT? lol

That would've been a beautiful thing Booms.

Leave it to the navy to misuse one of the best platforms ever.

"US Snipers, Providing surgical strikes since 1776"

Great, vote Dem.

What we really need is a gutted military and more social welfare programs...

"As I see it, we spend un-Godly sums of money on these massive 6,000 people nuclear powered aircraft carriers, and if all we're going to field off them are "low-cost, mass produced" platforms than I seriously doubt the legitamcy of these massive cities at sea."

Now that i agree with. We DO NOT need 100plane capacity 100,000 ton super carriers to embark a a 50 TACAIR wing...50k ton displacement flat tops would be more than enough for that. But no, the USN won't give up it's pride and joy, even if their decks are half full of half assed aircraft.

"US Snipers, Providing surgical strikes since 1776"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[quote]


Congress had already approved the funds for the Navy's request of 392 new build F-14D's and ONE PERSON in Dickless Cheney said otherwise - where is the checks and balances in that one? It's samn near a crime of treason agaisnt the defense of the Nation doing what he did[
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
--------

Politics provides great entertainment and the troops get hosed.

Having picked up new military aircraft and also delivered birds for depot and or required depot work from a crunch. Some serious bucks were being spent and not a helluva of alot of results.

I still think former SecNav Lehman, deserves some blame for not pushing for D model Tomcats.

Jack

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

The problem with the F-14 was that it wasn't built Boeing, the largest aviation company in the United States. Grumman execs got cocky since they had been building planes for the USN since the Navy took to the skies, and as much as I'd like to vote Republican this year with Dicky Cheney's name on the ballot that just aint happening.

Congress had already approved the funds for the Navy's request of 392 new build F-14D's and ONE PERSON in Dickless Cheney said otherwise - where is the checks and balances in that one? It's samn near a crime of treason agaisnt the defense of the Nation doing what he did, and as much as I like the tech of the Super Hornet's the performance leaves a lot to be desired.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I keep seeing that old reliable "Grumman was cocky" jewel coming around. Why shouldn't they be. They had a good product, but it had a bad reputation with the politicians that the company could not shake. It seemed to be in constant trouble because of its high unit cost. The message that it might have been worth the cost anyway was not well received. Some of the bad rep had to do with technical problems early-on, but these were fixable, given time and money. Follow the money. Most of the lack of F-14 support can be traced to the financial problems of the early seventies. Even those difficulties were mostly out of company control (double digit inflation, etc.). A lot of hard feelings were generated. Along came a bunch of smooth talkers within Navair and industry with the "high/low" mix strategy for fighter inventory, and so we have the F-18. Of course, its capability is a little "lower" than promised, which should have made the F-14 look good. Not! The hard feelings went deep, even in Navair. Political and budget pressures were relentless to make the F-18 look good and the F-14 look bad. Even regional politics were in play (New York vs. Missouri, MacAir not Boeing). There must have been the equivalent of a palace coup in the late eighties (led by Lehman) because the F-14 (and A-6) got some improvement money which led to the F-14B&D (A-6F&G). That reprieve didn't last long enough. The last of only 37 D's from this effort was delivered in '92. Yes, Cheney was SecDef then and he axed it, but he was only the tip of the iceberg. "Strikefighters" were the darling of Navair in 1992 and the F-18E was going to fix all the things the "C" was deficient in. Nevermind that the F-14 configuration was already capable of carrying and doing what they needed within the current airframe/propulsion package. The F-18 had multifunction displays, so it must be better to completely redesign the whole jet around them, right? And anyway, the F-14 spot factor was huge and that deck space is valuable. We can't be using it up with aircraft that cost too much per plane, require too much maintenence, and do everything we want, can we? By the way, I'm from Long Island, but I'm not a Grummanite. I worked on Brand X products (Republic A-10). We had a technical rivalry going and quite a bit of friction over the years. That being said, the F-14 is really Grumman's best product (even though their flying boats are neat too), and they deserve credit for conceiving and executing it. The only thing I can fault them on is bad public relations. Even people that study defense issues, like those on this forum, promote the "Grumman was cocky and that's why they failed to sell F-14 improvements" nugget. I ask you, even if it was true, shouldn't our exhalted public servents be capable of rising above these personal problems and do what is best anyway? Given what I know, I can't explain it. That's why I look for the sinister.



Edited by - a10stress on Mar 24 2004 07:25 AM

_________________
????

It is most baffling Stress.

"US Snipers, Providing surgical strikes since 1776"

Jack, I agree...

Lehman wanted the F-14 to remain a Air to Air killer....Some within the brown shoe community did want to exploit the mulit mission capabilitys of the F-14 after those A-6's where bagged over Lebanon...Lehman being from the A-6 community, wanted to either upgrade the A-6 (A-6F) or...Procure an advanced strike aircraft such as the A-12...To give him the benifit of the doubt, from his vanatge point...In the 1990's the Navy was going to get the A-12 and the NATF. But yes, he had good reason the exploit the Bombcat in the early 80's...