<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
STOVLs do things other planes cant, they fit certain niche roles. If you WON'T build a full sized CV then you will stock a smaller one with helos and jump jets cause nothing else will work. If you dont build a full sized airfield in a forward location you will stock a smaller one with helos and STOVLs.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
<i>A niche (oh no, French again, sorry)? Boomer, I ask you, what niche is that, the also rans? A niche role (like the F-117) is one thing, but they are planning to build hundreds of those things <b>for the USAF</b>. I don't deny the statement "STOVLs do things that CTOLs can't", of course they do. So do ballistic missiles. My point is that I am not enthusiastic for a piece of equipment that takes twice as long to get, costs twice as much, and does half as much in terms of normal aircraft measures of merit (range/payload, MMH/FH, reliability, survivability, affordability etc.), and only allows small airport operations in return?
What is the rationale for forward basing? To some, if a jet requires forward basing because it can't carry enough fuel, it is a penalty, not an asset. What is the justification for the cratered runway argument in this day and age, unless it is the STOVLs jet plume doing the cratering? I have a problem imagining these jets operating from "unprepared" land bases, blowing crap around and FODing their own engines. They will be looking for real airports to operate from too, if only to accommodate their logistics aircraft. With the same range and payload the CTOL version doesn't need that big a runway anyway. OK, it's twice as long as the STOVL needs but there are suitable aerodromes all over the world that the CTOL can operate from, especially with its superior range, far superior to the F-16 (and maybe even the F-15E). To me extra range gives more flexibility, not less. Smaller numbers can cover wider areas.
Yes, given the artificial constraint that there are no CV's around, you would need STOVL's to operate from the smaller ships, like the Russians, Italians, Spanish and British. My answer to that is to stop talking about eliminating CVs. An all STOVL force is a reduced capability force. It is crazy to reduce our naval aviation capability to the British level, unless you give the abdicated missions to the Air Force. Wait, they would need longer range, land based jets to pick up the slack, not STOVLs, my bad. Consider that the money saved by not developing/buying STOVLs would more than offset the cost of the big ships. It is not a new opinion. Here is a quote from a smart guy who worked in NAVAIR in some busy times past.
http://www.georgespangenberg.com/history3.htm
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The reason we were opposed to VSTOL for doing the Navy job was that it was impossible to do all the jobs with VSTOL, and once you had the carrier we could do them with CTOL and we could do them better and cheaper. That story is true today. We all recognize the advantages but sometimes the price is too high. I think that it's clear from the presentation that you pay a significant price to get VSTOL. Enough said.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
The capability gained by the F-35C vs. B is well worth it. The U.S. taxpayer is subsidizing the (meager) military of these other nations by developing the STOVL hardware they need. We don't need it because we already have better solutions. Given the fact that we will maintain operations from long runways and CVs anyway, what's in it for us except to pay more for less. And the ingrates are still unhappy:</i>
By DAVE MONTGOMERY
Star-Telegram Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- Diplomatic friction between the United States and Great Britain over the F-35 joint strike fighter worsened Tuesday, after Pentagon budget-cutters whacked an alternate engine being jointly developed by General Electric and British-based Rolls-Royce.
A preproduction version of the joint strike fighter, the X-35B. Elimination of the alternate engine spared the Pentagon the more severe option of scrapping one of three versions of the aircraft. (Click on photo for an enlarged view)
Cancellation of the $2.4 billion alternate engine program prompted an outcry in Britain and was depicted in the British press as an embarrassment for Prime Minister Tony Blair, who had personally appealed to President Bush to keep the program intact.
The decision also fanned talk in some British circles that the U.S. ally should consider ending its participation in the $256 billion JSF program to protest the Pentagon's decision. British officials have been bristling for months over U.S. refusal to share all military technology on the fighter, including software codes.
The F-35, the most expensive aircraft program in U.S. history, is being developed by a manufacturing team led by Fort Worth-based Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. The two other major team members are Northrop Grumman and British-based BAE Systems.
Britain is the dominant foreign participant, with $2 billion invested in the $40.5 billion, 12-year development program. Britain plans to buy 150 joint strike fighters for the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.
The U.S. government plans to buy 2,593 planes for the Air Force, Navy and Marines during a production life span expected to last several decades. Seven other countries are also participating in the development program. Full production is scheduled to begin in 2014.
Pentagon officials announced the decision to drop the alternate engine in releasing President Bush's 2007 defense budget Monday, leaving Connecticut-based Pratt & Whitney as the only engine manufacturer.
F-35 planners originally felt that two engine programs would foster competition, lower prices and provide for a safeguard if one of the engines failed. But Pentagon budget-cutters ultimately concluded that they could save more than $1 billion by scrapping the alternate program. It also spared them from a more severe option: eliminating one of three versions of the aircraft.
Sir Digby Jones, head of the Confederation of British Industry, complained that "short-term cost-cutting puts this important program at risk in the longer term," according to British press accounts. "I thought better of America's attitude to the U.K."
The Mail, a London newspaper, reported last month that the Ministry of Defense has prepared a contingency plan to replace the joint strike fighter project with a revamped version of the Eurofighter because of U.S.-British tension over technology-sharing.
But Richard Aboulafia, a military analyst with the Teal Group in Fairfax, Va., said Great Britain needs the joint strike fighter to replace aging Harriers and is unlikely to withdraw its participation. "They don't have a whole lot of options here," he said.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>"They don't have a whole lot of options here," he said.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
<i>Yes they do. They could withdraw their participation in the F-35B and lower their defense posture further (not great but the US will take care anyway), they could buy or license build the YAK-141 (not bloody likely), they could squeeze a little more from the Harrier (if there is any more to get), they could design a new STOVL from scratch (tens of Billions of Pounds Sterling), or they could decide to get back in the big deck carrier business, thereby picking up more of a global capability that they once had (a competitive cost with the F-35B development/procurement). The first option and the last option are at least as attractive as staying the course they are on.
Sorry for the rant Boomer, but this stuff irritates me.
</i>
Ninety percent of the game is half mental.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
