USAF To Buy Hundreds of F-35Bs

[Tarnished]

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/jsf09144.xml

Thoughts/comments?

[flyboy007]

Nice for them; still, I'm sure they are very disappointed not having ordered any typhoon, especially being the success story it is!!

[Wigan Warrior]

I hope the F-35 is going to be a lean, mean fighting machine, the kind of beast our (Royal) Naval aviators will be proud of, as well as the RAF (they are getting 3 aren’t they?).
Hopefully the F-35 will be a useful tool for the armoury, but I anticipate the kind of delays and price increases that dog every programme of this nature.
The interesting time will come when the powers that be in the US change (and change again) before the F-35 enters service. Especially with developments occurring (at the rate they are) in the UAV field.
By the time the F-35 is midway through its flight test programme the ‘knockers’ will probably be saying too expensive, too late, obsolete….. as they always do.
These things are always political hot potatoes and the UK have a vested interest in cost / timescale increases.
It will be interesting to see how the Chancellor(s) / DPA / Ministers play this one.
One factor that would offset governmental costs is exports of the F-35.
The prospect of making some money out of the exports will be a key issue.
With the timescales and costs involved and other product (UAV) developments along the way….bearing in mind the political and economic state of our planet, who would / could possibly buy the F-35? What would be the export deal agreement between the US / UK governments?

In relation to the reference article, do the Marines (USMC Aviators) only provide CAS for Marines, or for all ground troops?
Will the USAF and Marines get liberal helpings of the (STOVL) F-35 for the CAS role?

[West Coast]

USMC air



"In relation to the reference article, do the Marines (USMC Aviators) only provide CAS for Marines, or for all ground troops?"

It depends on the size of the mission. The mission not so much as the existing size of standing units determine the response.
If its something such as Embassy protection in some war torn African country the smallest of units known as a Marine Expeditionary Unit will be deployed. This is usually battalion sized ground with a complement of air. Usually a mixed force of Harriers and helos. The same mix of ground/air is available at brigade and division level as well. As to providing CAS, under unified commands USMC air provides CAS for whomever they are tasked to. The homogenous structure at smaller levels is largely intact but is put aside at division level as the Marine Corps rarely deploy at the size without it being a full blown affair, i.e., Iraq with all branches represented

[Wigan Warrior]

Thanx WC, confirms what I thought.

The reason I asked was, in the present (and future) climate of defence expenditure scrutiny, why would the USAF want (or more to the point NEED) hundreds of F-35s when the USMC (Air) would, no doubt be the ones providing the majority of CAS?
I can see the requirement for the USMC, but the USAF? Could be tricky persuading the purse holders to buy “hundreds” of F-35Bs for Gen. Jumper
Maybe the Joint Chiefs are going to restructure the forces?
Us Brits are creating a combined Harrier force that will merge the Navy and Airforce units.


Mind you I think Gen. Jumper isn’t too hot with facts when interviewed:

excerpt from http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123008666

Marc Selinger, Aviation Week: How does the EuroFighter compare to the F-22?

General Jumper: The EuroFighter is a very good airplane. It does not do what the F/A-22 does. It does not do supercruise, it does not do stealth. So it's just a different category. But as far as maneuverability goes and acceleration and the flight characteristics, it's a very impressive airplane.

From the eurofighter website: http://www.eurofighter.com/Typhoon/Production/Default.asp?Flash=True

“Stealth technology is incorporated in the basic design. Features include low frontal Radar Cross Section (RCS), passive sensors and supercruise capability.”

[Bing]

To be fair to the General, when Eurofighter says the Typhoon incoporates stealth technology it really isn't in the same class as the F/A-22 which probably has an RCS an order of magnitude or two smaller than Typhoon.

[jwcook]

Heres something I posted to another Forum, I would like to get some feedback from the "Pro's" here, I'm not so sure about the JSF for the following reasons, If I'm really offbase please let me know.

All three versions have flown with success, including the STOVL which was too overweight to fulfil its mission goals.

The weight reduction measures are apparently successful too, but lets wait till the design is frozen(again), the aircraft being produced right now are not the aircraft thats being proposed now, while quite a bit of flight testing can be done in certain areas, we will have to wait for the lighter version to complete testing. (the programs already running a little late).

The airframe issue isnt a show stopper by any means, the US really really needs new aircraft, and are willing to compromise a little as there isn't an alternative for the US.

As for competing with the F-22, its a more political thing, If you read the sales brocures for the South korean and Singaporean competitions the F-15 is unbeatable and will remain so for the forseeable future, but listen to the domestic market in the US and Eurocanards are superior to the F-15 'thats why we need the F-22' chorus the USAF, Now if the JSF is marketed at the Eurocanards/Mig's etc as a 'superior Air to Air fighter', the reason for the expensive f-22 is compromised, ie they might ask " why do we need an expensive fighter if the JSF can handle them?." you have to be a bit careful there, there is a hugh budget bow wave coming through in the next 5 years, something will have to be cancelled or delayed, or funding will require a massive increase (on a level not seen since the cold war highest peak and then it would have to maintain that peak for several years). as yet there isn't a threat to justify that sort of spending(trouble in Tiawan or Korea might change this)

As for being too expensive, the cost benifits of mass production top out around 1600 airframes and there are three varients!! any major reductions will push up cost as will any major delays, likely with the budget bow wave!!.

The partners are looking not for an F-22's sidekick they are looking for an autonomous fighter/bomber, as the partners are not buying the F-22 the JSF will by neccessity have to fullfil most of the F-22's role.

What does that mean, well the cost of sensors goes up because it can't depend on the f-22 being there, as will the ECM/EW etc,the JSF will have to cover a very wide spectrum of roles to fulfil the partners requirements.

Now if you start to measure how effective it is against Eurocanards/F-22/Migs interesting questions get asked.

To be really successful it has to be better than everything else in the Ato A role with the exception of the F-22, while remaining affordable. that on its own would be quite impressive if it was pulled off.

Now the technology employed to make it such a success looks like being restricted (hence the large sum of money on the export varient), the UK is getting really bloody angry that certain technology including the software codes will not be released, and several high level complaints including a Blair to Bush 'chat' have failed so far to resolve it (see UK's Hansard)

Add this to the exiguous foreign workshare component and you can see why the northern europeans are moaning and threatening to leave the program.

Some of these problems of work/cost/capability are mutually exclusive.

If the codes are not released then the purchasher is tied to the US for support and weapon intergration, returning black boxes to the US for repair.

This could lead the user being denied support if US foreign policy is affected.

In short at this very early stage of the program, there are already dissatisfaction with restrictions, the lack of workshare needs to be addressed quickly, and the performance in AtoA needs to be finely balanced.

If you can do all that while matching several airforces mandatory requirements, for a price thats never been acheived before, in a timeframe that looks quite optimistic, I for one would be very very impressed.


Cheers

[John Farley]

All three versions have flown with success, including the STOVL which was too overweight to fulfil its mission goals.

You did ask for comments if you are offbase. Not sure what you mean by offbase, but in case it means wrong

The above quote is simply wrong - OK confused

No F-35 variant has flown, nor will do for quite a while.

The X-35A, B and C variants all flew some two years ago. They all did well enough to be selected as the basis (repeat basis) for the F-35 A,B and C aircraft which are new designs incorporating the tecnology that was demonstated in the x models but incorporating military capabilities that the X models were not required to address.

On a point of detail the X-35B exceeded its mission gaols pretty handsomely...which may have had some connection with the result of the competition.

[West Coast]

Wigan Warrior

I perhaps mis-led you. The size of Marine Air is roughly comensurate to that of its ground counterpart. That allows for Marines to provide CAS for Marines with some degree of excess but not enough for it to be the primary provider, nor is that the structure in combined operaions. While the US Army may ask and prefer Marine CAS, the USAF provides the lions share to the Army. The air element commander assigns from a pool based on operational considerations and specific mission. For one assignment it might be USMC air supporting Army and for the next it might be USAF for the Marines.

[John Farley]

The reason I asked was, in the present (and future) climate of defence expenditure scrutiny, why would the USAF want (or more to the point NEED) hundreds of F-35s when the USMC (Air) would, no doubt be the ones providing the majority of CAS?

Wigan

A very reasonable question. My GUESS is that thanks to everything from cruise missiles to UCAVs developing apace and taking over traditional manned aircraft roles, then in perhaps 20 years time after the first couple of days the only role that US manned aircraft will carry out in a hostile and fluid situation will be CAS.

Now if you wore a USAF uniform would you not want to have aircraft that could do that job at least as effectively as the USMC ??.... inter service rivalry is so often destructive but perhaps not in this case.

JF

[OFBSLF]

The reason I asked was, in the present (and future) climate of defence expenditure scrutiny, why would the USAF want (or more to the point NEED) hundreds of F-35s when the USMC (Air) would, no doubt be the ones providing the majority of CAS?Because the USMC is quite small. They have not and will not provide the majority of CAS -- there simply aren't enough USMC aircraft or aviators to do that.

[ORAC]

AWST:

The USAF will buy several wings of the STOVL F-35.... with each wing requiring roughly 100 aircraft, the ground support force would equate to at least two wings, but more likely four or more.

"We learned in Afghanistan and Iraq the importance of air support to land forces from austere locations", (Air Force Secretary) Roche told those attending the Air Force Assn convention, "We must be rapidly available to land forces, particularly the American Army. That´s why we will procure a STOVL version of the F-35".....

JSF program officials say there are options for modifying the F-35B for Air Force service. These include the installation of an interior cannon... a probe for hose and drogue refueling (in addition to the boom capability) for operations with special forces, Marine Corps and British tankers... (and) a tailored combination of fuselage and wing to carry more fuel and weapons...

JSF program officials say they have identified 2,700lbs in weight or weight equivalent reductions for the STOVL aircraft.... the LM team has also recaptured a 600lb equivalent reduction by redesigning the auxiliary inlet on top of the JSF´s fuselage for better pressure recovery.... predictions are that the changes will decrease takeoff roll by 100ft... and allow the bring-back weight for a carrier recovery to include two 1000lb bombs, two AAMs and reserve fuel.

[saudipc-9]

Just read the General's interview, I have to laugh when Newsies make cockups like the ICAO and IKEO! I guess the Swede's are taking over the governing of our airspace:p