JSF contract
Thread Starter
JSF contract
With the JSF contract scheduled to be announced tommorrow, interesting last minute bit of lobbying here.
US jet fighter should be killed or cut--think tank
By Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON, Oct 24 (Reuters) - With the Pentagon set to tap a company Friday to build its next-generation fighter jet, an influential U.S. group has concluded the projected $200 billion program should be scaled back sharply -- or killed outright as part of a sweeping military modernization.
At least two of three planned versions of the Joint Strike Fighter should be scrapped, with the possible exception of the one designed to land on aircraft carriers, experts from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments said in a draft of a report to be published next month.
Lockheed Martin Corp. (NYSE:LMT - news) and Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA - news) are competing for the deal that could let the winner dominate worldwide jet fighter construction for the next 50 years.
Analysts at the center, noted for taking the long view on U.S. defense, argued the Air Force in particular would be wrong to stick to plans to buy 1,763 of the aircraft over coming decades -- the lion's share of the projected U.S. order.
"In a future conflict, enemy missile forces numbering in the thousands could hold the in-theater bases, upon which the bulk of U.S. air power relies, at risk for the duration of hostilities,'' said the draft made available to Reuters.
The authors, Robert Martinage and Michael Vickers, cited the advent of combat drones that ultimately could be launched from carriers plus new Lockheed F-16 Block 60 fighters that could fill tactical aviation gaps if the Joint Strike Fighter were scrubbed.
LESSON OF AFGHANISTAN
As in the current U.S. campaign in Afghanistan, "the U.S. military may increasingly be called upon to project power deep inland -- beyond the unrefueled range of the JSF,'' Martinage said in an interview.
The military should reopen the Northrop Grumman Corp. (NYSE:NOC - news) production line and buy 40 more long-range B-2 bombers, while boosting funding for unmanned aircraft such as the General Atomics-built Predator and the Northrop-built Global Hawk, he said.
Andrew Krepinevich, a former Pentagon war planner who is the center's director and an advisor to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, said: "If I were king for a day, I'd cancel the land-based version'' and the short take-off and landing model planned for the Marines who, he said, had enough fire support.
But Krepinevich, fresh from serving on a panel that looked at the perceived threat to forward bases, added in a telephone interview that he would speed up plans to put the radar-evading "stealth'' aircraft on Navy carriers. He said he would cut short the Navy's purchase of the Boeing F/A-18 E/F "Super Hornet,'' which is not designed to elude radar.
Krepinevich said he and his colleagues had been busy lately with, "a lot of senators and congressmen who are interested in reforming the military and thinking differently about the future.''
The Air Force and Marine versions of the JSF were a "poster child'' for President Bush's campaign promise to "skip a generation'' of military technology, he said.
Randolph Harrison, a spokesman for Boeing's JSF program, discounted Krepinevich's critique as "think tank's conjecture.'' A Lockheed spokesman, John Kent, said: "Tankers exist for a reason and that's to extend the range of an airplane.''
Currently, the Navy is planning to buy 480 copies of the highly modular, relatively low-cost JSF; the Marine Corps, 609; the British Royal Air Force, 90; and the Royal Navy, 60. Absent any changes, the combined total would be 3,002 to be delivered starting in 2009.
The contract being awarded Friday involves refining the design, building, testing and evaluating it, but does not include orders for actual production models.
The program faces competition for scarce dollars from two other big tactical aircraft -- the Lockheed F-22 "Raptor'' in production for the Air Force and the F/A-18 E/F being produced for the Navy.
STILL IN "WILDERNESS''
"Something's going to have to give, either in timing or in numbers'' on one or all of these programs, said Richard Aboulafia, of Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia, aerospace consultant.
The Joint Strike Fighter is "still very much in the wilderness,'' he said.
But U.S. coalition-building for the war on terrorism appears to have given the JSF an important shot in the arm since Britain, the staunchest U.S. ally, already had committed $2 billion of its own in development funds.
"Right now we are in the business of building coalitions,'' Dov Zakheim, the Pentagon's chief financial officer, told reporters Oct. 5. "We have to ask ourselves whether and how a decision on the Joint Strike Fighter might affect those coalitions.''
The JSF is also intended as a low-cost replacement for the F-16 in export markets, another reason the program should go ahead, said Stuart McCutchan, publisher of the industry newsletter Defense Mergers & Acquisitions.
US jet fighter should be killed or cut--think tank
By Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON, Oct 24 (Reuters) - With the Pentagon set to tap a company Friday to build its next-generation fighter jet, an influential U.S. group has concluded the projected $200 billion program should be scaled back sharply -- or killed outright as part of a sweeping military modernization.
At least two of three planned versions of the Joint Strike Fighter should be scrapped, with the possible exception of the one designed to land on aircraft carriers, experts from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments said in a draft of a report to be published next month.
Lockheed Martin Corp. (NYSE:LMT - news) and Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA - news) are competing for the deal that could let the winner dominate worldwide jet fighter construction for the next 50 years.
Analysts at the center, noted for taking the long view on U.S. defense, argued the Air Force in particular would be wrong to stick to plans to buy 1,763 of the aircraft over coming decades -- the lion's share of the projected U.S. order.
"In a future conflict, enemy missile forces numbering in the thousands could hold the in-theater bases, upon which the bulk of U.S. air power relies, at risk for the duration of hostilities,'' said the draft made available to Reuters.
The authors, Robert Martinage and Michael Vickers, cited the advent of combat drones that ultimately could be launched from carriers plus new Lockheed F-16 Block 60 fighters that could fill tactical aviation gaps if the Joint Strike Fighter were scrubbed.
LESSON OF AFGHANISTAN
As in the current U.S. campaign in Afghanistan, "the U.S. military may increasingly be called upon to project power deep inland -- beyond the unrefueled range of the JSF,'' Martinage said in an interview.
The military should reopen the Northrop Grumman Corp. (NYSE:NOC - news) production line and buy 40 more long-range B-2 bombers, while boosting funding for unmanned aircraft such as the General Atomics-built Predator and the Northrop-built Global Hawk, he said.
Andrew Krepinevich, a former Pentagon war planner who is the center's director and an advisor to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, said: "If I were king for a day, I'd cancel the land-based version'' and the short take-off and landing model planned for the Marines who, he said, had enough fire support.
But Krepinevich, fresh from serving on a panel that looked at the perceived threat to forward bases, added in a telephone interview that he would speed up plans to put the radar-evading "stealth'' aircraft on Navy carriers. He said he would cut short the Navy's purchase of the Boeing F/A-18 E/F "Super Hornet,'' which is not designed to elude radar.
Krepinevich said he and his colleagues had been busy lately with, "a lot of senators and congressmen who are interested in reforming the military and thinking differently about the future.''
The Air Force and Marine versions of the JSF were a "poster child'' for President Bush's campaign promise to "skip a generation'' of military technology, he said.
Randolph Harrison, a spokesman for Boeing's JSF program, discounted Krepinevich's critique as "think tank's conjecture.'' A Lockheed spokesman, John Kent, said: "Tankers exist for a reason and that's to extend the range of an airplane.''
Currently, the Navy is planning to buy 480 copies of the highly modular, relatively low-cost JSF; the Marine Corps, 609; the British Royal Air Force, 90; and the Royal Navy, 60. Absent any changes, the combined total would be 3,002 to be delivered starting in 2009.
The contract being awarded Friday involves refining the design, building, testing and evaluating it, but does not include orders for actual production models.
The program faces competition for scarce dollars from two other big tactical aircraft -- the Lockheed F-22 "Raptor'' in production for the Air Force and the F/A-18 E/F being produced for the Navy.
STILL IN "WILDERNESS''
"Something's going to have to give, either in timing or in numbers'' on one or all of these programs, said Richard Aboulafia, of Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia, aerospace consultant.
The Joint Strike Fighter is "still very much in the wilderness,'' he said.
But U.S. coalition-building for the war on terrorism appears to have given the JSF an important shot in the arm since Britain, the staunchest U.S. ally, already had committed $2 billion of its own in development funds.
"Right now we are in the business of building coalitions,'' Dov Zakheim, the Pentagon's chief financial officer, told reporters Oct. 5. "We have to ask ourselves whether and how a decision on the Joint Strike Fighter might affect those coalitions.''
The JSF is also intended as a low-cost replacement for the F-16 in export markets, another reason the program should go ahead, said Stuart McCutchan, publisher of the industry newsletter Defense Mergers & Acquisitions.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: St Andrews
Age: 63
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heady stuff! I'm sure JSF will offer us a whole new level of capabilty (it's not a British Wasteofspace product)and am I correct in assuming that it would allow our FAA boys to 0perate off US Navy carriers? Interesting what was said about UAVs and their importance/potential - tell that to the Sqn who lost 3 of their 'toys' over Iraq since 11 Sep!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andis,
Oh but it is a British waste of Space product! They are heavily into the airframe and systems of the Lockheed candidate and the systems and avionics of the Boeing ugly frog.
Of course it will be able to operate off US Navy carriers, but what's to stop the SHar or GR7 doing that right now? After all the average US CVN is about the same size as Cottesmore.
What exactly is your point about UAV's? Surely the fact that three have gone down without any hue and cry or prisoners paraded through Baghdad is their ultimate justification?
When the winner is announced there is one guaranteed winner, and that is BAE. They'll be on which ever is selected with lots of work for UK Plc elsewhere.
Suit
Oh but it is a British waste of Space product! They are heavily into the airframe and systems of the Lockheed candidate and the systems and avionics of the Boeing ugly frog.
Of course it will be able to operate off US Navy carriers, but what's to stop the SHar or GR7 doing that right now? After all the average US CVN is about the same size as Cottesmore.
What exactly is your point about UAV's? Surely the fact that three have gone down without any hue and cry or prisoners paraded through Baghdad is their ultimate justification?
When the winner is announced there is one guaranteed winner, and that is BAE. They'll be on which ever is selected with lots of work for UK Plc elsewhere.
Suit
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: I see lights bearing 045
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be Aware:
The good looking thin sorts are generally unreliable, mad and bad tempered and always wanting things - the Lockheed Martin number
Short fat tubby, lacking conventinal beauty, are generally stable, lovable and satisfied by inadequate piloting. - The Boeing number
anyone getting my drift??
The good looking thin sorts are generally unreliable, mad and bad tempered and always wanting things - the Lockheed Martin number
Short fat tubby, lacking conventinal beauty, are generally stable, lovable and satisfied by inadequate piloting. - The Boeing number
anyone getting my drift??
Not really surprising that the Lockheed Martin X-35 aircraft has won the $200 billion JSF competition - could you really see Uncle Spam's finest being allowed to take to the air in anything as utterly hideous as the Boeing X-32?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S'cuse a mere civvy butting in, a few Q's for you experts;
Just how will JSF stack up against Eurofighter? - different roles I know, but capabilities?
And will this really be the last manned fighter as some predict?
Just how will JSF stack up against Eurofighter? - different roles I know, but capabilities?
And will this really be the last manned fighter as some predict?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup thats true, ten, fifteen years from now all fighter jocks will be girls, apparently they are better at it, better G tolerance and distribution of body fats or sumpin. 
Totally different roles! The EF has been developed over about 20 years, it seems, and was optimised for supersonic agility and air dominance. Whereas the X-35 will be a stealth V/STOL fighter-bomber optimised for a mud-moving role (mainly) but with excellent air-to-air capabilities. The US will be getting the F-22 which will be used for the same sort of missions as the EF - only rather more capably (and expensively!).
Last manned fighter aircraft? Don't know about that - some ar$e called Duncan Sandys killed off the UK fighter aircraft industry with just such nonsense back in 1957.
[ 26 October 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
Last manned fighter aircraft? Don't know about that - some ar$e called Duncan Sandys killed off the UK fighter aircraft industry with just such nonsense back in 1957.
[ 26 October 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the point of view of my BAE shares - great news on the Lockheed Martin win (even if my dad thought it was Martin Baker - poor old soul). Also, can't help but agree on the Boeing ugly bug - yuk! It always looked to me like the short, fat, green, slimey ghost in "Ghostbusters" so no way to take it seriously.
Also, with no major German participation we should avoid all the equivocation that came with Eurofighter - "will we buy it? won't we buy it? will we use it to invade Poland again?" etc. etc. etc. Of course it will be late and over budget - but these things always are.
Thankfully the programme didn't get sh*tcanned - but what's the betting that it would have but for 11th sept?
Also, with no major German participation we should avoid all the equivocation that came with Eurofighter - "will we buy it? won't we buy it? will we use it to invade Poland again?" etc. etc. etc. Of course it will be late and over budget - but these things always are.
Thankfully the programme didn't get sh*tcanned - but what's the betting that it would have but for 11th sept?
Could well have been, moggie. Incidentally, I understand that the Italians have pulled out of the A400M game and Hoon thinks that the C-17 is A Good Thing. So what price the A400M contract signing due on Nov 16 gets binned, Boeing gets more C-17s for FTA and probably 767K for FSTA, since L-M have now won JSF?
[ 26 October 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
[ 26 October 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congratulations are due to the Lockheed Martin team - all of them. But especially well done to Simon Hargeaves and Justin Paines. That competition was probably the toughest yet organised and one where (for once?) techinical merit might just have triumphed over political expediency.
[ 26 October 2001: Message edited by: John Farley ]
[ 26 October 2001: Message edited by: John Farley ]
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SW England
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking as a humble Rotary wing engineer but all the pictures that I've seen of the X35 transitioning from forward flight to vertical show lots of doors for the lift fan popping open. Surely a candidate for a lot of BDR or will these doors not pop open on landing thus killing a lot of you poor pilots. From a personal point of view saw the X32 at Farnborough last year,looks ugly but appears rugged enough to survive ops off the back of a CV? what do you lot think? The other question is are the boys from JF2000/SHAR/HAR IPT going to form the JSF IPT so that any lessons may be learned.
Not bitter just seen it too many times.
Not bitter just seen it too many times.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Geriatrica, UK
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't be bitter; today's news is seriously exciting. It is a great moment for those who will be in at the start of such an innovative new aircraft project. Ah, if only...
Still up John? 'night.
Still up John? 'night.
Investment divided by quantity to be delivered to the UK gives a unit price approaching £70 m per aircraft, which makes EF look cheap, and which is very much higher than the figures quoted by JSF marketeers. (It was s'posed to cost no more than an F-16 Block 60, remember).
And that's if US cost control on this program is more reliable than it's been on the F-22.
There is grave doubt as to whether all three versions will make it to service - and many are still pressing for complete cancellation. The STOVL version is thought most likely for the chop. Interesting that all recent BAe artists impressions of the new CV show CTOL aircraft on it, not STOVL.
And if we're not going to get the STOVL one, there are better, cheaper, more capable options, IMHO.
Even the Dutch already have chilly feet on this over-priced F-16 replacement, which was 'designed to cost' not designed for capability.
And all for an aircraft whose standard warload is two 1,000-lb JDAMs.
Instead, why not buy larger numbers of Gripens (or whatever) and banish overstretch forever!
PS: John F: Thought you favoured the Boeing STOVL solution?
And that's if US cost control on this program is more reliable than it's been on the F-22.
There is grave doubt as to whether all three versions will make it to service - and many are still pressing for complete cancellation. The STOVL version is thought most likely for the chop. Interesting that all recent BAe artists impressions of the new CV show CTOL aircraft on it, not STOVL.
And if we're not going to get the STOVL one, there are better, cheaper, more capable options, IMHO.
Even the Dutch already have chilly feet on this over-priced F-16 replacement, which was 'designed to cost' not designed for capability.
And all for an aircraft whose standard warload is two 1,000-lb JDAMs.
Instead, why not buy larger numbers of Gripens (or whatever) and banish overstretch forever!
PS: John F: Thought you favoured the Boeing STOVL solution?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done indeed the LM JSF is a good looking plane and according to reports it works too!!! But will it ever take the A10's role??? Come on A10 sure it may be ugly as sin but nothing comes close for endurance or just general toughness. Oh and payload. You shouldnt try and have one plane to do to many jobs. There is to much compromise in the world already.