Wall Street Journal Says F-35 Usaf Version Might Be Cancelled

[KursadA]

Today's Wall Street Journal reports that the Pentagon is considering to eliminate the USAF version of the F-35. The USAF will then buy the Navy version of the JSF. Note that Wall Street Journal has a wide net of reputable sources everywhere and has an uncanny track record for leaking stuff like this well before the public hears anything. If it happens, this will upset several NATO countries in a major way.

I believe the Wall Street Journal site requires subscription. Below is the link, though:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113228263533001047.html

Edited November 18, 2005 by KursadA

[Murph]

I wouldn't be surprised, the USAF isn't overly enthusiatic about the F-35 to begin with.

Regards,

Murph

[Val K]

Ah, another wildly successful joint weapons programs. I suppose it's not such a bad thing though. As I understand it the Navy version is built to be little more robust to handle carrier landings and has a larger wing. While it may be a little heavier than the AF would prefer, I can't imagine either of those traits being entirely undesirable.

[RedHeadKevin]

To be perfectly honest, if this is true, I wouldn't be surprised to see the whole JSF program go under. If the USAF was to cancel its orders, we could assume that they'd replace thier plan for JSF's with something else. The Navy could see that the Super Hornet could fulfill just about all the same mission requirements as the JSF (except for stealth) and follow suit, cancelling their JSF order in favor of more Superbugs. The Marines would be left as the only US purchaser of the JSF, and then only with the ASTOVL version. The UK's Royal Navy would also be buying the ASTOVL JSF, which would essentially make that the only version being fielded worldwide. Any other potential buyers could easily see less-expensive, equally-capable alternatives in the Eurofighter, Rafale, Su-27-family, Mitsubishi F-2, etc. Seeing the USAF lose interest might be like watching rappers stop driving Escalades. Once they're off the bandwagon, everyone's gonna jump off. I'm not sure that financially, the program could ride on the USMC's orders of the ASTOVL version of the aircraft alone.

[f14peter]

if this indeed occurs, I would still suspect that even though the USAF buys "Navy" versions, there would still be some "Modifications" and it probably would be pretty close to what the USAF would have bought in the first place.

As I just mentioned in the SUPERBUG thread, it could be a little political gamesmanship . . . the USAF says, "Okay, okay, we'll buy the Navy version and save everyone a bunch of money!" Then over time during the development process, the airframe will go through enough changes that it won't be much different from the original USAF design.

[Murph]

As I understand it the Navy version is built to be little more robust to handle carrier landings and has a larger wing.

The larger wing is a big factor.

Regards,

Murph

[f14peter]

To be perfectly honest, if this is true, I wouldn't be surprised to see the whole JSF program go under. If the USAF was to cancel its orders, we could assume that they'd replace thier plan for JSF's with something else.

If the USAF simply straight-out cancelled its participation in the program, I'd agree with that. However (And I didn't log-on the read the article), I believe the gist of the article according to Kursad's post is that the USAF will still buy the F-35, just not their specific version and pick up "Navy" ones instead.

[Vesper]

1 word: TFX :(

I know I'm in for it, but there are alternatives to the JSF as mentioned before, the Jarheads would be the only ones hangin'. I say get the AF Bkl60 Falcons, Navy gets more POS.. eh, Bugs :D, NATO goes with whatever's over there and we get w/t UK and revive the Super Harrier pgm.

VesB)

Edited November 18, 2005 by Vesper

[RedHeadKevin]

ahh... i stand corrected. I suppose reading the article would have been a good idea.

What's so bad about the AF getting the Navy version anyway? Wouldn't that actually add to the commonality aspect of the program, and make things work cheaper and better for everyone?

[KursadA]

If the USAF simply straight-out cancelled its participation in the program, I'd agree with that. However (And I didn't log-on the read the article), I believe the gist of the article according to Kursad's post is that the USAF will still buy the F-35, just not their specific version and pick up "Navy" ones instead.

This seems to be exactly the case, below is an excerpt from the article:

Under a plan that the Pentagon is considering, development of the Air Force variant of the JSF would be halted and the Air Force would buy the Navy version, defense officials said. No decision has been reached, but one senior Pentagon official described as "very strong" the pressure for the Air Force to agree. This person added that a decision on its fate likely would be made soon. The White House is slated to issue its Pentagon budget guidance on Monday.

Defense officials who back the change believe that by reducing the number of variants, the Pentagon can reap savings on development and production costs of the airframe. Air Force and other officials familiar with the deliberations, however, said there is no guarantee of savings and the change could actually increase costs. "Right now, the sea variant exists only on paper. It is the least developed of the three variants," said a military official who opposes the decision.

A senior Air Force official described the plan to kill the Air Force variant as "a shortsighted move," adding that the change is likely to rile U.S. allies. In a unique arrangement for a Pentagon program, eight countries have invested upfront in the JSF's development.

[BAM'n'IVM]

ahh... i stand corrected. I suppose reading the article would have been a good idea.

What's so bad about the AF getting the Navy version anyway? Wouldn't that actually add to the commonality aspect of the program, and make things work cheaper and better for everyone?

It's a heavier airframe which equals either a lighter weapons load or less range. Major drawbacks for the Air Force. And it would have the wrong air-refuelling system, so they'd have to spend money to modify the design and add more weight with the Air Force recepticle plus the Navy probe...

Anyone else hear a can of worms being opened?

[RedHeadKevin]

good point. Make sure to wear shoes, folks. There's gonna be worms allll over the floor.

[Joe Hegedus]

IMO, that is probably one of the more SENSIBLE things that they could do. There isn't anything unique to the AF version that couldn't be accomplished with a carrier-capable jet, you reduce production line tooling (the wings, tail, landing gear, and other bits are all different between those 2 versions), the unit cost goes down since the production numbers for the single type go up (the AF wanted how many of those things? Quite a few more than the Navy would probably buy, most likely), the development and T&E costs are pretty much cut in half since you've only got to do it once. Depot-level maintenance could more easily be accomplished jointly at common facilities and the number of types of spares needed to be procured goes down.

As for the TFX, that fiasco was doomed from the start due to very different requirements-the AF was looking for a bomber (it really should have had a "B" or "A" designation rather than "F", the Navy was looking for an interceptor. With the JSF, the requirements seem to be much more common (replacing a fighter-bomber in each case, the F-16 and the legacy F-18)

[Murph]

And it would have the wrong air-refuelling system, so they'd have to spend money to modify the design and add more weight with the Air Force recepticle plus the Navy probe...

Which would still be better than what they were planning to do with the Air Force version.

Regards,

Murph

[f14peter]

IMO, that is probably one of the more SENSIBLE things that they could do. There isn't anything unique to the AF version that couldn't be accomplished with a carrier-capable jet, you reduce production line tooling (the wings, tail, landing gear, and other bits are all different between those 2 versions), the unit cost goes down since the production numbers for the single type go up (the AF wanted how many of those things? Quite a few more than the Navy would probably buy, most likely), the development and T&E costs are pretty much cut in half since you've only got to do it once. Depot-level maintenance could more easily be accomplished jointly at common facilities and the number of types of spares needed to be procured goes down.

You're right Joe and there's no disputing the cost savings due to economies of scale. I do wonder if there is enough commonality that the expected savings would indeed come to pass. As already mentioned, the refueling issue will have to be addressed . . . would the USAF airframes contain the carrier-specific electronics of the Navy birds? . . . would the heavier landing gear and/or tailhook be modified as a weight-savings measure? . . .

This idea is not without precedence. The F-4 and A-7 were, IIRC, originally Navy designs that ended up in Air Force inventories. Even the Hornet itself went through a similar experience . . . the original plan was for the F/A-18 to be used solely for Naval/Marine forces, with the land-only F-18L intended for export to non-carrier forces. Due to many reasons, the 18L never came to pass and everybody used the F/A-18.

Edited November 18, 2005 by f14peter

[Mandrake]

Having researched the JSF programme in some depth for my recent thesis I personally don't think the USAF will totally abandon the CTOL (Conventional Take Off & Landing) version in favour for the USN'S CV (Carrier Version)

What I can see however is a redesign of the CTOL to incorporate some of the perceived advantages offered by the CV, namely an increased payload/range allowed primarily through a larger wing area.

It should be noted that the CV version in its current form has a number of features that would simply be surplus to USAF requirements and thus not justify the added expense of procuring the CV. For example the specialised landing gear, overall strengthened structure, folding wing tips, arrestor hook. Additionally the larger wing was initially concieved not for payload advantages but to allow greater lift and larger control surfaces (including leading edge flaps) to improve low speed handling for carrier approaches.

So whilst the CTOL may borrow elements from the CV in its design, those two distinct variants will remain.

Furthermore one should also factor in the international participation involved in this program. Upwards of $4bn has already been committed to the development stage of the program, $2bn by nations who specifically looking towards acquiring the CTOL version, the UK accounting for the other half. Any major change in this version could result in further problems in the partnership especially as it would more than likely increase the individual unit cost, though the USN would actually see a reduction. Whilst in the big scheme of things $2bn does not sound like much in a $20-30bn development project the real money is in the production stage and the JSFs success will be found and judged upon the lucrative export market for the next 30years or so.

Whilst a CV specific version would no doubt sell as a CTOL to Air Forces it would not be as successful as a CTOL specific version. Think F-16 vs F-18.

Oh and the CV has no internal gun

Edited November 18, 2005 by Mandrake

[RedHeadKevin]

What do you need a gun for? You've got AAM's...

<runs like hell for cover.>

Which would still be better than what they were planning to do with the Air Force version.

What were they planning to do with the Air Force version?

By the way, I'm assuming that the USAF version would eliminate the tailhook and catapult launch bar, right? WHy couldn't they just use the lighter-weight landing gear developed for the CTOL version, instead of the Navy version?

[Sean Bratton]

It should be noted that the CV version in its current form has a number of features that would simply be surplus to USAF requirements and thus not justify the added expense of procuring the CV. For example the specialised landing gear, overall strengthened structure, folding wing tips, arrestor hook.

Any USAF example is going to have a hook.

The cost savings would be in developing only two versions vs. three. Any F-18 operator has managed to live with the extra naval features while operating them from land - in fact folding wings can come in handy. Any attempt to modify the CV variant by changing major items like structure, wings and gear negates any cost savings they are trying to acheive by dropping the CTOL variant.

Edited November 18, 2005 by Sean Bratton

[Murph]

What were they planning to do with the Air Force version?

For various reasons they were looking at putting the Navy wing on the Air Force version. It's worth pointing out that the USAF bought the F-4 and A-7 and kept most of the carrier compatable equipment (like the hook, folding wings, etc...) and just changed the avionics and refueling system.

Regards,

Murph

[Aggressor Supporter]

Personally, I don't like the idea of dropping the F-35A CTOL variant. It's planned to be the overall highest performance version of the three and to drop it in favor of the F-35C model would show the USAF is willing to drop overall performace for more range that the C offers.

I'm sure though like have been mentioned here that if the USAF should go with the F-35C variant, it will be modified as much as possible (i.e. maybe adding an internal gun, replacing the heavier undercarriage with lighter ones and the refuelling probe with the boom, etc) to hopefully recapture some of the lesser overall performance.

[Joe Hegedus]

Personally, I don't like the idea of dropping the F-35A CTOL variant. It's planned to be the overall highest performance version of the three and to drop it in favor of the F-35C model would show the USAF is willing to drop overall performace for more range that the C offers.

Then again, it might show that they are willing to accept slightly lower performance to have an airplane at all. if there aren't enough dollars available to justify developing 3 distinct aircraft, the choice may come down to buying the Navy version or buying none. As for the gun, my personal opinion (as someone who tests weapons systems, not an operator so take it as you will) is that it's a panacea for the pilot and superfluous to the real-world capability of the airplane, mainly because the average fighter doesn't hold enough ammo for the gun to make it worthwhile. 6 seconds of shootin' time goes by REALLY fast.

[Mark S.]

Gents:

Having worked for one of the big three automakers and working as a consultant in the industry my opinion is that aerospace firms have never gotten a grip on how to build model variants. The cost between the two versions should be minimal if they had a modular construction plan from day one. The cost difference should be just the cost of the different components used and the incremental differences in labor.

I've been part of engineering efforts that planned engineered and constructed an auto plant that built station wagons, two door coupes and four door sedans along with convertibles on the same line at a rate of 78 cars an hour. Give me a crack at it but let me take the afternoons off for golf cause it's not that much work.

Mark

[MoFo]

It's worth pointing out that the USAF bought the F-4 and A-7 and kept most of the carrier compatable equipment (like the hook, folding wings, etc...) and just changed the avionics and refueling system.

Not to mention the various F/A-18 users, who all have what are essentially carrier capable aircraft. Weren't most of the international A-4s still carrier compatable too? Not a new thing at all, and I doubt most USAF fans would say the Phantom was an inferior aircraft for its time.

[Murph]

As for the gun, my personal opinion (as someone who tests weapons systems, not an operator so take it as you will) is that it's a panacea for the pilot and superfluous to the real-world capability of the airplane, mainly because the average fighter doesn't hold enough ammo for the gun to make it worthwhile. 6 seconds of shootin' time goes by REALLY fast.

Joe,

A bullet can't be jammed or decoyed. The USAF is so committed to having that weapon they went to a lot of trouble and expense to put it in the F/A-22. In addition, the F-35 will have a primary air to ground mission, where the gun will be useful.

Regards,

Murph

Edited November 18, 2005 by Murph

[Les / Creative Edge Photo]

Not to mention the various F/A-18 users, who all have what are essentially carrier capable aircraft. Weren't most of the international A-4s still carrier compatable too? Not a new thing at all, and I doubt most USAF fans would say the Phantom was an inferior aircraft for its time.

Canadian CF-18s have served well. I see no handicap from AF varients to Navy based varients of aircraft. Those days are IMO long gone. If having a single JSF (short of the STVOL) I highly doubt USAF pilots would be at any real disadvantage.

I do agree that the cannon should be retained. It may not be a prime weapon of choice but it is an option in combat both A to A and A to G.

Edited November 18, 2005 by Les / Creative Edge Photo