ELPWell then we see more backing out from programmes such as Concorde. Concorde might have been more succesful if at that time American beurocracy wouldnt have come into play. Plus the way the 14 Concordes served i was phenominal..one crash in more than 28 yrs of service!
You cant really blame Concorde for one crash in 28 years now can you? Well, i do agree on the profits part. But the image it gave Air France and BA should be profitable enough.
AF and BA Concordes did Paris-DEL or LHR-DEL!
I think BA and AF could have made something of it post-Sept. 11 when there positions were relativly strong. Otherwise they would have decomisioned the Concorde then and there before finding a reasong being Sept. 11 of taking it out.
Thats what i just said for the sake of discussion..leave economics aside for a bit.
[/quote=tenthije]I would not say that. The shape of the plane may not be changing a lot, but that does not mean a lot. The B777 is widely regarded as a plane that was cuttin edge incorporating lot’s of new technology. But set it next to a 767 and people outside the aviation industry will have trouble telling which is which.
its still nothing MAJOR in the 777. That can really excite a person. Having a few different tools in the cockpit cant really compare with having an SST. You can see the face expression of a person who sees a 777 land and a Concorde land and you’ll see what i mean.
The A380 is no where what “modern design and technology” should be. Carrying 500 people at the same speed as aircrafts did 15 years ago is no big achivments. And advancements like new materials, less pollution will happpen…if they also stop! The spaceship you are talking about..if its like what happened on the first flight i dont think many ppl will be up for it. 😮
Its all about the business plan. $$$$$ better / cheaper etc etc. Without that, there is no airline. Concorde for example would be a business plan that would drive itself right off the known map of reality, which is what happened for years. Nice jet but not much profit to be had. Both the 380 and 7E7 are in fact very modern, as they fit known business plan improvement roadmaps. Example the 7E7 ( assuming it works ) has a shockingly small amount of aluminum/steel/titanium ( engine pylons ). It is mostly carbon laminate, carbon sandwich and fiberglass. That is where the fuel economy/range comes from ( again, assuming it flys ). Yes faster would be nice, but we have already seen the risk with tech that doesnt have a wide margin of safety surrounding it. ( i.e. the Concorde was on the edge ( and yes it had a good safety record but the tech pushed for its day ) or worse yet something like a Space Shuttle tech doing passenger service. So much risk that you couldn’t get business insurance. If you can walk up to an airline and tell them you can give them a product that will reduce their fuel cost by 1% per year you would be on track. Going up to them and telling them you can get there faster but and a significant increase in cost, won’t do. Fuel cost is the number one thing killing airline profits this year and really anytime in the future.
ELPWell then we see more backing out from programmes such as Concorde. Concorde might have been more succesful if at that time American beurocracy wouldnt have come into play. Plus the way the 14 Concordes served i was phenominal..one crash in more than 28 yrs of service!
You cant really blame Concorde for one crash in 28 years now can you? Well, i do agree on the profits part. But the image it gave Air France and BA should be profitable enough.
AF and BA Concordes did Paris-DEL or LHR-DEL!
I think BA and AF could have made something of it post-Sept. 11 when there positions were relativly strong. Otherwise they would have decomisioned the Concorde then and there before finding a reasong being Sept. 11 of taking it out.
Thats what i just said for the sake of discussion..leave economics aside for a bit.
[/quote=tenthije]I would not say that. The shape of the plane may not be changing a lot, but that does not mean a lot. The B777 is widely regarded as a plane that was cuttin edge incorporating lot’s of new technology. But set it next to a 767 and people outside the aviation industry will have trouble telling which is which.
its still nothing MAJOR in the 777. That can really excite a person. Having a few different tools in the cockpit cant really compare with having an SST. You can see the face expression of a person who sees a 777 land and a Concorde land and you’ll see what i mean.
The A380 is no where what “modern design and technology” should be. Carrying 500 people at the same speed as aircrafts did 15 years ago is no big achivments. And advancements like new materials, less pollution will happpen…if they also stop! The spaceship you are talking about..if its like what happened on the first flight i dont think many ppl will be up for it. 😮
Its all about the business plan. $$$$$ better / cheaper etc etc. Without that, there is no airline. Concorde for example would be a business plan that would drive itself right off the known map of reality, which is what happened for years. Nice jet but not much profit to be had. Both the 380 and 7E7 are in fact very modern, as they fit known business plan improvement roadmaps. Example the 7E7 ( assuming it works ) has a shockingly small amount of aluminum/steel/titanium ( engine pylons ). It is mostly carbon laminate, carbon sandwich and fiberglass. That is where the fuel economy/range comes from ( again, assuming it flys ). Yes faster would be nice, but we have already seen the risk with tech that doesnt have a wide margin of safety surrounding it. ( i.e. the Concorde was on the edge ( and yes it had a good safety record but the tech pushed for its day ) or worse yet something like a Space Shuttle tech doing passenger service. So much risk that you couldn’t get business insurance. If you can walk up to an airline and tell them you can give them a product that will reduce their fuel cost by 1% per year you would be on track. Going up to them and telling them you can get there faster but and a significant increase in cost, won’t do. Fuel cost is the number one thing killing airline profits this year and really anytime in the future.
ELPWhat is funny is that not much of the 7E7 is “U.S. made”. It is a multi-national setup. 35% Boeing, 35% Japanese companies, 26% Vought/Alenia. Another 4% ?
Vertical Fin – Boeing ( Frederickson )
Wings Movable Trailing Edge – Boeing ( Australia )
Nose – Boeing ( Wichita)
Wing-to-body fairing – Boeing ( Canada )
Wing leading edge devices – Boeing ( Tulsa )
Wings – Mitsubishi / Kawasaki / Fuji ( Japan )
Fuselage – Kawasaki and someone else
Aft Fuselage/Horizontal tail – Alenia ( Italy ) & Vought ( Texas )
Similar was done with 777 and others. Anyway kinda weird. Boeing just went out and bought 3 passenger 747s from some airline ( probably some sitting idle in the desert ) to have them converted to cargo carry. These jets will ferry all the worldwide components to the Washington State final assembly plant. ( components delivered in 1 day instead of 30 days by ship )
It is funny though to see some of our dim wit politicos ( especially a few clueless_about_the_world Washington State types that Boeing has paid off ) knock themselves out trying to be heros making political hay in this era where jets are made like cars now ( multi-national ) i.e. 7E7 is good for all concerned economies just as the 380 and other Airbus products are multi-national diverse and produce jobs for everyone, not just the competitor camps.
ELPWhat is funny is that not much of the 7E7 is “U.S. made”. It is a multi-national setup. 35% Boeing, 35% Japanese companies, 26% Vought/Alenia. Another 4% ?
Vertical Fin – Boeing ( Frederickson )
Wings Movable Trailing Edge – Boeing ( Australia )
Nose – Boeing ( Wichita)
Wing-to-body fairing – Boeing ( Canada )
Wing leading edge devices – Boeing ( Tulsa )
Wings – Mitsubishi / Kawasaki / Fuji ( Japan )
Fuselage – Kawasaki and someone else
Aft Fuselage/Horizontal tail – Alenia ( Italy ) & Vought ( Texas )
Similar was done with 777 and others. Anyway kinda weird. Boeing just went out and bought 3 passenger 747s from some airline ( probably some sitting idle in the desert ) to have them converted to cargo carry. These jets will ferry all the worldwide components to the Washington State final assembly plant. ( components delivered in 1 day instead of 30 days by ship )
It is funny though to see some of our dim wit politicos ( especially a few clueless_about_the_world Washington State types that Boeing has paid off ) knock themselves out trying to be heros making political hay in this era where jets are made like cars now ( multi-national ) i.e. 7E7 is good for all concerned economies just as the 380 and other Airbus products are multi-national diverse and produce jobs for everyone, not just the competitor camps.
ELPBut wing fences are a step back in aviaton!!! 😡
fightingirish
Exactly. F-18E/F was a step back in aviation. So the solution matches the airframe. 😀
ELPThe MiG-29S is a FULCRUM-C, but a FULCRUM-C is not necessarily a MiG-29S.
All poodles are dogs… but not all dogs are poodles ? :p
You guys can talk hardware all you want. When the people issues get sorted out in the Russian military… call me.
ELP“net-centric team”
When does it work as advertised and will cover all circumstances. In an asymmetrical war useless nearly. The results in Iraq are disappointing so far!!!!
really? netcentric set ups are especially needed and used and enjoy success in non traditional war. We have seen this already. Any airpower isnt going to win most wars by itself, but as targets appear ( either because of poor enemy comsec, or being observed by a UAV or another source, for example a vehicle with a known target is on the move and either a UCAV or a manned fixed wing also on the network, comes along and wastes the target, usually with the UAV buddy lasing. This has been done many times and the decision cycles on any strikes you see now, most of them are on a short decision cycle where nothing but… a netcentric topology will work.
Here is even more netcentric players that again, once type I air combat is taken care of, Have way more usefulness then a jump JSF. Especially when we are talking about high-overhead loiter. Most of the following will carry a minimum of 4 500lb class PGMs. Perfect to support a Specfor team on a bug hunt in a place like Afcrapistan. Times they are a changing…
New Concepts Have Emerged for USAF Unmanned Hunter-Killer Aircraft
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/09204top.xml
ELPThe way the F-22 will fight will be unfair. It won’t be used to show itself to its opponent if possible. While TV is gererally over-rated, for close in work ( considering how deadly modern High Off Bore Sight Helmet Heater Combos are) Where TV becomes useful for the F-22 is to do that high speed re-pointing at distance ( faster high speed turns ) so as to evaluate with a sensor peek, what wasn’t killed with the teams first volley of AMRAAMs and to set up for another attack. Yes the TV is useful in close, but part of its real usefulness is to stage a second attack at distance quicker by spending less time pointing back to get a look.
ELPNG to Deliver Four B-2s with New Bomb Racks
Northrop Grumman is on schedule to deliver by year’s end the first four B-2 bombers to be equipped with new bomb racks that will enable the aircraft to drop five times as many precision weapons on a single flight, according to company officials.
“We promised that we’d have four airplanes all equipped, certified and ready by the end of this year, and in fact we’ll make that commitment,” Harry Heimple, manager of government requirements for Northrop Grumman’s Air Combat Systems division, said during a briefing in Washington Sept. 14.
The B-2 currently can deliver up to 16 2,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs). The new rack will enable the bomber to carry up to 80 500-pound JDAMs. The Air Force’s operational test and evaluation (OT&E) of the new rack assembly should be completed within the next two months, according to Heimple. The entire fleet of 21 B-2s is scheduled to have the new bomb rack by 2006, he said.
The next weapons upgrade for the B-2 will be the integration of the 5,000-pound Enhanced GBU-28 penetrator, Heimple said, which should begin in March 2005.
B-2 has been checked out on the GBU-37 ( Northrop GPS assisted kit ) on a 4500lb bunker buster ” GAM” for years. Interesting that they would bother with the GBU-28 for that.
ELPSorry to dive back in time again, but if you consider air defence networks, and linked interceptors you have to go back to WW II. I know that datalinks, in their true sense, did not exist back then and everything was done via radio, but the concept was the same.
In the Battle of Britain a lot of inboud German formations were detected miles out on British radar and their position was relayed to central Fighter Command, which then relayed the scramble order to the appropriate sector. In Germany later in the war, the Nachtjäger (Night Fighter) defence network was a marvel. The defence ‘Net’ for the inbound British bombers was divided into small sectors, each sector would have a single night fighter on constant airborne patrol (usually twin engined high endurance types). Once the British bombers had been picked up on German radar, the intercept order was given to the Sector(s) concerned, and fighters vectored to the kill.
The emergence of the datalink is simply an advancement upon a concept born over 60 years ago.
Absolutely !!!
Where NCW is taking off now is the air to ground arena. It is delivering on the promise in large ways. One of many changes is the old 24 hour cycle of targeting where endless target folders were put together in that time frame and were many times full of out dated info by the time the target was being hit. NCW allows the time between when the target is detected and the time that it is killed to be reduced to less than an hour if not less. Add to that, shooters being updated on the fly if the target disapears suddenly. This way the shooter can be given another target. This idea will be even fielded with cruise missiles like JASSM, Tomahawk and SLAM-ER.
Most fixed wing strikes now take off without a target. When they arrive, at “the stack” ( a holding pattern for all shooters) they report into JSTARS which is becoming the go-to controller node for all ground targets. If there is a JSTARS in the region, it usually gets the job of assigning most strikes within its area of influence. As technology changes, this could change also. Where the JSTARS or JSTARS like aircraft, becomes just another sensor node. If the network is robust enough, putting up a bunch of shooter command and control types in JSTARS could make less and less sense, when that same staff can be ground based in theater somewhere.
ELPi dont agree with this assesment..we all seem to put endless faith in the x-47’s and x-45’s (myself included) aircraft which are only in the design and testing phase just after the entire AF UCAV program was restructured and combined into the UCAS program..also the fact that the f/a-22 would be able to carry JDAMS and SDB’s in a FDOW scenario is really dependent on the number of f/a-22 which as of now 230-277 wont even be enough for AF’s AD role..also the f/a-22 will be able to mount more sortie rates but the fact still remains that the f/a-22 wont exist in desired numbers…lets get to practicals what will the USAF,USAF,USN do to replace the legacy fighters..will their capabilities be satisfied with f-16’s , hornets and superhornets and harriers till 2025 and beyond? also the entire program to test the X-35 and x-32 was not supposed to be all to test its combat capabilities it was to test their basic airframe and propulsion tech…as of the weight problems both the STOVL varients were overweight..there is no point in talking about the services wasting 240 billion dollars because the developmental money out of that is only 45 billion the rest would be needed to be spent even if more legacy jets are bought
Despite my critics. The aging fleet of fighters are in urgent need for replacement.
It will be in much smaller numbers, but with higher capabilities.
Updates are just an expensive way to buy some time, not all are cost effective, similar our own PCs.
USAF already has plans on the table right now to reduce F-16 airframes by as many as 600. New cheap PGMs are part of that. We don’t need lots and lots of small airframes that don’t carry much. We need enough to do home defense. F-16 is good enough for that. We need some for expeditionary warfare. Add to that, we don’t need yet another small bomb truck that can only carry a few PGMs ( JSF ). Especially when type I air combat has been completed in a major campaign. F-16 Block 60 is in production. F-18E/F is in production. These are “good enough” for any small air frame bomb truck needs in type II and type III air war. Once type I air combat threats are beat down, large bombers do well at type II AC as they bring a lot of PGMs to beat down lots of things. In the early stages, they are more useful than a few small fixed wings that only carry a small number of PGMs.
X-45 and X-47 in concept demo form FLY and in the case of X-45 have dropped test PGMs proof of concept. Network control and aircraft carrier landing technology is already there ( automatic landing tested with an F-18 ) This is much farther along than JSF and much more in concept demo than what the JSF ever did.
Not very many F-22s will be needed. The current number is fine. After a few days of type I air warfare with these, there won’t be much left of a stiff air defense. Especailly with all the rest of the team players on its side, working together.
Good point, what I’m trying to say is that any talk of cancelling STOVL JSF would mean loosing an entire capability which cannot really be replaced by any other platform.
As you say CTOL JSF is the baseline for both STOVL and CV variants, but I’m suggesting that the buy of STOVL and CV should be increased to reduce the unit cost.In my opinion the program can only be called a success if all 3 variants are put into service.
At least the way the US does things, I don’t see ANY loss of capability by killing off the jump JSF. Kill off and retire Harrier for all I care. Once you put drop tanks and a LITENING pod ( and not even a sensor of interest handoff setup for good all weather PGM work ) the Harrier can’t carry very much. Any jet that can’t carry a useful amount of all weather PGMs is a wasted mission. It is just another small fixed wing jet that can only carry a small load, and it its case with all the junk hanging… short range. If USMC needs air power, they need REAL airpower from carriers or what ever. An F-18F SH has the Harrier beat on usefulness and with its better sensor hook up, is not a mediocre PGM jet like the Harrier. Kill off Harrier for the USMC and beef them up with F-18E/F. X-45 and X-47 UCAV would provide a 1300 mile radius from the carrier for 24/7 support overhead of Marines for CAS. Even more loiter if the carrier is closer.
As for having a bare base setup in hostile territory, well, that bare base has to be supplied with all kinds of stuff. A lot of support. If it is too short a base, not even C-130s could get in ( hey the advantage of Harrier / Jump JSF is limited fields. Problem is you have to find a way to supply them. All while longer fixed wing assets can provide equal and better support. Not to mention, putting a field in hostile territory can get you into a situation where in Vietnam, all in one morter attack, we lost all our night interdiction ability … in one night, when most of our night B-57s got taken out. With GPS gadgets for mortars only getting better… I’ll pass.
We can do all type I, II, III AC and never need the Harrier.
The most important feature of the F-35 strike fighter is its stealth capability.
Without or limited a Rafale/Typhoon2/Flanker becomes a comparable choise.
The coming price of F-35 is no real secret. Statistics showed, that empty weight is related to building costs. More weight = higher price. Comparable man-hour costs in mind. The customer prices will differ considerably. Price for basic aircraft alone or a basket. What follow-up costs for services a.s.o. Relating the development costs to basic aircraft or split them into spare-parts and other services too. Keep the starting costs low by this. What was the promised price for F-22 and what is it now?
Ok, lower number to built, so compare price without development costs, if promises are kept.
There is no ashurance, that the advertised number of F-35 will be built.
I can think of a few ways to save cost on JSF. My point is that it isn’t needed to take down the most stiff of threats. That money can be better spent on other things. The sad part of F-22 R&D is mostly over, but more important… paid for. JSF isn’t even close to being paid for and we don’t even have a real mission for it to do once it is done. When a war planner in the furture needs a long range strike for a special job, They will call on F-22, X-45,47 UCAV, or some simple yet black project UCAV that can carry as much as the X-45, 47 yet carries a lot more gas, or a large bomber. Hopefully someday FB-22. They won’t be calling on a slow, ( slow time to target and LOW sortie per day ) JSF. We may have JSF someday. How much vaule they add is questionable at best, given where todays technology is going. Again, once type I AC is done with, Stealth jets really aren’t needed for a whole lot.
Example:
Paid for and in production along with a low operationg cost:
Small fixed wing use for Type II and Type III air combat.
F-16 Block 60 with CFTs
– 2 quad racks for SDB + 2 twin racks for 1000lb class bombs- So for example a CFT F-16 could carry 8 SDBs and 4 GBU-12s and still have reasonable gas with the CFTs and of course tanker support.
-F-18E/F similar but with less range ( no CFTs and 2 engines burning X pph of gas ) would need more tanker support but still effective.
JSF- Similar carry ability with external racks which is fine, BUT, we have to pay $240 million for something that really isn’t needed in Type II and III air combat.
X-45/47 has the same internal load as JSF 8x SDB or 2 JDAM. Here though it is cheaper, can loiter overhead, doesnt get bored, fatigued etc, Has excellent range. When it works with the rest of the net-centric team of manned fixed wing air and UAVs, will be very very effective.
ELPFunny, how somethings never change? If, not the F-35 what then? What should the US and its Allies do to replace thousands of F-16s, F/A-18s, A-10As, GR9 & AV-8B Harriers, Mig-29s, Jaguars, Mirage 2000, etc. etc. 😮
If not the F35 … what then? As for “allies”, that is their problem. Matter of fact if the partners want there money back, that is OK by me also.
Strike warfare to take down critical defense nodes, ( C3 C4, and air defense ) can be done by many many things. Stealth UCAVs such as X45, X47, have numerous advantages. And yes they can not do all missions.
The economy of dropping a 400-500k $$$ cruise missile and hoping it hits one target is limited. Deep pockets limited. All while a stealth UCAV can do many sorties and not put an aircrew at risk. etc etc.
Once critical threats are beat down. A force of EF2000s with PavewayIV ( dual use GPS/INS or LGB )… Rafale with AASM,….. F-18E/F with JDAM, etc. ) is more than enough to put severe hurt on an enemy force. Once LARGE SAMs are beat down and enemy fighters are taken care of. I don’t need a stealth jet. For us anyway, F-22 with SDB and JDAM 32, 35, 38,, B2, F117 ( for a while ) JASSM, JASSM-ER, JASSM-XR. SLAM-ER, B-2 with 80 JDAM or hundreds of SDBs etc is good enough to beat down those stiff threats. A UCAV like X-45/47 class could do that for Europe and save lots of money yet have a strong killing force. X-45, X47 will have sortie rates that are very high ( and they dont get pilot fatigue from doing high stress strike on high risk targets ).
CAS? it is only getting better and better… and JSF isnt needed.
I would rather have a Typhoon / UCAV X45/47 class setup, than go though and pay $$$$$ for JSF. 24/7 coverage by UCAV in a NCW environment is going to make life for the large SAM operator very short. Enemy manned ( pick your super conventional super fighter that you like ) fighter ops can’t live under a sustained battering of X-45/47 UCAVs picking away at their ground resources/facilities every night. Every war is different, but if a military allows itself to think differently yet still not throw out the baby with the bathwater, modern airpower can evolve and transform. As it is now, I don’t relate JSF to any kind of transformation. It is military industrial / government complex pork $$$$$ where a limited few make some money $$$$. Think of it this way:
Air ops today:
conventional jet long range mission: 5-7 hours
with JSF
5-7 hours Not much has improved in that model. You still have all this lag time of jets going to and from the target.
F-22 with its speed will sortie gen the hell out of JSF. ( yet I wonder if USAF has a clue about that one the way they follow the pork $$$ )
F-22 with SDB and JDAM will take out more DMPIs in type I * air warfare than JSF or anything else can hope to do because it gets there and back FASTER.
SORTIE RATES !!!
Most modern air defenses cant take 2-3000 critical DMPIs being taken out.
PRODUCTION.
The faster you take out those critical DMPIs in type I air warfare, the better.
F-22 does that. JSF… does not.
*
ELP terms:
-Type I air warfare- Beat down the critical air defense nodes, LARGE SAMs, C3 C4, A2A fighter jets, and any other target of interest. A by-product of killing off enemy large SAMs, A2A jets is that conventional design fixed wing jets of mediocre ability, with NCW gear and modern PGMs, can rule the battle space and be at extremely low, to non-existent risk from ground fire. i.e. AAA, small SAMs, MANPADs and trashfire, can’t reach up to 35-40k ft yet, these aircraft can send down cheap, near all weather, single digit PGMs and get the job done.
– Type II air warfare- Thinning the heard. Using fixed wing NCW airpower with PGMs to beat down and reduce conventional enemy fighting divisions before they even make contact with our troops.
– Type III air warfare- CAS.** Ground FACs “GFACs” being part of the NCW environment that brings PGMs to bear on targets. The number one thing needed from grunts ( besides not getting killed by friendly air ) is… response time A UCAV that is high over head on station ready to drop a PGM anytime at the word of the GFAC is worth more than any fixed wing asset that is 15…. 20…. 30…. minutes away. ( one BIG problem with things like the slow A-10 ).
– NCW ( net-centric warfare ) Sensors, shooters, decision makers are all on the same network real time.
**PGMs coming out of artillery shells ( like Excalibur etc ) will fill some of this role also where available. ( again… the most important thing for CAS is response time ).
conclusion- dont believe all the military industrial complex BS parroted by things like the Air Force Times. They lobby congress, that is about all they do. ( note all the Lockmart, NG and Boeing adverts in their publication ) You wont see many articles in there calling to fire the idiots involved with C-130J or that JSF is anything else than holy.
Our military is going to waste Billions on things and still not transform the way it should. It has older air frames that it almost REFUSES to spend small amount of sustainment dollars on small engineering fixes etc. There are NOT enough spare parts in the field. Marine F-18s are a shambles and they know how to do CAS real well. Yet we will waste money on JSF, V-22. C-130J ( big waste ), and oh yeah… congress just FORCED USAF to buy 2 more F-15Es it didn’t need. All while F-15 sustainment is done on pennies and nickels. Real smart.
ELPPlus all the cargo aircraft. and support aircraft like AWACs etc 😉 and…. topping off KC-10s with other tankers ( via boom ) . Being able to top off KC10s that have to stick around, with tankers leaving the area and returning home is very very useful. This ability will be on the new USAF tanker also as it is awesome in making tanker ops even more efficent.
I’ll take a boom capable fighter and a dual use tanker any day. Obiviously when you talk carrier ops, drogue is the only game in town.
ELPAccountants rule. The finance games to aircraft leasing and aircraft purchasing are pretty creative. I am sure what ever replaced them is doing it better and cheaper. 747s have a certain nice look about them when they are painted nice, too bad that something like an A340 or 777 can do a lot of its passenger work and keep bean counter smiling.
ELPScooter – All three versions have flown with success, including the STOVL which was too overweight to fulfil its mission goals.
The demo was a big lie. Those where concept demonstrators showing minimum ability. Almost nothing to do with a real combat jet that has all the avionics, sensors, proper flight controls, ability to carry payload etc etc etc. Now that they won, they have to put their money where their mouth is and that is becoming a problem. Good luck. This huge pork project is an airframe looking for a mission.
1.We can take down all the important DMPIs the first few nights of a war vs. a stiff AD …. and not even need JSF.
2.Same with “thining the heard”. After large SAMs and fighter aircraft are beat down in “1” above: AAA, Small SAMs and MANPADs, trashfire, CAN NOT reach our conventional aircraft that drop single digit CEP PGMs from 35-40K and 10 miles away in near any weather. Conventional enemy ground formations get beat down by having heavy equipment destroyed and people killed off and support elements/logistics stomped, and they are a less effective unit by the time the do make contact with our ground troops.
3.CAS. Same as “2” above. I can touch you, but you can’t touch me… in near any weather.
The whole mix of systems we have and will have in the future going netcentric warfare ( NCW net-centric warfare where: sensors, shooters, and decison makers are all on the same network real time ) is making our common conventional systems very very deadly. F-14-18, , B-1, B-52 etc. UCAVs, UCAVs, Ground FACs….etc… can do all of the “2” and “3” category of fighting mentioned here and be at a low risk. All this and JSF isn’t even needed.
X-45 47 class UCAVs will make the JSF even more redundant. As for home defense. I don’t need a JSF to shoot down airliners etc. That can be done with the very cheap to maintain and use, F-16.
For us, going ahead with JSF is driving off of the known map of procurement reality. We have many other things that $240 + billion for the whole JSF program could be used for:
-A sensible tanker replacement program
-SPEED up C5 upgrades. A lousy 10 billion to get the ones we have with new cockpit/avionics and modern engines.
-Common cockpit upgrade for the C-130 ( this program is dragging in a low funding crawl )
-Complete replacement of flight control systems, and avionics upgrades for the B-1 bomber. ( drag x2 )
-E-10 common sensor aircraft ( JSTARS replacement )
-X-45 UCAV ( cheaper and much more useful than wasting money on JSF )
-Spares and sustainment money for maintenance needs in general. This point by itself is ridiculous.
-R&D money for FB22.
-R&D money for B3 ( we are closer to this need with current science ) get R&D on this accelerated.
Sign In
