New fighter likely to land at S.C. bases

The State ^ | Jan. 25, 2009 | CHUCK CRUMBO

[Jet Jaguar]

Three military bases in South Carolina are likely to become future homes for the F-35 fighter.

The jet still is under development. But its manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, is building three versions that can be used by the Air Force, Marines and Navy.

The first test models are expected to roll out of the company’s Fort Worth, Texas, plant in May or June. Shaw Air Force Base reportedly is on that service’s “short list” to receive the first F-35s, which will replace the F-16 Fighting Falcons now at Shaw. But it probably will be 2012 before the fighter lands in South Carolina, spokesmen said.

The S.C. Air National Guard, which flies a similar version of the F-16 based at Shaw, also is slated to receive the F-35 at its nearby McEntire Joint National Guard Base.

The F-35, a single-seat, single- engine plane with radar-evading stealth capabilities, also is slated to replace the F/A-18 Hornets that the Navy and Marines fly.

Marine Corps Air Station- Beaufort, where a Navy and six Marine F/A-18 squadrons are based, expects to see its first F-35 in 2012 or 2013, a spokesman said.

The impact the F-35s will have on local bases remains to be seen. The jet is louder than the F-16, said Tom Olsen, a retired Shaw commander and chief of Sumter’s efforts to keep that base open. “There’ll be some change in the noise contour, but it’s not going to be oppressive,” Olsen said.

Regardless, communities should work to steer “the wrong kind of development” from locating near the bases, said George Patrick III, executive coordinator of the S.C. Military Base Task Force. One example of the “wrong kind” of development would be allowing housing subdivisions and apartment complexes near runways, officials said.

An option being considered at Beaufort is to build a remote airstrip where pilots could do extensive training before deploying, said Gunnery Sgt. Chad McMeen.

“We want to be proactive,” McMeen said.

Each F-35 is expected to cost $80 million to $90 million, about four times the cost of a new F-16 equipped with the latest electronic gear. The Pentagon plans to buy 2,458 planes for the Air Force, Navy and Marines at a total cost of almost $300 billion. That is 43 percent higher than the initial estimate, released in 2001.

[bill1952]

But a next generation replacement needs to be there to takeover eventually.

Shouldn’t that replacement be clearly better?
I’m not impressed at all with the different varients of this bird vis a vie the F-16.
Not that I’m the last word on it, of course.

Now, if you were to do a matchup with the F-22, I would be more so.

[PAR35]

I actually enjoyed his posts, other than that area of disagreement. I particularly enjoyed the saga of the birds that were eating his expensive fish, and the solution he came up with for that.

[Dundee]

The Australians are evaluating it for purchase, and in their simulations against Su-27 derivatives, it was, and I quote, "clubbed like a baby seal".

Complete and utter cr@p. We did NOT sim the SU-27 v F-35. Read the link below and learn.

http://www.t5c.biz/showthread.php?t=7923

[ASOC]

Odd thing - a few year back, Singapore purchased a lot of Scooters (A4) and updated the cockpit electronics, swapped the engine for a -404 w/burner.

They wound up with about 90 - 95% of a new F-16 ( Block C0 for a fraction of the cost.

Why not take the -16s in inventory and upgrade the system to a F-16X (Falcon 2K) for a fraction of the cost.

For those not familiar with the F-16X F-16X Falcon 2000 In 1993 Lockheed Martin proposed development of a new version of the venerable F-16. This F-16X ‘Falcon 2000’ featured a delta-wing planform like that of the F-22; together with the fuselage stretch to accommodate the new wing design, the F-16X would have 80% more internal fuel volume. The design also permitted conformal carriage of the AIM-120 AMRAAM. LM claimed the F-16X could be built for two-thirds the cost of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

[DesScorp]

"Complete and utter cr@p. We did NOT sim the SU-27 v F-35. Read the link below and learn."

Uh, yes, it was simmed. Try providing something other than a web forum as proof otherwise. The only cheerleaders for this pig in a poke are USAF and LockMart. Everyone else sees it for what it is... a jobs program at the expense of our pilots and air wings.

The Australian Newspaper Link

Longtime defense aviation expert Bill Sweetman recognizes some of the problems as well.

Aviation Week criticism

And by the way, it's not as stealthy as advertised anyway.

Wired: Not So Stealthy

Last, here's a blog that actually matters on the subject, by a retired Naval Aviatior, with links to PDF studies from two defense think tanks that absolutely shred the F-35. They pick apart Northrop Grumman's ridiculous claim that it doesn't matter that rivals can outmaneuver the F-35, because NG's new sensors makes dogfighting "obsolete". This is the kind of stupidity that's going to get our pilots killed, and the study calls them on it.

Is the F-35 the next DDG-1000?

[AnalogReigns]

In vertical maneuvers...