USAF to buy 'hundreds' of STOVL JSFs, Gen. Jumper says

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

[GBA]

I figure that so many have spent so much on it, we and our development/production allies will have to buy a few. Besides, it might not be too bad in the CTOL configuration, especially if gets an engine up grade. But then, what can't be improved with just a bit more power?

[PsyOp]

(that's right, there's a law that says the Army can't have fixed wing aircraft)

Actually they can, so long as they are not armed. C-21, OV-1, OV-10 are Army fixed wing aircraft. Observation, artillery spotting, and VIP transport are their duties. The airforce tried to make that rule stick concerning rotor-wings during the vietnam war but lost the battle.

[ChinaThreat]

When one B-2 with 10 JDAMS can achieve what it took a 50 B-52 missions to accomplish 25 years ago, why should it grow?

[ez2muz]

If you feel like expounding, I would be interested in reading why you think JSF will be cancelled.

A link to a thread where you've already explained would be fine (I sorted by your handle but didn't see any recent postings to the topic).

Thanks.

[Yo-Yo]

I think the USAF is looking at future campaign scenarios where we may need to stage significant numbers of ground attack aircraft with limited runway access. This lesson was learned in Iraq with the Saudi's reluctance to let us stage our attack aircraft on their soil. If it wasn't for Qatar we would have had significant troubles.

In which case a STOVL aircraft would have not changed things much. In Gulf I and Gulf II, thousands of sortes were generated daily, and without the hard infrastructure of a permanant base for maintenance, refueling, and rearming, you can't sustain that kind of air campaign. In limited combat situations, where you need short term close air support, then you do need to be forward based, and that is what the Marines are for. If you don't have access to a hard base, that is what the carriers are for. Why do you think there is a carrier variant of the F-35? Theoretically, the Navy could just buy STOVL vairants, but that would be as questionable as the Air Force buying a "significant number" of them.

Our AF is going to be significantly reduced. A couple of wings of F-22's to provide air dominance, a lot of JSF wings to replace the aging fleet of F-16S, more B-2s. These will hold us over until we start producing the new generation of pilotless attack craft. The Buffs and the Warthog will be around for awhile.

Our Air Force was significantly reduced prior to Gulf I. It was reduced even further prior to Gulf II. We will still have F-15Es for air to ground, we will still have F-16s for wild weasel, close air support, air superiority, air recon, and strike package jamming. The F-35 will replace the older F-16s in the air superiority role, while the newer F-16s will be reassigned to the other roles.

Pukin Dog is right, however, in that the F-35 will end up being cancelled. We learned from McNamara's day that you can't design one aircraft for widely different roles. The F-111, which I worked on when I was in the Air Force, is the prime example. It eventually worked out to be a decent ground attack aircraft, but it was never the air superiority aircraft either the Air Force or the Navy wanted it to be. (The Navy never wanted the damn thing in the first place.) The result was the F-15 for the Air Force, and Pukin's beloved F-14 for the Navy. I'm seeing the same thing with the F-35A, B, and C variants.

[Pukin Dog]

I said nothing about growth; I addressed shrinkage. The B-2 is not the preferred JDAM platform anyway, as it is slow. The B-1, Strike Eagle or even the Navy's BombCat are better platforms for stand-off missions. None of these aircraft are going away in the near future. Penetration is the B-2's mission, which is a rare entity until we are involved in a full-scale conflict.

[Phsstpok]

Actually they can, so long as they are not armed.

Picky, Picky, Picky. ;^>

OK, fixed wing combat aircraft. Satisfied now, Colnel Billy Mitchell?

Obviously you're right (and more knowledgable about this than I am, though I love the design of the Bronco). Point still stands, though.

[Southack]

Joint Strike Fighter under attack on Capitol Hill

WASHINGTON -- Lt. Gen. Ronald E. Keys answers questions about the state of the F/A-22 and Joint Strike Fighter programs during a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee subcommittee on tactical air and land forces March 25. He is the deputy chief of staff for air and space operations. (U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Jim Varhegyi)

Download HiRes

	Story Tools
	Printable story	E-mail story
	Subscribe now
	Related Stories
	• Close-air support variant of Joint Strike Fighter too heavy - 3/24/2004
	Related Links
	• Secretary of the Air Force Dr. James G. Roche • Lt. Gen. Ronald E. Keys

by Master Sgt. Scott Elliott
Air Force Print News

3/26/2004 - WASHINGTON -- A senior Air Force official told lawmakers March 25 that the service would not be interested in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter if a technical glitch could not be overcome or if program funds were cut off.

Lt. Gen. Ronald E. Keys, deputy chief of staff for air and space operations, bluntly told members of the House Armed Services Committee subcommittee on tactical air and land forces, “If we can’t build it, we’re not going to buy it.”

The general’s comment came in response to subcommittee chairman Rep. Curt Weldon’s question about Secretary of the Air Force Dr. James G. Roche’s testimony March 24 before the Senate Committee on Appropriations subcommittee on defense.

In referring to chronic weight problems with the short takeoff and vertical landing version of the JSF, the secretary said, “… (R)isk reduction on the STOVL becomes one of the paramount things to do … because if we cannot build the STOVL aircraft, then we really cannot proceed with the F-35 program.”

Being overweight is especially troublesome for the close-air support variant of the F-35, because its primary feature is the short takeoff and vertical landing capability. The STOVL JSF uses a shaft-driven lift fan propulsion system that allows the aircraft to hover and land like a helicopter.

Lockheed Martin originally contracted with the U.S. Marine Corps to build the STOVL variant of the F-35 to replace the AV-8B Harrier. The Air Force will take over the program in June, as part of the service’s commitment to improving close-air support, officials said.

“If it doesn’t meet specifications, I don’t think my Marine colleagues would be interested in an airplane that wouldn’t meet their qualifications,” General Keys said.

While Secretary Roche did acknowledge concern over the JSF’s weight problem, he also said the problem was to be expected – it is in only the second year of an 11-year development program.

“Is the weight a terminal problem? We don’t think so, but because it most severely effects the short takeoff and landing, we believe it’s prudent and right, and our responsibility, to work the problem,” Secretary Roche said in his previous testimony.

John J. Young Jr., assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, agreed.

“There is nothing we see that says the JSF will not work,” he said. “The JSF enables concepts of operations that none of today’s legacy aircraft can accomplish.”

The JSF is expected to fly and fight into the 2040 to 2050 timeframe. Mr. Young said that without the JSF, the services would be forced to fly 1980s-era technology for another 50 years.

Even if the JSF can beat the weight problem, Representative Weldon said the plane might not be out of danger. Extreme competition for defense budget dollars may force Congress to ask the service to choose between the JSF and the F/A-22 Raptor.

Several Raptors have already been delivered to the Air Force and are undergoing rigorous flight and system tests. In one recent test, four Raptors engaged eight F-15 Eagles in simulated combat. General Keys said the Raptors cleared the sky of F-15s before many of the Eagles could even get off a shot.

“The F/A-22 is a reality … it is not, to use an expression, a viewgraph presentation,” said Dr. Marvin R. Sambur, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition. “The F/A-22 is here, but we’re not pulling away from our commitment to the JSF.”

Representative Weldon said the service might not have a choice.

“If financial pressure in tactical aviation continues to grow the way it has, something’s got to give,” he said. “The most likely candidate, if you look at political pressure, will be something that doesn’t exist yet.”

Dr. Sambur told the lawmakers that despite the growing cost and lengthy research and development time, it would be impossible to choose one system over the other because both aircraft are essential to America’s future military operations

“You’ve given us the choice of cutting off our right arm or cutting off our left arm,” he said. “I want to make sure you understand that the F/A-22 and the JSF are complementary … and they are both needed. We are committed in the Air Force to both planes.”

[Southack]

c#29

[Pukin Dog]

I don't think it, I know it, as does anyone with the right set of contacts.

1. it is too fat, and cannot lose another pound 2. the Navy does not want any aircraft with a single engine 3. it cannot carry enough fuel to perform its primary mission at acceptable performance levels 4. we don't need it

[jer2911tx]

fox news actually has done a few reports recently, even took greta van sustern up in the air to see one in action.
f-16 pilots that have flown the f-16 for years have taken one ride and said if they had to go to war tomorrow, they'd choose the f/a-22

[Mr. Jeeves]

Why do have the feeling that Russian or Chinese ground-based pilots using relatively inexpensive robotic drones (maybe even kamikaze-style, anti-aircraft drones) would have little trouble bringing down a whole squadron of JSF's? Or almost any other fighter plane in our arsenal, with the possible exception of the F-22 Raptor?

[Robert A Cook PE]

STOVAL is much better than trying to go vertical only.

You can carry more, land easier/safer then pure vertical.

I think you'll find (over time) that the short take-off keeps getting longer, and longer and longer as the pilots keep hanging more and more and more ordnance on each plane. 8<)

But, in an emergency when the runway is cut, STOVAL is better than NOVAL.

[Oztrich Boy]

USAF to buy 'hundreds' of STOVL JSFs, Gen. Jumper says

Best. Headline. Ever.

[PsyOp]

I wasn't trying to be picky, just trying clarify things. I agree with your point though on why the AF is probably going with the VSTOL F-35. They hate having an aircraft that has no other role than to support ground-pounders. Even though the pilots that fly it swear by it.

Even so, the Warthog will be around for a while yet. They AF committed to a major upgrade program for them. Besides, before the AF will be allowed to get rid of them, they will have to prove that the F-35 can do what it does as well as the A-10. The Warthog has too strong a following.

[Phsstpok]

I wasn't complaining. It was a lame attempt at humor. "Picky, Picky, Picky" is what Pat Paulsen used to say when one of his "editorials" was full of holes on the old Smothers Brothers show. Kinda like Emily Litella's "never mind" on the Saturday Night Live newscasts.

And I, for one, love the Warthog. My son is just committing to 5 years in the Marines (2 more years of college at A&M then minimum of 5 as a Marine officer) so I want the ground pounders to have all the assetts they can get to call on. I want A-10s around for damn-sure. The Marine Commendant officially said that if the AF decides to drop the A10 the Marines want to pick up the program and all of the inventory. I like that attitude!

[Oztrich Boy]

The F-111, which I worked on when I was in the Air Force, is the prime example. It eventually worked out to be a decent ground attack aircraft, but it was never the air superiority aircraft either the Air Force or the Navy wanted it to be.

Neither the AF or Navy wanted a air superiority aircraft.

The Air Force wanted a long rang strike aircraft to sit in hardened bunkers in Western Europe ready to head out a low level in the general direcrion of East carrying a "special store".

The Navy wanted air dominance. A slow flying patrol aircraft orbiting the carriers carrying a six pack of big long range missiles to take out Tu-16s before they got within Kennel/Kitchen/Kipper launch range.

Then came Strange McNamara and his vision of "commonality". The result: the F-111 got the worst of both worlds, the low-fuel consumption patrol {but not quite fighter throttle response) engine, mated to the high structural weight low altitude gust resistant airframe.

[ez2muz]

Thanks to you both.

I know a little about the design. Some of the electronics had to move to mitigate gunfire loads, some of the sub-contractors took a lot of time to accept the "economy of scale" mandates, etc... so flushing out weight is just now being worked.

Typically, Designers concentrate first on getting systems to work. Bench-testing (for lack of a better term) eventually proves a design and the weight is attacked later.

I agree "later" has come; I disagree there is no margin. While there are critical areas fat, there are other areas still to trim. I don't expect weight issues to be resolved anytime in the next 12-18months.

The Navy didn't want on board from the start, right? ...as I understood it. But they continue to be present, talking the details at every review.

I'm not privy to the fuel situation; is this a product of being overweight or poor engine performance?

[Pukin Dog]

I'm not privy to the fuel situation; is this a product of being overweight or poor engine performance?

The engine is a monster. Very powerful and efficient. Take a look at the airframe; notice that there is almost no room for gas. That big engine, while efficient as it gets, still sucks gas like all big turbofans, which is considerable.

What you have here is the Harrier fiasco all over again. Some jokers in the Pentagon fall in love with STOL, regardless of the fact that there is no tactical advantage to be gained. It just has a "cool factor", which does not hold up under combat conditions. The survivability rate for the Harrier (and I believe is also true of the JSF) is terrible, to the point where one could argue that you could bring down a Harrier with a well placed rock.

JSF is a nice air-show airplane. When you hang heavy ordinance on it and fill a couple of wing tanks, it becomes a single-engine slug, looking for a mission.