This article in Aviation Week, "Are There Alternatives To The F-35 Program?" glosses over one of the main reasons the F-35 program is in trouble. While budget woes are mentioned, the reason for those woes are all of the technical problems with the jet.
One may discuss what budget x or budget y will provide but if the aircraft is faulty it doesn't matter much.
The "alternatives" involved with the F-35 program are doing whatever it takes to limit the damage to the defense posture of the United States. The current F-35 program will eat up funds best used for other defence communities.
What I propose is the following:
Make all non-U.S. F-35 buys under the U.S. Government Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. This is familiar ground for U.S. customers. Other FMS programs involve foreign parts suppliers and this can be rolled into the traditional "off-set" deal making.
It is doubtful that the U.S. Federal Budget can sustain paying for 50,80,130,170 F-35s per year as proposed under previous fantasy JSF plans.
What can the U.S. afford? What we are seeing now: around 30-some aircraft per year. This may rise to 40 to 50 aircraft per year IF the program can show improved health.
Because of the expensive nature of the aircraft and its limited war-fighting ability against high-end threats, the aircraft should be looked as a stop-gap until other programs--based on lessons learned from this disaster--can get going.
I would say that a realistic production run for the F-35 would be around 10 years for a total of 300-400 F-35s as a new program of record.
In some ways this is easy to write up because there is no active milestone-B or supporting DAB as stated in the article above. This is the equal of a clean slate for the path ahead.
Next we come to the issue of what variants to produce. The only unique thing that the F-35 brings--for all of its huge expense and technical trouble--is STOVL.
The U.S. should have 300-400 F-35B STOVL aircraft as a program of record. The U.S. Air Force can field a few of these squadrons along with the USMC. The U.S.Navy won't miss the F-35C because it brings nothing for most missions that the Super Hornet already does for less money. The U.S. Navy is struggling to pay for ships. The F-35C is a weight around their neck. The F-35A brings no real value to the USAF because it is expensive and will not be lethal against high-end threats and it will be too expense to use for any other kind of strike-fighter work. Maybe there is hope for it as a USAF STOVL asset.
Any FMS sales would be STOVL or nothing. Since the behavioral patterns of the U.K. MOD are completely unreliable they can take it or leave it. Other "partner nations" can adapt or get out of the program. They are not handing over large amounts of money for jet orders under the current plan so no real loss there.
I believe for the F-35, the "alternatives" are to dramatically scale down the scope of the program or cancel it. Let us see how far institutional groupthink can make governments jump off the cliff.
5 comments:
I hope they do cancel it - but what of the implications for Australia. What alternatives are there for us (other than another 70 odd "Super"Hornets)?
Agree Anonymous; they should kill the program and accept the international political humbling. But US politics would require Lockheed Martin to be kept ticking over.
Unlikely to be more F-22 as they can be augmented for stealth by 50 or so optimised F-117 in climate-controlled storage.
More likely something to do with the F-16 which fits more with world needs than the Super Hornet. Beyond 4,000 F-16s were produced and all of the R&D for further optimisation has been accomplished.
The order queue for any new F-16 versions would likely be very long so significant delays in acquisition; ergo, need to stretch time in service for Australian F/A-18s, maybe by closing down 1 or 2 squadrons.
Why would RAAF's requirement include such a radically new F-16 variant as to require 'very long' and 'significant delays'?
A variant comprising of latest off-the-shelf components + SABR could be ordered in FY14?
Similar to Canada's conundrum, RAAF's last hornet squadron should be retired by 2020.
Instead of operating three sets of logistics simultaneously (F-16, Super and hornet) maybe RAAF could ponder leasing another 24-36x Super 'E' models with the new Type 4 computer and configured for the CFT retrofit. Say a 10 yr term, with the first order placed in FY13.
Join Korea's KF-X development consortium with a 2022 initial delivery target (transitioning into the force sturcture as initial F-18F order is returned to USN). These two aircraft might even utilize the same F414 engine (or derivatives) which would be a logistical bonus.
For 2028, consider a 60-40 mix of manned A/KF-X + UCAV enabling a long-range multi-mission capability.
No way would the RAAF go for F-16s. All they are good for is being gunned by Hornets!
Interestingly, the RAAF has relativley quite a lot of experience operating F-15E's among its ranks thanks to exchange programs. F-15SG's are pretty cool, their only drawback is the waste of potential fuel and cisibility immediately behind the pilot's seat.
The F-15SG is a excellent fighter and the F-15SE would be even better.
Why did the RAAF omit seriously evaluating these aircraft vs. the F-35?
Post a Comment