How can the United States Air Force field the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter before 2020?
It is a fair question since the one constant is program delay and cost growth.
I propose the following if the USAF is so intent on fielding a mediocrity.
1. Write up a requirement to have a HUD put in the aircraft. Not very joint, but we are talking about survival.
2. Write up a requirement that the first IOC squadron will be used for Air Sovereignty missions or ASA. Something the USAF recently renamed because they were continually embarrassed by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) on their inability to properly resources and manage home air defense.
This requirement would be for the HUD, the AIM-9X on the outside pylon and the gun. There you go. A squadron that can do home defense out of somewhere not too hot and not near very much water (where one risks dumping the aircraft when the unreliable IPP fails). Hill AFB, Utah will do.
3. Write up a requirement for another squadron (also at Hill). It will have the HUD and will only be able to drop JDAMs from the internal bays (in a F-117-like release profile).
4. Weight savings. Remove the DAS cameras and EOTs.
About all these 2 squadrons will be able to do is gather data in a permanent IOC like state for a follow-on design.
Real weight savings and any hope of reliability will not happen until USAF writes up a requirement for a D model. This aircraft will have a different motor which doesn´t suffer the 2000 pounds of dead weight from the STOVL design. The D will also need a more reliable power system to avoid IPP woes. Hint: the F-16 has some answers.
That will not fix all the woes with the USAF and the F-35 program, but it will give them what they want. An illusion of using your money for something useful; even if they are wasting it.
9 comments:
It used to astonish me that it might take two decades from the RFP to field a fighter, but now we're looking at the real possibility of IOC two decades past the contract award. What if some other development projects had taken this long?
- The Wright Brothers would have delivered their first plane after WWI ended.
- The Manhattan Project would have lasted until the Kennedy administration, at least.
- The Moon landing would have been sometime in the Reagan years. Same with SR-71s and F-111s. The F-14 and F-15 might have squeaked in before Clinton, but...
- No F-16 or F/A-18 until after the Gulf War.
- A human being can be born, grow up, and learn to fly fighter planes, faster than human beings can design and build a damn fighter plane.
I'm preaching to the choir, I know, but this is insane.
-mike j
It's not surprising given the way the procurement has been done. Creating a system to award one manufacturer an exclusive build, with no continuous competition, and a complete fallacy of building 3 divergent designs on one airframe.
If there had only been one variant, an F35A build for example, which is the most numerous design, we would probably be looking at a some what better outcome, although who knows given the current leadership in the system.
1st step: Forced nationalization of LMCO. Out of pure vengeance but also necessity. Think: Despite its performance LMCO is still paying 1 USD per share for the first quarter of 2012, which is +33% compared to the first quarter of 2011.
http://ycharts.com/companies/LMT/dividend
2nd step: Drop versions A and B. Concentrate all resources on C and on purging that C of as many B residuals as possible within 18 month.
Once LMCO is nationalized force conscript the best Boeing and Northrop designers to get that F-35C+ online asap.
Re dropping DAS/EOTS and the trick helmet: Bad move. That might be the only thing saving the F-35 during combat. Cause if it has to fight on equal avionic terms with advanced Flankers it will die like flies.
@Distiller:
Those are some pretty draconian measures you're recommending, donch'a think? Esp considering there's no clear and present dager to American national security on the immediate, or near-term horizon.
BTW, what do plan to do if those hapless conscripts from Boeing and NG refuse to obey your edicts? Ship'em off to Guantanamo, maybe?
Go on back to the USSR...
JRL
brilliant. useful folks.
drn.
An epic post there, Mike J, very clever and eye-opening.
Distiller - very draconian recommendations indeed, yet perhaps push come to shove it would actually be the most cost-effective and expedite way to get some semblance of a viable (least flawed) F-35 Program on the market and delivered to customers.
JRL - one might beg to differ with that take on things.
The last QDR actually emphasized that until more global certainty and political understanding is achieved, we're unfortunately heading into the most uncertain period of history since the end of the cold-war (I'd add that while the US is simultaneously seeing it's deterrence value and Tacair force structure drop off a cliff at mach speed).
Moreover, while this increasing (and unplanned and undesired) shift in the global balance of power being observed is coinciding with highly risky, flawed and unsustainable defense acquisition processes (notably the USAF's required and essential Tactical recapitalization plan), the QDR furthermore, the said uncertain future threat matrix is coinciding with at the the potential for unprecedented technical and capability threats to face the US since the late 80s.
Lastly, no, at this time in history still, one doesn't wait for a clear and present substantial threat to expose itself onto the global stage before deciding to begin evaluating and deciding on implementing something as essential as a Tactical fighter recapitalization program on budget and on schedule.
It would be a positive indicator of mankind's progress when such militarization requirements - eg balance of power/deterrence - are not necessary, but sadly we're still not there yet as a human race.
geo
"the QDR furthermore, the said uncertain future threat matrix is coinciding with at the the potential for unprecedented technical and capability threats to face the US since the late 80s."
Correction: should edit...
...the QDR furthermore stated 'paraphrased' that the future threat matrix is coinciding with the potential for unprecedented threats to face the US and allies since the late 80s.
geo
Thanks Geo!
-mike j
@ JRL: Already here (now called Russian Federation), at least part time ;-)
Post a Comment