It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Source: Pentagon to Kill Air Force F-35 Version

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 04:43 AM
link   
cowlan

F-35A can't be cancelled outright because the C and B versions are practically based on the A version and so the A version must be developed to a certain degree first before any action can be taken.


This is not actually true, all three versions are being developed at the same time for completely separate requirements, the other two versions aren't conversions of the F-35A, they are three different aircraft being designed around a common basic airframe therefore, in development and design terms, axing any one of them would not affect the development of the other two. However in actual programme terms, any cancellation will be very damaging.

Even if say the F-35A is the one that is dropped, might not customers of the F-35B (ande here I'm thinking RAF and FAA) take the view that their interests might be better served by buying something else? There would, after all, be no guarantee that this wasn't just the first round of cuts to the programme with more to follow. With customer confidence damaged this would be another hammer blow to the programme. The RAF and FAA still have very strong memories of 'vital' new programmes being cancelled at the last minute (SR.177/TSR 2/P.1154/AV-16S etc etc) and to see this happening again in the USA might be seen as unacceptable.



M6D

posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   
I got a question, if the F-35B was axed, and us brits pulled out, how much of an effect would this cause in overall terms?



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   
It wouldn't bring the programme down as UK participation is more of a political show of solidarity than it is a technical or financial necessity and in any case the biggest UK contribution is to the VTOL version anyway. It would hurt the programme though as UK sourced items would have to be replaced and these replacements would have to be integrated, so it would cause a delay, at worst. On the other hand, on a political level, the loss of the biggest JSF partner could bring the programme down like a house of cards



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Greetings,

To be honest, I posted a thread about proposed cuts in the F-35 fleet about August or Sept, it was on the horizon.

There is one thing to think about, if the USAF F-35 is being removed will the USAF buy the B or C variants instead? If they don't plan on buying any of the JSF aircraft what is going to replace their A-10 fleet, F-16 fleet etc

- Phil



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 06:37 AM
link   
RAF Lossiemouth to be Home For New Joint Combat Aircraft, Nimrod to Remain at Kinloss

Two of the most sophisticated aircraft in the world will be based at RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Kinloss when they come into service, Minister for the Armed forces Adam Ingram announced on 17 November 2005.

RAF Lossiemouth will be home for the new Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA), which is due to replace the Harrier progressively from around the middle of the next decade. The RAF's new fleet of Nimrod MRA4 will be based at RAF Kinloss when they enter service towards the end of this decade.

Lossiemouth was one of eight stations considered as a possible home for JCA and was identified as the best option after a thorough year-long review. It provides excellent access to training areas, modern facilities and is most cost effective.

RAF Kinloss has a proven track record as a base for the current Nimrod MR2 fleet. A comprehensive study has shown that whilst RAF Waddington and RAF Kinloss would both be suitable operational bases, the substantial financial investment required at RAF Waddington was not justifiable.

Should a second JCA base be required in the future, RAF Marham and RAF Cottesmore have been identified as potential candidates.

LINK



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   
I've been thinking and I doubt the Air Force would let the bean counters cut all of their F-35s. They would at least keep half. Right now it's said the Air Force will get between 1,000-1,200 F-35 down from 1,500 down from 1,700. So that would mean they would get between 500-600 F-35s.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   
The effect that this will have on the partispating countries is huge. Canada's replacement aircraft plan for the JSF would be toast and i think then that it would be interesting to see Can go screw you to all the current suppliers for hornets etc and go get the Gripens. That would be awesome. Even if we just threated that it would be interesting to see if lockheed and etc would even care.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83
I've been thinking and I doubt the Air Force would let the bean counters cut all of their F-35s. They would at least keep half. Right now it's said the Air Force will get between 1,000-1,200 F-35 down from 1,500 down from 1,700. So that would mean they would get between 500-600 F-35s.



The e Army went up the wall when crusader was killed - but that didn`t stop it from being killed off.


If the F-35a is to go , then it`ll go.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Just so everybody understands, the A version would probably still be produced and exported. But the USAF may not get any of them.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83
Just so everybody understands, the A version would probably still be produced and exported. But the USAF may not get any of them.


No it won`t be , if the USAF won`t get it , then no one will.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin

Originally posted by NWguy83
Just so everybody understands, the A version would probably still be produced and exported. But the USAF may not get any of them.


No it won`t be , if the USAF won`t get it , then no one will.


I dont know about that. I think that NWguy83 has a point in saying that the A may still be exported. For that fact that i brought up earlier about Can and other countries taking their business else where.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   
This is 1992 all over again. It hit big here in California then. The economy is in a stall and going nowhere while the Government is trying to reign in deficit spending. That and the current war in Iraq is illuminating the need to ramp up other, more cost effective military hardware needs.

As for the Commanche being cancelled, Boeing suffered various management and procuremnet scandals throughout 2005. It's a bit of surprise the Commanche was allowed so many delays for so many years. This is the same company that has been given billions to produce an escape craft for the ISS and continues to drop the ball and has yet to deliver one working design. When I see Boeings latest Billion Dollar Test Baby nested under Spaceship 1, my head begins to ache.

[edit on 21-11-2005 by nullster]



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
Comanche & Crusader
Both cancelled after Billions of dollars were spent (7 billion on the Comanche and 11 billion on Crusader)

The Comanche would have been a great helicopter, but the reality is unmanned helicopters are a much better preference, since its main purpose was recon...with limited attack...which the Fire Scout currently can do.
As for the Crusader...While it was cancelled the money spent on it wasn't wasted. The company that built it was General Dynamics, which is the same company building the Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon for the Army's FCS program. SO it was not wasted money, all the R&D for the Crusader went into this.





I agree with Lonestar24, the Navy needs the F-35C, its stealth, and the Navy’s next Gen carrier’s are also stealth, and if this will be one of there main aircraft then its crucial for them to have it, and not just an upgraded Super Hornet.
I’ve read the Air Force wants more of the “B” versions and less of the “A” versions because they want less reliance on good runways, which makes sense, but the “B” version will have more mechanical difficulties as well as costing more. Hopefully this means the AF will get more F/A-22’s.

BTW…everyone keeps calling the F-35B VTOL…But I’m pretty sure that it’s STOVL.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
Cutting the F/A-22 Raptor program all together would be another major embarrassment for the Pentagon, after the cancellation of the multi-billion dollar RAH-66 Comanche program, almost two years ago.


You can discard that thought from your wildest dreams, Zion.
The F-22 program is far from being cut and cancelled any time soon.
If I had a choice, and if I was apart of the higher Air Force brass, I would easily take the killing of the air force version JSF for more F-22s. IMHO, 180+ is still a potent force, but having more F-22s would be a plus, being the F-22 is a better aircraft than the considered air force version JSF.

Anyhow, I have my own doubts as to the JSF being completely killed.





seekerof

[edit on 21-11-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
The majority of the exports concerning JSFs are gonna be the A version because simply not that many country needs STOVL or VSTOL JSFs. A version is also the one with the most ordered and the most expected orders possibly going up to thousands to replace the many F-16s used in the world. Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Canada, blah blah blah, thats a ton of F-35A orders and they all don't have needs for the B and the C with the exception of Japan, the extra expense of the A version compared to the B and C version is also another factor when foreign countries consider buying the JSF. I say cut the marines version.

[edit on 21-11-2005 by COWlan]



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
The F-22 program is far from being cut and cancelled any time soon.


Agreed. Thats the fighter mafia's baby.



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 04:41 AM
link   
or maybe they have something that will take its place something of newer tech? maybe the fb23!



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Char2c35t
or maybe they have something that will take its place something of newer tech? maybe the fb23!


Somehow I can't imagine the Air Forcebeing happy if it is told its going to have to use a fairly big twin engined bomber to replace its F-16's instead of the nimble fighter they asked for and wanted.



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

You can discard that thought from your wildest dreams, Zion.
The F-22 program is far from being cut and cancelled any time soon.
If I had a choice, and if I was apart of the higher Air Force brass, I would easily take the killing of the air force version JSF for more F-22s. IMHO, 180+ is still a potent force, but having more F-22s would be a plus, being the F-22 is a better aircraft than the considered air force version JSF.

seekerof


Seekerof, I see we seem to have the same sources.



From what I understand, this proposed revision of the F-35 acquisition budget is actually a way of gathering more funds for additional F/A-22 Raptors.

USAF brass wants the F/A-22 to continue in production beyond the present cutoff date of 2009 in order to bridge the gap between 2009-2012, the time estimated when the F-35 program will be in full production.

Deputy Def Sec Gordon England in a move approved by the USAF is wanting to pull $2 billion a year from the F-35 account to produce a minimum efficiency rate of 18-24 Raptors per year.

By doing this the USAF could boost the F/A-22 buy to 275, depending on the approved production rate. In fact, numbers as high as 320 are still under consideration depending on the amount of money that can be pulled from other programs.

The problem with doing this is that Congress, the State Department etc are also involved due to the lucrative income as well as the diplomacy implications for the international partners to the F-35 program.

Having so many interested parties involved in this decision could make this proposal far more complicated than Gordon England simply signing off on some random budget document.

It is also important to note that the USAF is not saying "NO" to the F-35, Gordon England is simply directing the USAF to acquire the US Navy's carrier variant (CV) instead.

Publicized Sources:
"U.S. Air Force's JSF Variant May Be Killed", Aerospace Daily & Defense Report 11/21/2005
(This article describes the USAF decision to go with the US Navy carrier variant)

"Raptor May Shoot Down JSF Production", Aviation Week & Space Technology 11/14/2005, page 27
(This article discusses the need for additional Raptors and how that impacts the F-35 program)

"JSF Decisions To Shape Future USAF Budget", Aviation Week & Space Technology 09/19/2005, page 34



[edit on 11-22-2005 by intelgurl]



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
You can discard that thought from your wildest dreams, Zion.
The F-22 program is far from being cut and cancelled any time soon.


I didnt say that. What I meant was, its best to kill the F-35A, and build more F/A-22's than the other way around. That's why I wrote: "Cutting the Air Force version of the F-35 program is understandable, the F/A-22 Raptor could fill that gap."




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join