It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Pentagon Considers Delaying the F-35 JSF

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 03:49 PM
The US "sea servides", namely the US Navy and US Marines have requested that fielding the F-35 to their services be delayed by 14 months.

This would delay fielding of the first Marine Corps F-35 squadron from 2011 to 2012 and the Navy and Air Force variant from 2013 to 2014.

Reasons for this request have not been officially forthcoming but it is believed that 14 months is needed to adequately fund shipbuilding projects already planned on.

Pentagon Mulls Joint Strike Fighter Delay;, August 21, 2006

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 12:20 PM
This would be done why?

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 12:46 PM
Great blog intelgurl, some really cool links and articles.

As for the F-35 being set back, thats going to be a disaster for the Royal Navy. They have just retired the remaining sea harriers which were equiped for air to air missions as well as strikes, because the gap was soon to be filled by the F-35.... to set it back even further will leave the Royal Navy with no air to air intercept aircraft. The harriers used at the minute are ground attack versions with a very limited air to air capability and in no way can act as fleet defence.

If this goes through and it is delayed much longer, I think we will see the UK look for an alternative. A very sad state of affairs indeed.

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 12:47 PM
most likely budget cutbacks, i believe there are a few programes that may be delayed including a tanker one? link

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 02:23 PM
Well, as the article sais:

If approved, the move would bump planned acquisition of 35 stealthy new fighters beyond the Navy's proposed new six-year spending plan, freeing up more than $1 billion between fiscal years 2008 and 2013 that officials hope to redirect to other naval priorities, these officials said.

The Navy is pretty busy with UAV systems, they recently bought several Predators and have already been testing the Global Hawk for several months. Also, after the J-UCAS program was cancelled by the Pentagon, the X-47 project was moved to the Navy's PAX testing facility and continues development there. They renamed the J-UCAS program to UCAS-D (but is also referred to as N-UCAS). more info.

Flight International || DefenseTech

Northrop has almost completed the critical design review for its carrier-capable X-47B, designed for J-UCAS, but now to be offered for N-UCAS. Boeing says its N-UCAS design will be slightly different to the X-45C, to meet carrier approach and landing requirements. Both companies say the navy's focus for N-UCAS has shifted from persistent intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance to strike.

At the same time, the US Navy has begun studying the need for a new stealthy strike aircraft - a mission that was once to have been performed by the A-12, cancelled in 1991. "They will do a formal analysis of alternatives at some point," says Chris Chadwick, Boeing vice- president and general manager global strike systems.

Interesting note; the A-12 program was cancelled in favor of the JAST program, which later became the JSF.

Besides UAV's and new strike aircraft, the Navy is also working on lost of missile defense technologies, like the AEGIS BMDS.

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 10:06 PM
I hope its not delayed, since that will likely mean less will be sold, and per unit price tag will climb.
Does anyone have an accurate figure on what much the F-35 will be? or is it to early to tell?

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
Interesting note; the A-12 program was cancelled in favor of the JAST program, which later became the JSF.

Just like to point out (so people dont get confused), there talking about the A-12 Avenger II...and not the blackbird.

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 10:56 PM
JSF was $112 million per fighter before the current delays and production cuts, and that number is only going to continue upwards based on current trends.

It's worth asking, what's the cut off for F-35? At what point does the plane become so expensive that continuing with the program simply isn't worth the cost of the production run and the capabilities we'd gain by having the aircraft in service? JSF was initially meant to cost $29-$35 mil. per aircraft. We're now paying 3-4 times that.

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 11:05 PM
Damn thats a lot of cash for a so called affordable strike fighter!

Now im no rocket scientist, but more expense means less planes. less planes means fewer squadrons. less squadrons, less people to fly them...

Job cuts and base closures europe wide for those that have stuck with the JSF program.... Or gripen sales galore when alot of the poorer nations / less guilable / stupid pull out and save one hell of a lot of cash.

gripen availibilty = Now.
cost = £21 million pound apiece.

Now i like the Gripen, and it is a good useful aircraft.... greece and Turkey would be better of going Gripen than waiting on till this cost / hanger drama unfolds and sorts itself out.

posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 03:31 AM
The head of the JSF program said a one year delay of the JSF program will increase the price of a single fighter anywhere from 4 million to 6 million dollars, depending on the JSF version. I'm not so sure the international partners are going to like that.
Here in Holland we've got elections coming up in November, the party that is most likely to win has already said they want t step out of the JSF program.
The Gripen would then be a good alternative, its a relatively cheap, light and multirole aircraft. Even better, the Swedish want to get rid of some of them: Swedish Air Force could scrap 70 planes. Due to budget cuts, they have to sell off 65-70 Gripens.

posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 03:52 AM
Nice link on the Swedish defence stance zion.

The Gripen is a beautiful plane - light, fast, agile and suprisingly able to shift alot of ordanace if you need a bomb truck.

Oh and did I say it was cheap??

The swedes loss may be hollands gain in the long run. Jumping ship before you drown in the sea of recriminations surrounding the JSF would be a good idea. rememebr the old F-111 debacle ???? A ship for every service?? lol and nobody wanted it in the end for varying reasons bar the USAF.....

Oh and one thing with the F-35.... Its a butt plug ugly aircraft.

top topics


log in