Pentagon May Scrap Jet Plans

[Judi Lynn]

July 27, 2005

THE NATION
Pentagon May Scrap Jet Plans
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the F/A-22 programs could be cut in budget moves and as strategies shift to meet unconventional threats.

By Mark Mazzetti, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Facing severe budget pressures, the Pentagon is developing plans to slash the Air Force's two prized fighter jet programs, according to Defense Department officials and outside experts.

Military planners are debating options to scale back the Air Force's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the stealth F/A-22 fighter, as some defense officials question spending billions on weapons that have little use against terrorist networks and other unconventional threats.

Such a move would be an enormous blow to the Air Force, which has spent years developing the two weapons to replace its aging fleet of fighter jets. The budget cuts could encounter fierce resistance from lawmakers, including some from California, whose districts would be hit hard by the economic repercussions.
(snip)

The Joint Strike Fighter program is projected to cost $245 billion, a price tag shared by the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and nine U.S. allies, including Britain, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Turkey. It is the Pentagon's most expensive weapons program, and the Air Force has by far the largest part of the budget; it hopes to purchase 1,763 of the planes to replace the F-16 fighter.
The Air Force also plans to acquire 179 F/A-22s, each costing about $345 million.
(snip/...)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-airforce27jul27,0,2091736.story?coll=la-home-headlines
(Free registration required)

[wakeme2008]

1. Good Bush's Invasion is costing the Air Force it's playtoys...

I like the Joint Strike Fighter and am a believer in it JUST not 1763 planes.... The F-22 is a TURKEY and a plane that should have been killed many years ago.

What the report does not say is the Air Force is STILL buying F-16 and other planes. So some of these "old" planes are brand new.

[depakid]

2. The JSF has weight problems

among other things, whereas the F-22 has already been authorized for full production in FY 2006 by the Defense Acquisition Review Board.

Cutting the F-22 at this stage would be as wasteful and foolish a decision as the DOD could make, considering how much they've already spent in development costs....

[wakeme2008]

3. Ok it's the old we have spent XXX on this turkey we can not stop

now.. I do not buy that.

[acmejack]

4. Weight is significant, the launch wt from a carrier is not that high.

Trade offs in armament and fuel load have to be made. One size fits all has never worked well, the Navy airframes are much different to withstand the stress imposed in an arrested landing.

[depakid]

5. It's the vstol version that has the most trouble

I think the carrier version is somewhat less of a problem.

I agree that one size fits all is a dubious proposition- though it's easy to understand why you'd want to universalize as much as possible. In theory it should be more efficient- provided that the missions aren't overly compromised.

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. The V/STOL version IS a "carrier version"...

it's supposed to (or WAS supposed to, I guess, if it's dead now) replace the Harrier as USMC assault-carrier based fighter (and with the Royal Navy, too).

[depakid]

9. There are actually 3 variants

and I made a mistake- it's a STOVL- and that's the one with the serious weight problems.

I suppose the British plan to use that on their smaller carriers- but the US Navy has its own version, the F-35C, with a beefed up airframe and larger wings.

[madmom]

10. F-22 raptor was a good bird till...

bushco changed it's mission to bombing along with air supremacy.A stealth aircraft with the radar signature of a bumblebee that cruises at mach 1.7 has to carry it's weapons inside the airframe.Raptor can only carry one bomb.The repukes killed this bird for reasons I would like to know.

[MercutioATC]

11. They killed it because we don't need that kind of tool any more.

Air supremacy isn't the issue it used to be, and UCAVs can do many jobs more efficiently and inexpensively.

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,20967,1068356,00.html

[madmom]

12. Yep and the ...

buzz bomb was going to bring England to her knee's

[MercutioATC]

14. Actually, it IS superior technology.

Two main reasons:

1) Eliminating the pilot eliminates the inability to execute high-G maneuvers. UCAVs can be more agile.

2) One of the things that make a "stealthy" plane less stealthy is any place there's a seam (think landing gear doors). UCAVs can be made to have their gear on top to further reduce their RADAR signature. They'd just flip over to land (something human pilots can't do).

In addition, human pilots aren't at risk.

[Squatch]

15. Further, human pilots aren't part of the weight...

allowing the replacement of a pilot and avionics with ordnance.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

13. At the rate China is developing their military, we'll probably realize...

...that it was needed after all.

[sweetheart]

6. The military should get used to it

As the government goes bankrupt, the new toys will be less and less.
At this rate, they'll be the airforce for just the USA's borders in
not too long... what a concept; a military that only defends the
borders, and not corporate interests in asia.

[Squatch]

7. There's a growing push to develop and field the UCAV

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ucav.htm

[geomon666]

16. That's a damn shame.

They're both beautiful planes.

[Sgent]

17. The UCAV

has a lot of potential uses... but it seems like it would be too easy to kill. Forget missles, just overload the radio spectrum with interferance -- it will eliminate satellite and ground com. Then you need a pilot.