Britain On Board With Fighter, Pentagon Relents On Sharing F-35's Technology

COLLEGE PARK, Md. -- Britain signed an agreement Tuesday committing to the next development and production phase of the new Joint Strike Fighter jet, resolving a dispute between the Pentagon and its biggest overseas partner over sharing technology for the advanced fighter jet.

Lord Peter Drayson, Britain's arms procurement minister, said the country hasn't fully committed to buying the jets, though preliminary plans call for the country to buy 150 of the fighters, also known as the F-35.

Pratt & Whitney of East Hartford is the prime contractor for the F-35's engine; some parts are supplied by Rolls-Royce. A separate partnership of General Electric and Rolls-Royce is building an alternate F-35 engine, the F-136.

Britain already has invested $2 billion in the $276 billion defense program. But it had balked at agreeing to the next phase and threatened to pull out because of concerns the Pentagon wasn't sharing enough information about the sensitive software and other technology for the jet.

more:http://www.courant.com/business/hc-jsf1213.artdec13,0,3637721.story?track=rss

If we scrapped the JSF, we could buy 100 more F-22 Raptors and still save almost $130 billion dollars. The F-22 is more than adequate to do anything that our air power could be called upon to do--it can hunt, it can fight, and in testing it's successfully dropped a 1000 pound bomb from 50,000 feet, while cruising at Mach 1.5, to strike a moving target 24 miles away. There's even talk about building a version with variable geometry wings (swing wings) for the Navy to use on their carriers, replacing the F-14 Tomcat. The only missing capability is V/STOL (Vertical/short takeoff and landing, like the Harrier) but the F-35 won't help, because it's STOVL only (Short takeoff or vertical landing, i.e. can't lift straight up). It's not as fast as the F-16 Falcon, and it can't supercruise either (run supersonic without afterburners) meaning that it's not good as an interceptor. And to be blunt, for close air support missions that might get shot at, would you rather send a $20 million dollar plane, or a $130 million dollar plane?

We'd be better off doing some upgrades the Falcon and/or the Harrier, and saving the rest of our money.

same as a Harrier. I have a video right here of an F-35 doing a vertical takeoff. If you want to get off the ground with as much weight as you can possibly fly, though, you start with a short takeoff roll to get the wings working, which is the same for both aircraft.

I think both programs should go forward, FWIW. The F-35 is cheaper, smaller, and more versatile; the F-22 is the no-holds-barred air superiority fighter, that can do some things the F-35 can't. Same relative roles as the F-16 and F-15. The reason the F-35 can't supercruise is that it only has one engine compared to the F-22's two.

And if you think the F-35 is expensive, try redesigning the F-22 for carrier ops, inventing a workable swing-wing setup that doesn't compromise the radar cross section, beefing up the structure to take deck impacts without decreasing performance or payload, and then amortizing those immense development costs across the very small number of carrier variants that would be produced.

The F-35 was designed from the ground up with carrier ops in mind; the F-22 wasn't.

The reason being it was CHEAPER even if all you purchased from Russia was the engine and body (Using US Electronics instead of Russian Electronics). This came about do to the age of the F-15' airframe. The F-15 Airframe is getting to the point where there is a good possibility of the Air-Frame failing do to its age, thus the need for a Replacement.

THe F-22 and the F-35 are going to be very expensive toys to fight wars the US will NOT get into. Who will the US use these aircraft against? Iran? North Korea? China? Russia? The SU-30 with US Electronics would be BETTER than anything any of those countries can produce. How many F-15s did Iraq shoot down? How many Israeli F-15s did the Syrians shoot down? How many did the Serbs shoot down? (The answer is NONE to all of them).

Do we need these aircraft (The F-35 and the F-22)? The Answer right now is NO. Will we need something like them in the Future? A good argument can be made that the answer is NO. The reason for that answer is that since the 1980s do to the advancement of electronics, the effectiveness of Anti-Aircraft missiles have increased tremendously. Right now the Air Force to retain some relevancy in the face of such threats have developed missile with longer and longer range so that the Aircraft can survive in the face of such threat (and do NOT tell me of the Stealth Aircraft remember the Serbs did shoot down one F-117, the Stealth aircraft is ineffective during daylight where is can be seen, its shape hinders its ability to maneuver so it is an easy target for visual attacks as oppose dot radar guided attacks).

Thus many in the Air force believes the best solution to the increase effectiveness of Anti-Aircraft defenses is to go to stand-off missiles of even greater range, basically having missiles do the job that Airplanes do now. We are only 10-20 years away from such remote controlled aircraft, which can be made smaller, more fuel efficient, greater range (they do NOT have to return with the pilot) and overall more capable weapon than a maned fighter. Given this why spend the money on a plane that will be obsolete before it is fully fielded?

In many ways the US is like the US Navy after Pearl Harbor, the Battleship was still the premier weapon of Naval warfare in 1942 (Even after Pearl Harbor), but it was clear that the Aircraft Carrier was going to replace it within a few years. Facing this situation the US Navy decided to build Carriers. As to the Battleships the US Navy ordered, these were intended to protect Carriers Task Forces NOT fight a WWI Battleship duel (The Iowa Class of Battleships gave up Armor for Speed so they could keep up with the then new Essex Class of Carriers).

The same with the F-22 and F-35, they are wonder weapons that will be replaced in about 10-20 years by long-range Missiles guided either using GPS or by optical control (and maybe both). Thus building the F-22 and F-35 may be like completing the Montana Class of Battleships during WWII (The Montana Class was the Class that was to be built AFTER the Iowa Class, it was bigger than the Iowas but slower for these were true battleships unlike the fast Battleships of the Iowa Class), to fight a battle that would never occur.

Thus the problem with the F-22 and F-35 is NOT that they will be more effective than the SU-30 with the A-10 Attack plane (along with F-18s and F-16s) but that the increase in effectiveness will NOT be decisive in any battle foreseeable in the next 20 years (And after 20 years all the aircraft I have mentioned will probably be obsolete). Thus spending money on both programs will just be a waste of resources better spent elsewhere. The research on both programs is worth the money for most of the research will help develop the long-range missiles I mentioned above, but it will be a huge waste of resources to actually build and field these planes, when what we need is more boots on the ground in Iraq a oppose to aircraft flying over Iraq.

Thus given the need to shift money to the Army for more boots on the Ground, buying Su-30s updated with US electronics looks like a bargain. You have a plane better than anything else in the Sky (including even Russian Built SU-30s given the only the US Planes would have American Electronics). The plane will last 20 years and be effective during that time period at the fraction of the cost of the F-22. The A-10 and F-18s will suffice for what most of the missions the F-35 would have done. The only exception would be a replacement for the Harrier, which given its history of accidents the US would be better off without (The Harrier is more important to the British Navy than the US Navy given the small Carriers of the British Navy, but maybe the British would be better off going with a straight wing attack plane to provide air Support and leaver air to air fighting to missiles. The range of the Harrier in the VTOL role is only 50 miles to start with, going with a straight wing plane would provide more range.