U.S. should consider F-35 fighter cuts -- study

Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:47 PM BST17
By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON, June 20 (Reuters) - The United States should consider slashing the number of Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT.N: Quote, Profile , Research) F-35 fighter aircraft it plans to buy, largely because it does not have the reach needed to fight well in Asia, a leading military research group said in a report Wednesday.

The private Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments voiced fears the F-35, the Pentagon's costliest arms acquisition ever, might crowd out what it called needed investments in longer-range strike capabilities.

"China in particular has the strategic depth to locate key facilities beyond the reach of short-range systems," said the study titled U.S. Fighter Modernization Plans: Near-term Choices.

Currently, the radar-evading F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, or JSF, is at the heart of plans for modernizing U.S. air power. At $299 billion for 2,443 aircraft to be produced through 2034, it is designed to replace the F-16 and a range of other aircraft.

Acquiring so many F-35s "now seems neither affordable nor needed, and the U.S. buy can probably be reduced by as much as 50 percent without driving unit costs through the roof or abandoning close allies," the study said.

Eight countries -- Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway -- have joined the United States to fund development of the F-35.

The chief reason to consider cuts is the short range of all three models being built -- conventional for the Air Force; a short take-off, vertical landing one for the Marine Corps; and a carrier-borne version for the Navy's aircraft carriers, the study's authors Even with the addition of external fuel tanks and radar- evading standoff munitions, the F-35's unrefueled reach is unlikely to extend beyond 1,500 nautical miles, the study said.

U.S. strike aircraft setting out from Kadena Air Force Base on Japan's Okinawa Island would have to fly some 1,600 nautical miles to reach Jiuquan, site of China's first spaceport, on the southern edge of the Gobi Desert. All but 200 miles of this distance would be through Chinese air space, the study said.

Responding to Beijing's Jan. 11 demonstration of an antisatellite weapon, Pentagon officials have voiced concerns about the vulnerability of U.S. eyes and ears in space.

"What Jiuquan does illustrate is just how deep inside China some of the targets are located that the United States might wish to hold at risk for purposes of dissuasion and deterrence," the study said.

The report was written by Steve Kosiak, a defense budget expert, and Barry Watts, the Pentagon's director of program analysis and evaluation from May 2001 to June 2002.

They said there was "reason to worry that the JSF's funding requirements will crowd out future investment in long-range strike capabilities," given scare Air Force procurement dollars.

The authors did not make specific proposals for restructuring the F-35 program. Instead, they hoped to spark debate over the aircraft, which flew for the first time in December and is due to be delivered to U.S. forces starting in 2010.

Cheryl Limrick, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon's F-35 program office, said it would be inappropriate to comment on the report. A Lockheed Martin F-35 spokesman did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment.

Source: http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/art ... ticlePage2

Do the authors of that study realize the F-35 won't be the only strike asset in a theater? So it's not able to reach China from Kadena (neither can the F-16 today), that's what heavy, long ranged bombers are for. If it comes down to needing to use F-35 ranged aircraft over China, they likely wouldn't be flying from Okinawa, they'd be flying from Taiwan, carriers in the S China Sea or possibly S Korea.

I read that and thought "yeah let's find a way to jack the F-35's price up even higher so we can't buy any

Do the authors of that study realize the F-35 won't be the only strike asset in a theater? So it's not able to reach China from Kadena (neither can the F-16 today), that's what heavy, long ranged bombers are for. If it comes down to needing to use F-35 ranged aircraft over China, they likely wouldn't be flying from Okinawa, they'd be flying from Taiwan, carriers in the S China Sea or possibly S Korea.

My thoughts exactly. Frankly their argument does'nt hold water. Between the cruise missile carrying Ohios and the 150 or so heavy bombers anything that has to be hit can be hit. Naval air is within range of 80 percent of the world's population. Let's not also forget F-15Es and Raptors. The key here is going to be having enough tankers to support all this and we do now and it is being addressed for the future as well.

Further, why would we need to perform sustained combat operations a thousand miles into enemy territory. Aside from nuclear strike (which was a one time thing) it was not a requirement of the cold war and it's certainly not required now. If necessary, China, Russia and India can all be bludgeoned back into the stone age with what we have now.

Contrary to the "think tank's" conclusion, situations like Afghanistan virtually beg for a jet like the F-35B. The airforce and marines can ferry them into small primitive airstrips deep inland. From there they can quickly be on station to provide CAS and point air defence.

Will the US buy fewer JSF's. Perhaps, but only because the airforce wants more Raptors and the Navy has to replace it's older legacy Hornets.

You know to me the most practical option and the one that makes the most sense on saving money on the JSF Program. Has been somehow left out??? Why not cut the F-35A model and replace it with a landbased F-35C? This is hardly new as current F/A-18 Hornets have operated from lanbases for years! (USMC, RCAF,RAAF,etc.) Remember, the whole reason behind the JSF was to mix and match. Now this wouldn't mean the UASF couldn't still custom fit there Lightnings. For example they still could carry a internal gun or USAF refueling sytem. They would of course have to take the heavier naval landing gear but so what. That's hardly a non-stater! In return the F-35 could be produced in just two types and in very large numbers with benifits for all sides. Further, the USAF could operate a mixed fleet of F-35's. Which, is more than likely going to happen at some point regardless. As the current F-16's and A-10's fly totally different missions. With the F-16 being replaced by CTOL F-35A (C)'s and the A-10's being of course replaced by STOVL F-35B's.
Yet, in the end everyone get a model and the larger the order and the fewer types the cheaper the overall program would be..........personally the GAO, CSBA, and the Politicians make me sick!

I would have made sense to do that in 1998. But now that the A version's airframe development and tool up is pretty much complete, dropping it saves zero R&D costs. Given the commonality of engines, avionics, sensors, subsystems, etc, you are not saving much if any money on maintenance either.

At this point, it'll be like saying lets go with only F-15Es instead of a mixed F-15C/E fleet. Won't save you any R&D since both versions have already been developed. Won't save you much if any operational costs either given the commonality.

You know to me the most practical option and the one that makes the most sense on saving money on the JSF Program. Has been somehow left out??? Why not cut the F-35A model and replace it with a landbased F-35C? This is hardly new as current F/A-18 Hornets have operated from lanbases for years! (USMC, RCAF,RAAF,etc.) Remember, the whole reason behind the JSF was to mix and match. Now this wouldn't mean the UASF couldn't still custom fit there Lightnings. For example they still could carry a internal gun or USAF refueling sytem. They would of course have to take the heavier naval landing gear but so what. That's hardly a non-stater! In return the F-35 could be produced in just two types and in very large numbers with benifits for all sides. Further, the USAF could operate a mixed fleet of F-35's. Which, is more than likely going to happen at some point regardless. As the current F-16's and A-10's fly totally different missions. With the F-16 being replaced by CTOL F-35A (C)'s and the A-10's being of course replaced by STOVL F-35B's.
Yet, in the end everyone get a model and the larger the order and the fewer types the cheaper the overall program would be..........personally the GAO, CSBA, and the Politicians make me sick!