All you need to know about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
Critics of the program maintain that the JSF suffers from ill-defined design goals; that it has insufficient internal fuel and weapon capacity to make a capable replacement for dedicated bombing aircraft; that its inability to supercruise limits it as an air defence platform, and that it is almost certain to suffer lengthy development delays and cost over-runs — meaning that interim types will have to be purchased to fill the gap between the end of useful life of existing fleets and the introduction of the JSF. Several nations, however, already have sufficient confidence in the design to have committed substantial sums to become minority partners in the JSF manufacturing team.
The program's advocates see the JSF as an opportunity to break out of the decades-old pattern of U.S. military aircraft procurement: instead of a traditional per-service design approach, the JSF is being developed jointly by the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. This allows an estimated 80% commonality between the JSF variants for the different services, lowering procurement and service costs. This follows to a degree the philosophy behind the SEPECAT Jaguar and Panavia Tornado international development programs, the latter being called a multi-role combat aircraft (or MRCA) prior to service entry. Additionally, JSF is the first U.S. aircraft program to consider cost as independent variable (CAIV). In earlier programs, the aircraft cost has been a dependent variable — additional features have always increased the aircraft cost. Such design changes aren't being allowed during the JSF development.
Some of the international partners in the project have also become somewhat skittish, with Norway reportedly considering switching their purchase to the Eurofighter Typhoon or Saab Gripen because Norwegian industry had not been offered substantial enough involvement. The Australian government and defense establishment has remained solidly behind the project. However, a number of concerns about the state of the project have been raised in various media outlets. Firstly, the delays in the schedule have raised doubts that the aircraft will be ready in time to replace the aging Australian air force fleet of F-111 ground attack planes and F-18 fighters. The cost blowouts have also raised worries about the fleet's affordability. There has been considerable annoyance about the fact that the Australian planes will be less stealthy than the American versions, which, combined with concerns about the plane's short range, lack of supercruise and unproven dogfighting capabilities, have led to worries about its suitability to replace both the F-18 and F-111. The unproven dogfighting capabilities are a greater issue for minor partners than the USAF and RAF. Both of these services have next-generation advanced tactical fighters, with air-to-air capabilites superior to the F-35 (though with inferior air-to-ground attributes)."
No comments:
Post a Comment