Further to this post,

What a US Navy carrier is for/Super Hornets and F-35s

I suggest readers take a look at this (read the whole piece, please) at Aviation Week and Space Technology’s “Ares” blog:

With the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program likely to be hit by further delays on top of the 13-month slip in development announced in February, competitors are beginning to see hope for the future despite tight budgets worldwide. The JSF program office canceled an appearance at Defense IQ’s October fighter conference here. People talking about other programs, though, were no longer shy about benchmarking their favorite jets against the ambitious U.S.-led project, now five years behind its original schedule with a sixth in the offing.

Another conference theme was a broader definition of capability, beyond a simplistic “generation” standard based on platform design. Many new or modernized fighters are acquiring a range of capabilities introduced in the last decade, including active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, high-definition targeting pods, the ability to release multiple guided weapons at separate targets in a single pass, and helmet-mounted displays. So-called “non-stealthy” aircraft are using a combination of radar cross-section (RCS) reduction measures and new-technology jamming based on digital radio frequency memory (RF) to defeat RF-guided weapons…

…Boeing is becoming more open about targeting the F-35C—the most vulnerable version of the aircraft, according to company executives—with a pincer strategy, with an improved F/A-18 in the near term and a Next-Generation Air Dominance platform further out.

First discussed at Farnborough, the improved Super Hornet features conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) above the body and a low RCS weapon pod for the centerline station, and would use more powerful (and already demonstrated) F414 engines. These are related: the CFTs restore the fuel lost with the centerline tank—with less transonic drag—and more thrust improves the Hornet’s transonic acceleration, which is not its strong point today.

It will also carry an internal infrared search-and-track (IRST) system, with Boeing calling IRST “the AESA of the 2010s” because of the technical improvements in newer systems. (The F-35 has an IRST function built into its electro-optical sensor, but advocates of a dedicated IRST say a scanning long-wave system outperforms a staring midwave sensor.) Boeing now says publicly that the Super Hornet “could be a bridge to the next airplane.”

That next airplane, in Boeing’s view, will be distinguished by greater range, as a counter to the development of antiaccess and area-denial weapons such as China’s antiship ballistic missile and long-range air-launched cruise missiles. It will also feature more advanced stealth technology than the F-35C—Boeing’s publicly revealed concept is tailless—to offset advanced air-defense weapons and counter-stealth technology.

European fighter producers are also pushing back against U.S. assumptions of superiority…

Update: More reasons for the targeting (note the $92 million price per plane assumes current production plans–which seem increasingly like pie in the sky; links in original):

The Pentagon won’t pay more for Lockheed Martin Corp.’s Joint Strike Fighter, which has almost doubled in cost to $92 million a jet, the defense acquisitions chief said today.

“We’ve got to get the cost growth under control,” Ashton Carter said today at a conference in New York. “Those who work on the Joint Strike Fighter know full well that is the expectation. I believe it is something that can be done, but I am not happy with the situation we find ourselves in.”

The original estimate of the F-35’s cost, in 2002, was $50 million a plane. The higher expense “may drive away customers,” Carter said…

The F-35, already about four years behind schedule, “is at that stage that is always difficult, the transition from development to production,” Carter said. It’s particularly challenging since there’s substantial overlap between construction and testing, he said.

“The inevitable consequence is that we discover things in test that have to be fixed,” Carter said. “You try to manage that.”

The Pentagon has maintained an option to purchase more F- 18s, built by Boeing Co., if development of the F-35 falters. The number of F-18s was reduced in 1997 during the F-35’s early development, and Boeing eventually lost the competition to build that aircraft to Lockheed.

Chicago-based Boeing monitors the F-35’s progress and can supply more F-18 Super Hornets or F-15 Strike Eagles to the military if needed, Dennis Muilenburg, head of Boeing’s defense unit, said in a New York interview. The Super Hornet has a per-unit cost of less than $50 million and cutting-edge technology, he said [emphasis added, he should know about the price].

“We know our customers have significant challenges right now on how they fit the capability they need into a limited budget,” Muilenburg said. “If there’s a desire to increase the size of the Super Hornet fleet, we are well prepared and equipped to do that.”

Meanwhile our government claims our F-35s will cost 74.5 million each.  Sure.  The most recent limited production batch for the US have prices (without engines) of around $150 million each, it would seem.

Mark
Ottawa