The semifinalists have been chosen for what is expected to be the world’s largest combat aircraft program of the foreseeable future. Three industrial competitors—Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and McDonnell Douglas in conjunction with Northrop Grumman and British Aerospace—were seeking to design and Produce the U.S. joint strike fighter (JSF), until 1996 known as the joint advanced strike technology aircraft. On 16 November 1996, the Department of Defense announced that the McDonnell Douglas team had been dropped from the competition.
The JSF program as currently configured will produce more than 3,000 aircraft for the U.S. Air Force (2,036), Navy (300), and Marine Corps (642), and the Royal Navy (60). In those air arms, the JSF could replace the Grumman F-14 Tomcat, the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle and AV-8B Harrier, General Dynamic's F-16 Fighting Falcon and F-117A stealth strike aircraft, and the British Aerospace Barrier. (Eventual foreign procurement of the JSF also is likely for land-based air forces, especially to replace U.S. F-15 and F16 fighters. The Canadian Air Force in particular is being briefed on the JSF program.)
Thus, by the second decade Of the 21st century, the U.S. armed forces would have three fighter-type aircraft in service: the F/A-18E/F Hornet (McDonnell Douglas), the F-22 Advanced Tactical Fighter (Lockheed Martin), and the joint strike fighter.
JSF production—scheduled to begin in 2004 could be worth More than $150 billion to the firms that build the planes. The outlay to develop and produce the JSF will be the largest U.S. weapon procurement of the first decade of the 21st century.
Boeing and Lockheed Martin now will develop aircraft for flight demonstrations of their design concepts. During this $2.2 million phase, each firm will build two aircraft. The final selection will be made in 2000.
The proposed JSF designs differ considerably:
- The Boeing design has a high trapezoidal wing, which some aviation buffs have compared to the 1950’s F7U Cutlass. Significantly, Boeing has not built fighter-attack aircraft in the jet age, but the firm points to its bomber and commercial experience, where it is without equal in the West.
- The Lockheed Martin proposal has a more traditional design, somewhat resembling existing fighter designs. The firm has extensive experience in stealth aircraft and in 1981 won the Air Force’s competition for the advanced technology fighter (ATF). which is now entering production as the F-22. That aircraft has the FI 19 engine, to be used in the JSF, which some analysts believe will give the firm a significant advantage in the contest.
- McDonnell Douglas had developed what had been called the riskiest design, an aircraft with no vertical tail surfaces and separate engines for forward thrust and for vertical take off and landing (VTOL). But McDonnell Douglas is a leading producer of fighter aircraft and a partner with British Aerospace in the highly successful Harrier program. (McDonnell Douglas produced the YF-23, an advanced fighter that lost the ATF competition.)
According to David A. Fulghum, senior military editor of Aviation Week, “senior U.S. defense officials are quietly admitting their strong interest in a new line of highly maneuverable combat aircraft, both manned and unmanned, that are being designed without tails. They cite anticipated benefits in cost, range, and signature [reduction].”1
Lockheed Martin is cited by Fulghum as being a leading firm in research on both adaptive flight controls and tailless aircraft designs, although that firm’s JSF design includes twin, canted vertical tail fins. The firm has conducted wind-tunnel tests of a tailless, supersonic fighter design and has proposed modifying an F-16XL NASA research aircraft to fly with a delta wing sans vertical stabilizer.2
Still, the dropping of McDonnell Douglas from the competition indicates that the Department of Defense is taking a more conservative approach to the JSF design.
The JSF is intended to be suitable for four air arms, with 90% commonality and only 10% difference among the four variants for individual service needs. This will be difficult. The Marine Corps and Royal Navy have a requirement for the VTOL configuration, for operation from their specialized aircraft carriers. The Air Force would find a short-field operational capability attractive, but the Navy must have certain features for conventional carrier operation (strengthened fuselage, catapult attachment points, improved landing gear, etc.).
Past efforts at developing multiservice tactical aircraft have not been marked by success. The most notable example is the 1960s effort to produce the triservice fighter (TFX) for Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps tactical roles and for the strategic bomber role. The F-l 11 had a lackluster career as a tactical strike (not fighter) aircraft, while the Navy rejected their F-l 1 IB variant as unsuitable for carrier operation—and that rejection ended possible Marine Corps procurement. The proposed British procurement of the F-l 11 was stillborn, although the Royal Australian Air Force acquired the F-l 11 and still flies it.3
Several land-based tactical aircraft proposed for naval (carrier) use—most have been British—also have been less than total successes. In contrast, carrier-based aircraft that have been adopted for land operation—the F-4 Phantom. A-1 Skyraider, A-3 Skywarrior (as the B-66 Destroyer), A-4 Skyhawk, and A-7 Corsair among them—have had marked success. Indeed, the Phantom achieved the second highest production rate of any Western combat aircraft since World War II, although it was designed specifically for carrier operation (see Table 1).
Table I: Post-World War II Fighter/Attack Aircraft Production |
15,000a Soviet M1G-15 9,829b North American F-86 Sabre/9 Fury 5,179c McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom 3,605d General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon 2,960 McDonnell Douglas A-4 Skyhawk 2,734e Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter/Tiger n 1,362f McDonnell Douglas/Northrop F/A-18 Hornet a Approximate; includes several thousand produced in China, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. b Includes 2,448 produced in Australia, Canada, Italy, and Japan. c Includes 126 produced in Japan. d Includes 758 produced in Belgium, the Netherlands, South Korea, and Turkey; almost 400 additional F-16s are on order. e Includes aircraft produced in Canada and Spain. f Produced through December 1996, most in the United States, but some assembled in Finland and Switzerland; an additional 142 are on order and the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps plan to procure about 1,000 F/A-18E/F variants. |
Speaking at the 16 November press conference to announce the selection of the two competitors, Under Secretary of Defense Paul Kaminski said that the JSF competition is “nothing like the approach we took back with the TFX.” Rather, Dr. Kaminski explained, “We are building three different designs,” but with the same key components—engines, avionics, and structure. This approach, he contends, will save $18 billion in the development phase and more than $40 billion in the production phase over procuring separate aircraft for the services.
In addition to the concern of many aviation analysts that a single aircraft will not serve all four users effectively, there also is apprehension about the Navy's role in the management of the JSF, which is being developed under the aegis of a joint project office. The U.S. Navy has experienced major problems of late in developing advanced aircraft, as evidenced by the failures to produce the A-12 Avenger, AX, and A/F-X—all planned follow-on aircraft to the A-6 Intruder—and the P-7 LRAACA maritime patrol aircraft and the lengthy delays in adapting the British Hawk trainer aircraft for Navy use as the T-45 Goshawk.4
Beyond the requirement that no JSF variant may differ more than 10% from the basic design, the program's ground rules demand that the maximum price per copy is not to exceed $30 million; all variants must have low-observable (stealth) characteristics, including an internal weapons bay; and all must employ F119 engines produced by the Pratt & Whitney Division of United Technologies (used by the F-22).
The weapons bay will be an unusual feature for carrier-based aircraft; previous naval jet fighters and light/medium attack aircraft carry their weapons on external pylons and attachment points. In contrast, Air Force tactical aircraft—largely developed to carry nuclear weapons—tend to have internal weapons bays. The internal bay generally permits higher speeds and enhances stealth. In the Marine Corps and British variants, the weapons bay may be smaller because of the VTOL requirement.
The JSF will not be a low-level attack aircraft, but it will operate above the kill zones of small arms and shoulder-launched missiles. This tactic will require the planes to employ stand-off tactical missiles and guided bombs. The availability of data links to off-board sensors (unmanned aerial vehicles, satellites, other aircraft, and ground forces) will provide the JSF with precision targeting data for these stand-off weapons.
Thus, the challenges to the JSF competitors are considerable, but the payoff will be the only large-scale production of a West ern tactical aircraft for the next two decades or more. The proof of their success will be seen in 2008, when the first aircraft are scheduled to enter service.
1 David A. Fulghum, "Tailless Designs Touted for New Combat Aircraft," Aviation Week & Space Technology, 11 November 1996, p. 56.
2 See Michael A. Domheim, "F-16XL Considered As Tailless Test Platform.” Aviation Week & Space Technology, 1 I November 1996, p. 64.
3 The only U.S. Air Force F-III Aardvarks still flying are the EF-111 electronic countermeasure variant: they're are being replaced by EA-6B Prowlers.
4 LRAACA is the long-range air antisubmarine warfare capable aircraft.