Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is a development and acquisition program that will replace a wide range of aging fighter, strike, and ground attack aircraft for the United States and its allies. After a competition between the Boeing X-32 and the Lockheed Martin X-35, a final design was chosen based on the X-35. This is the F-35 Lightning II, which will replace various tactical aircraft, including the F-16, A-10, F/A-18, AV-8B and British Harrier GR7 & GR9s.
Contents |
Project formation
The JSF program was the result of the merger of the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (CALF) and Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) projects.[1] The merged project continued under the JAST name until the Engineering Manufacturing and Development (EMD) phase, during which the project became the Joint Strike Fighter.[2]
The CALF was an ARPA program to develop a STOVL strike fighter (SSF) for the United States Marine Corps and replacement for the F-16 Fighting Falcon. The United States Air Force passed over the F-16 Agile Falcon in the late 1980s, essentially an enlarged F-16, and continued to mull other designs. In 1992 the Marine Corps and Air Force agreed to jointly develop the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter, also known as Advanced Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (ASTOVL).
The Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program was created in 1993, implementing one of the recommendations of a United States Department of Defense (DoD) "Bottom-Up Review to include the United States Navy in the Common Strike Fighter program." The review also led the Pentagon to continue the F-22 Raptor and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet programs, cancel the Multi-Role Fighter (MRF) and the A/F-X programs, and curtail F-16 and F/A-18C/D procurement. The JAST program office was established on 27 January 1994 to develop aircraft, weapons, and sensor technology with the aim of replacing several disparate U.S. and UK aircraft with a single family of aircraft; the majority of those produced would replace F-16s.
In November 1995, the United Kingdom signed a memorandum of understanding to become a formal partner, and agreed to pay $200 million, or 10% of the concept demonstration phase.[2]
JSF Competition
Two contracts to develop prototypes were awarded on November 16, 1996, one each to Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Each firm would produce two aircraft to demonstrate conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL), carrier takeoff and landing (CV version), and short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL). McDonnell Douglas' bid was rejected in part due to the complexity of its design.[3] Lockheed Martin and Boeing were each given $750 million for the development of the concept demonstrators and definition of the Preferred Weapon System Concept (PWSC). The aim of this funding limit was to prevent one or both contractors bankrupting themselves in an effort to win such an important contract.[1]
Also in 1996, the UK Ministry of Defence launched the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft project. This program sought a replacement for the Sea Harrier (and later the Harrier GR7); the Joint Strike Fighter was selected in January 2001.
During concept definition, two Lockheed Martin airplanes were flight-tested: the X-35A (which was later converted into the X-35B), and the larger-winged X-35C.[4] Arguably the most persuasive demonstration of the X-35's capability was the final qualifying Joint Strike Fighter flight trials, in which the X-35B STOVL aircraft took off in less than 500 feet (150 m), went supersonic, and landed vertically — a feat that Boeing's entry was unable to achieve.[5]
Competition Outcome
The contract for System Development and Demonstration (SDD) was awarded on 26 October 2001 to Lockheed Martin, whose X-35 beat the Boeing X-32. One of the main reasons for this choice appears to have been the method of achieving STOVL flight, with the Department of Defense judging that the higher performance lift fan system was worth the extra risk. When near to the ground, the Boeing X-32 suffered from the problem of hot air from the exhaust circulating back to the main engine, which caused the thrust to weaken and the engine to overheat.[6]
The United States Department of Defense officials and William Bach, the UK Minister of Defence Procurement, said the X-35 consistently outperformed the X-32, although both met or exceeded requirements. The development of the JSF will be jointly funded by the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, The Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway, Denmark and Israel.
Lockheed Martin's X-35 would become the basis of the F-35 Lightning II, currently in development. On April 6, 2009 US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that the US would buy a total of 2,443 JSFs.[7]
Security breach
In April 2009, the Wall Street Journal reported that computer spies, apparently Chinese, had penetrated the database and acquired terabytes of secret information about the fighter possibly compromising its future effectiveness.[8]
See also
References
- ^ a b Nicholls, Mark (August 2000). "JSF: The Ultimate Prize". Air Forces Monthly (Key Publishing): 32-38.
- ^ a b "U.S., U.K. sign JAST agreement". Aerospace Daily (McGraw-Hill): p. 451. 1995-11-25.
- ^ Fulghum, David; Morrocco, John (1996-11-25). "Final JSF Competition Offers No Sure Bets". Aviation Week and Space Technology (McGraw-Hill): p. 20.
- ^ Joint Strike Fighter official site - History page
- ^ PBS: Nova transcript "X-planes"
- ^ PBS: Nova transcript "X-planes"
- ^ Gates, Dominic, "Aerospace Giant 'Hit Harder' Than Peers", Seattle Times, April 7, 2009, p. 1.
- ^ Gorman S, Cole A, Dreazen Y (April 21, 2009). "Computer Spies Breach Fighter-Jet Project Article". Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027491029837401.html.
- Keijsper, Gerald. Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Pen & Sword Aviation, 2007. ISBN 978-1-84415-631-3.
- Spick, Mike, ed. Great Book of Modern Warplanes. MBI, 2000. ISBN 0-7603-0893-4.
External links
- "Battle of the X-Planes." Emmy Award-winning NOVA TV documentary, 4 February 2003.
|
||||||||||||||
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
