hoho. if this turns out to be true? which model would you all
think the RSAF might procure instead of the F-35A?
my guess would be mainly the C model, with a few Bs.
Originally posted by 38:
[b]Pentagon
said bent on killing F-35 fighter model
By Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON, Nov 18 (Reuters) - The Pentagon is seeking to cancel
the Air Force version of Lockheed Martin Corp.'s (LMT.N: Quote,
Profile, Research) F-35, the world's biggest fighter program, a
leading defense consultant said Friday.
Gordon England, acting deputy secretary of defense, "is pushing to
eliminate one of the three aircraft versions, and the Air Force
version is his preferred kill" as a short-term economy measure,
said Loren Thompson, citing discussions with senior Pentagon and
industry officials.
Thompson is chief operating officer of the Arlington,
Virginia-based Lexington Institute, a research group with close
ties to the defense establishment.
Loss of the Air Force variant would be a blow to Lockheed which
expects to export that version, in particular, for decades to
come.
Eight countries have joined the United States to co-develop the
F-35, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter. With a projected
total program cost of more than $250 billion, it involves what
would be the Pentagon's most expensive acquisition to date and a
symbol of international cooperation.
The co-development partners are Britain, Italy, the Netherlands,
Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway.
If cut, the likely beneficiaries would be France's Rafale fighter,
built by Dassault Aviation (AVMD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research);
Eurofighter, a product of Finmeccanica (SIFI.MI: Quote, Profile,
Research), BAE Systems (BA.L: Quote, Profile, Research) and EADS
(EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research); plus Gripen, built by Saab and
BAE Systems.
The radar-evading F-35 was designed to serve the U.S. Air Force
with a standard model; the Navy, with a sturdier one for
aircraft-carrier landings; and the Marines, with a short take off
and landing "jump jet"-style variant.
England wants the Air Force to buy the Navy version instead of
getting its own, said Thompson.
In an Oct. 19 memorandum, England ordered military leaders to find
$32 billion in cuts over the next five years and said they might
have to dig even deeper as President Bush's fiscal 2007 budget
proposal takes shape.
No final decisions would be made until a high-level meeting on
Monday, England wrote at the time. The White House is due to send
its final budget goals to this session.
Navy Capt. Kevin Wensing, a spokesman for England, declined to
comment on belt-tightening measures under study in the so-called
Quadrennial Defense Review, a strategy analysis done every four
years and due to go to Congress in coming months.
A knowledgeable Pentagon official noted that England, as secretary
of the Navy, had integrated the Navy and Marine Corps aviation
programs starting in 2002. Consolidating a number of air wings, he
has been credited with saving "billions of dollars," said this
official who asked not to be named.
Lockheed Martin has not been notified of any changes to its
programs, said John Smith, a spokesman in Fort Worth, where the
fighters are being assembled.
Apart from Britain, which plans to buy the vertical-takeoff
variant, all international partners plan to buy the Air Force
model, said Richard Aboulafia of Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia,
aerospace consultancy.
Aboulafia said a decision to scrap the Air Force version would save
a "couple billion" in development costs but eat into U.S. dominance
of fighter-export markets for years to come.
[/b]
