DT buddy Steve Trimble scored a great scoop at the Farnborough air show this week. He reports:
Boeing’s global marketing campaign for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet has drawn the public wrath of the senior U.S. military official leading the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
U.S. Air Force Lt Gen Charles Davis, speaking exclusively to Flight International, has accused Boeing of “spreading lies and half-truths” about the F-35 to bolster its case for selling the F/A-18E/F.
“That’s just pissing us off,” Davis says. “If Boeing has to say something negative about JSF to sell their aircraft, that tells me there is something wrong with their aircraft.”
Davis specifically faults Boeing executives for predicting further cost overruns and delays for the F-35 program. By comparison, Davis says, he has heard BAE Systems make no such predictions in their efforts to sell the Eurofighter Typhoon.
However, it was pointed out to Davis that Boeing had delivered hundreds of F/A-18E/Fs on time and on budget, while the JSF program has reported a 50 percent cost increase and an at least 18-month delay during the first seven years of development.
Davis acknowledges the F-35’s record, but refuses to back down in his criticism of Boeing.
He says the F-35’s development challenges cannot be compared with the F/A-18E/F. The Super Hornet is based on an existing airframe, he says, and reuses the avionics suite from the original aircraft.
“That’s the baseline they’re measured against. How hard is that?” Davis asks.
The F-35 and F/A-18E/F are in competition in several countries, and not least in the USA, where Navy officials continue to debate the need for extending Super Hornet purchases if the JSF is further delayed.
Boeing executives were not immediately aware of the news articles that provoked the Davis outburst.
“We don’t know much about JSF other than what we read in the paper,” says Jim Albaugh, president of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems.
Tom Bell, a Boeing business development official, says he is unaware of the specific comments that triggered Davis’ outburst, and so could not give a direct response.
Bell points out that two JSF development partners — Australia and Denmark — have already acquired or are considering acquiring F/A-18E/Fs instead.
“People with greater insight [into the F-35 program] than I are looking at the offerings available,” Bell says. “Let people draw their own conclusions about why.”
So is it worse when the Air Force is pissed at Boeing or the other way around like it has been during the tanker protest furor? Or is this just the kind of “healthy tension” we need between these two legs of the Iron Triangle? Stay tuned.
(Photo: General Davis demonstrates what he’d like to do to those at Boeing who are badmouthing the JSF.)
(Gouge: NC)
– Ward
It sure seems that Boeing is one money hungry oranization. Not saying that being aggresive isn’t a good thing but why piss the customer off? That doesn’t seem like a great idea.
I don’t see why the Air Force would be so angry when their version of the F-35 being built shouldn’t be affected.As far as I have read,the F/A-18 is build primarily for use on an aircraft carrier.I read that a version of the F/A-18 that would be primarily a land based aircraft,with lighter wings & no tailhook,was built but nobody was buying it.I guess what I’m saying is that the current F/A-18E/F would be too heavy for use by countries who don’t have aircraft carrier(especially the ones that could operate Hornets/Super Hornets).The F-35 would be lighter,depending on the version & I guess only the U.S. Navy would be using the carrier version of the F-35.I’m trying to understand why the Air Force would be upset but I can’t.
Jeff what do you mean the customer? The Air Force is not a customer of the f/a-18. In fact Lt Gen Charles Davis is the executive program director for the f-35, he’s speaking to save his own tail, not as a representative for the entire USAF.
It would be pretty hypocritical of Eurofighter to criticize another program for cost overruns and delays, wouldn’t it? Boeing’s probably right about further cost overruns and delays in the JSF program, but I’m guessing that the source of the cost overruns has more to do with global economic trends (weaker dollar, rising material costs, labour shortages) than the program itself. Governments also seem to have as much to do with the delays as the programs, as well.
You know, I’m not a huge fan of Boeing these days with the tanker situation but I think you have to call BS where it lies. The best way for this problem to be solved is for Lockheed to get rolling on the F-35.
daskro, by customer I do mean the Air Force. I do understand the Air Force is not a customer for the F/A-18 but they are customers of other Boeing products. And believe me, if you piss the customer off on one thing, it will carry over to other decisions they need to make later. ie tanker, CSAR-X, etc.
The customer here is the US government. F35 is a joint program. You make F35 costs go up because foreign countries buy less of them you get less planes for the Navy, Air Force and Marines…
Those F-18 E/F’s will fly for 30+ years with other countries…
The other side of the coin is that the equipment to produce the F-16 is owned by the US Gov’t…I imagine there’s a bunch of GFE in Boeing’s production facilities as well…why don’t you just go ahead and piss off the owner of the equipment you use to produce your foreign sale aircraft?…
Roy Smith,
What the General means is by Boeing seemingly trying to discredit the F-35 may sway countries like Australia into buying straight up Super Hornets instead of having a F-35 fleet. Australia recently has been having a crisis with its air capability gap between retiring F-111s and when they receive F-35s so they decided to fill the void with Super Hornets. Also on a side note, of all Hornet operators only the USN uses them with aircraft carriers.
FoxThree,
I know that the USN is the only country using the F/A-18 with carriers,but I’ve read that the other nations using them have bought them pretty much set up as the USN versions with tail hook included.A simplified & lighter version(lighter wings & no tail hook) was offered,but no buyers took it.I’m not trying to make a big deal about the tail hook,I was just emphasizing the point that foreign buyers were purchasing Hornets/Super Hornets that were no different than what the USN & USMC flies.The Air Force version of the F-35 would seem to be lighter than the F/A-18 & offer the better deal for foreign nations,maybe even in fuel consumption.Wouldn’t the F/A-18 be more of a gas hog than the F-35?
I am not sure if buying more manned fighters is the best acquisition decision for the Air Force. Our ICBM fleet needs some attention. The Minuteman III was deployed in 1970.
Roy Smith,
Ah well that clears it up. In that case that is an interesting point you make. Maybe this will provide some insight:
“Though Navy aircraft have not historically sold well on the export market, the F/A-18 has been purchased and is in operation with a number of foreign air services. Export Hornets are typically similar to U.S. models of a similar manufacture date. Since none of the customers operate aircraft carriers, all export models have been sold without the automatic carrier landing system, and Australia further removed the catapult attachment on the nose gear.[13] Except for Canada, all export customers purchased their Hornets through the U.S. Navy, via the U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Program, where the Navy acts as the purchasing manager but incurs no financial gain or loss. Canada ordered its planes directly from the manufacturer.“
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18_Hornet#Non-US_service
Both the Super Hornet and F-35 have different pros and cons obviously, be it price, performance, stealth. As for fuel consumption, the F/A-18 is probably the gas guzzler of the two mostly because of the two, older engines and aerodynamics, although they both have similar ranges.
with everyone getting mig 29s especially in asia the f18 would get trounced.
FoxThree,
You mean the F/A-18E/F with two or three (depending on the weapons payload) 480 gal drop tanks has similar range to the F-35 with internal fuel…right?
Well, our F-15’s are older than the Hornets, and yet the F-15 has mopped the floor with the Mig-29. I don’t see any reason why the Hornet couldn’t hold it’s own against a Mig-29 as well.
About all I could say about the behavior of Gen Davis is: pathetic.
Pfcem,
According to Wikipedia they have a similar “combat radius” so yes you might be close.
F-18 series may have done better within exports if the F-18L was rolled out. There has been some stories about F/A-18E/F for India, having its own carriers, while some mention the difficulties for use with Russian made Aircraft carriers.
Why do we have both the F-16 and F/A-18 They appear to serve the same roles.
It seems I’ve read an awful lot of stories lately with a common theme linking them — the Air Force brass are running scared. Perhaps what they once thought was their due is now being questioned whereas in prior days they always got what they wanted. It’s just a feeling I’m getting, maybe others feel this way too, maybe not.
FoxThree,
I can not find where Wikipedia says the F/A-18E/F & F-35 have a similar “combat radius”. F-35B (the USMC V/STOL varient), yes but the F-35A & F-35C significantly greater range/combat radius. The F/A-18E/F needs external fuel to even come close to the F-35A & F-35C.
***
Trial Lawyer,
While the F-16 & F/A-18 do serve essentially the same roles, they do so for two different services. The F-16 for the USAF & the F/A-18 for the USN.
Pfcem,
Upon revisiting each of the entries listed under Specifications I realized I must have glanced at the Range instead of the Combat radius. Off of pure internal fuel the F-35A/C have a longer combat radius by quite a bit over the Super Hornet. While I don’t know what the F-35B’s radius is it is interesting to note that its fuel capacity is pretty close to the single seat Super Hornet. Regardless, you were correct in your original assumption.
Super Hornet:
# Range: 1,275 nmi (2,346 km) clean plus two AIM-9s
# Combat radius: 390 nmi (449 mi, 722 km) for interdiction mission
# Internal fuel capacity: F/A-18E: 14,400 lb (6,530 kg), F/A-18F: 13,550 lb (6,145 kg)
# External fuel capacity: 5
Seems to me that Gen. Davis didn’t deny the Boeing statements, and he doesn’t disagree with them, he’s just pissed ’cause Boeing publicly aired the comments.
Kalroy
a lot of this started a year or so ago when Boeing started touting the F/A-18’s “fifth generation” capabilities…particularly when a bunch of new stuff is hung on the airframe. while patently ridiculous it was causing some issues with the JSF (foreign) program partners (the Australia F/A-18 & JSF kerfuffle is amusing if you really dig). The assertions also torqued the F-22 high priesthood which stood up an entire action group to hit back at any hint that that “lowly F/A-18″ could sufficiently bridge the gap between current acft production and future acft production. Then-CNO and current CJCS got into the game and told all of the Navy folks to knock it off with the ’18 fifth gen stuff and his displeasure was — likewise — transmitted to Boeing. Boeing is playing the “upgraded F/A-18s are ‘close enough’ to what you’ll get with the F-35″ card. Pisses off the FMS crew, is factually incorrect, but probably is a good business strategy at least in the short-run