In its report proposing the way ahead for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) competition, think-tank Rand suggests that the "winner takes all" strategy is the way to proceed, but added that the US Department of Defense should maintain competition among the systems providers.
Does such a proposal mean the end of competitive airframe design and development or does it strengthen the argument for integrators with all-encompassing capabilities?
In a raft of competitions - for maritime patrol, surveillance, airborne early warning and in-flight tanker aircraft - the platform has been regarded as relatively unimportant. As long as the airframes on offer are capable of delivering the sensors or fuel to where they are needed with a specified endurance, the battle boils down to which mission system is most likely to meet the user's wishes, is the cheapest, or is the lowest risk. In a number of instances the systems house is prime contractor. These programmes, however, typically involve large aircraft or helicopters, with plenty of space to fit the black boxes, which in turn eases the integration issues. And perhaps the increasing emphasis on upgrades rather than acquiring new aircraft is an indication that the customer believes the platform is less important than the mission system.
High performance combat aircraft are a very different proposition. It can be argued that some traditional aerospace companies, in their headlong rush away from manufacturing, are moving to a point where they will buy an airframe - almost off the shelf - from a metal-bashing specialist.
However, it can also be argued that, as the systems become more advanced, specialist aerospace knowledge becomes of greater importance. It is a persuasive argument to suggest that, when the aim is to wring the last drop of performance from an airframe, a deep understanding of structures and aerodynamics is crucially important.
A fighter is not a happy environment for electronic equipment of any sort - many companies are able to produce brilliant electronic systems, but few firms are avionics producers, and an even smaller number develop systems for combat aircraft. Inside a fighter the avionics are fitted into a small space, which can be adversely hot while the outside air can be well below zero. The components will be subjected to high-g loading and the buffeting of low-level flight. If the aircraft has an internal gun, then at least some of the avionics will get a severe shaking from the recoil and a soaking in highly corrosive gases. Integration is so much more complicated than plugging the black boxes together.
In its report, Rand says it is less expensive to provide seed funding to an avionics/integration house than it is to keep a second fighter manufacturer viable. This is not surprising when JSF and the on-going fighter programmes in Europe will dominate for at least 30 years, during which a new fighter airframe will not be required. The mission system is likely to change repeatedly during this time, particularly as rolling incremental upgrades - rather than complex, expensive, risky mid-life upgrades - are becoming the norm. It therefore makes sense to fund the systems houses.
As with the fighter houses, the second and third tier suppliers have also merged and integrated so that even with two fighter houses there are not enough suppliers to support each aircraft manufacturer without overlap - of the 17 major suppliers to the Lockheed Martin JSF, 14 are also members of Boeing's team. Even the prospect of unmanned combat air vehicles, which offer a straw of hope to beleaguered airframers, emphasises integration issues even more than today's fighters.
The real solution is probably a happy medium between the two, integrators with significant aerospace knowledge or airframers with a good grasp of systems engineering; after all only a company with a feel for aircraft and their operations will create a workable whole. Only time will tell, and it could be 30 years before we know whether the aerospace industry that emerges in the next two or three years is the right shape for the middle years of this century.
Source: Flight International
